1999-08-313914SENATE800301999-08-31The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice800380038003Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—My question without notice is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the government agree with noted Pricewaterhouse tax expert Mr Geoffrey Lehmann's analysis that GST input tax credits are assessable income? For example, is it the case that if a business has $110,000 worth of GSTable sales and $99,000 worth of GSTable expenses then the taxable profit will be $11,000, which includes the $1,000 of net GST which will have been remitted to the ATO? Why then is the government conning small business into believing that they will not bear the burden of the GST when a noted tax expert, unlike the Assistant Treasurer, is claiming that they will? Isn't this extra taxing of small business by stealth?8003Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think that it is well worth while to make a few general comments on what the senator raised. If we go back into the history of tax reform, one of the driving forces behind tax reform was small business. One of the reasons that they wanted to have tax reform is that they saw that the current tax system supported by Labor was an absolutely unholy mess. That is what they saw. They wanted this government to move forward, as did the farmers, medium sized business and big business. They wanted this government to move forward and make sure that there was reform of this tax system. Let me make it quite clear that one of the big beneficiaries of tax reform is small business. We are taking billions of dollars of costs off business as a result of tax reform. We are taking billions of dollars of the cost of exports off business as a result of this tax reform. We are delivering huge tax cuts to taxpayers as a result of tax reform. Can I make it clear that we are giving real rises in pensions and benefits as a result of tax reform.We went to the election on tax reform, and there was one group that supported us very strongly in relation to tax reform, and that was small business. There is one group that continues to support us strongly in relation to tax reform, and that is small business.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The question as I heard it was a question about whether input tax credits are assessable income. That was the question.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—No, it wasn't.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Yes, it was. That was absolutely the question that was asked. What we are getting is a tour, and a very feeble one, of the government's reasons for introducing a GST. Madam President, can you ask the minister, who has got only about a minute to go now, or a bit more, to please answer the direct question that has been put to him rather than fill up the available time with useless rhetoric that is probably erroneous in any case?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—I was asked about the impact of tax reform on small business, and that is exactly what I am giving you.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No. Input tax credits as assessable income. Answer the question, why don't you? Stop running away from it. You don't know the answer, do you. If you don't know the answer, sit down.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. It simply cannot be acceptable to this chamber to have hysterical outbursts of the nature that Senator Cook has just imposed on us on a number of occasions. I would very much urge you to indicate to him that that sort of behaviour is totally unacceptable. He is out of control.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I was about, before the point of order was taken, to draw your attention to the standing orders, Senator Cook. Your behaviour is unacceptable.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I raise a point of order, Madam President. It is one of relevance. There was a clear question asked here. It is relevant that in this chamber, in which the government is supposed to be accountable, we get an answer to the question put. If the government refuses to answer it and filibusters, wastes time and dodges the answer, it is no wonder that we on this side get a bit testy. Would you direct the minister to actually answer the question that was put to him and not pad out and hide his answer between irrelevant details?WW4Senator KEMP—On the point of order, Madam President: it was very clear from the question that I was asked about the impact of the GST on small business. I have outlined in detail the particular response that is required. If there is other information that the senator wants, we will always try to assist.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You weren't asked that question, and you know it.WW4Senator KEMP—I was asked about small business, and that is the answer I am giving.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The minister must relate to the subject matter that is given. Have you completed your answer, Senator?WW4Senator KEMP—No, thank you, Madam President. I have not completed by answer. Madam President, can I also make the point that small business do not want to do one thing. Do you know what small business do not want to do? They do not wish to go back to the wholesale sales tax system that was part of Labor's policy. For a Labor member of the Senate to get up and attempt to pretend that small business will not benefit from tax reform is quite wrong. They are big winners, as are indeed taxpayers, as are indeed pensioners.8004Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Maybe I should be clear and unambiguous in this question because I think that small business will be interested in the answer that the government gives. Will the minister guarantee that the net payment of GST will be tax deductible and therefore ensure that GST input tax credits are not assessable income? That is clear and unambiguous.8004Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am aware that there has been a debate in this area. The government is aware of this debate. Senator, this is a matter that the government will look at and it will make sure that the issue is clarified.80048004Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Would the minister inform the Senate of progress in the East Timor referendum ballot? What role has Australia played in the process to date and will there be a continuing involvement?8004Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, Australia does have an ongoing interest in the peaceful resolution of the East Timor issue. We, of course, have been a strong supporter of the process which led to yesterday's historic ballot in East Timor and we applaud the efforts of UNAMET to make the ballot such a success. Australia has played a key role in ensuring the success of the United Nations effort. We have provided significant financial and in-kind assistance. We have been a leading contributor of personnel with the largest police contingent. I would like to acknowledge the vital work that has been done by the Australian Federal Police. We certainly hope that they will be able to complete their task and return home safely.I am sure all senators and indeed all Australians would have been inspired by the large voter turnout yesterday and the enthusiasm shown by the East Timorese in exercising their democratic right to vote. Reports have put the voter turnout at about 90 per cent, a remarkable effort when one considers the incidents of violence and intimidation which have unfortunately marred the lead-up to the poll. There have been many media reports of East Timorese walking through the night to reach polling booths, some sleeping outside of polling booths overnight so that they could be the first to vote.An Australian official observer delegation comprising former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, Senators Marise Payne and Vicki Bourne, and Mr Brereton has been in East Timor in the days leading up to the ballot. I would like to note that all Australians in East Timor at this time, including aid workers and members of the media, would be aware of a degree of danger, particularly given events in recent months. Their courage and ongoing commitment to a peaceful future for the people of East Timor should be recognised and applauded. Australia also recognises the efforts of the Indonesian authorities to ensure the ballot took place in an atmosphere generally free of violence.Here in Australia the Australian Electoral Commission ensured that around 8,000 East Timorese living in Australia would have a chance to have their say on the future of their homeland. In fact, I have been told one story of an employee here in Parliament House driving up to Sydney yesterday afternoon so she could cast her vote. It is a reminder that those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a stable democracy like Australia should never take for granted our democratic right to vote. We would urge all parties involved in this process to continue to exercise the utmost restraint and, of course, to respect the outcome of the ballot. Whatever the outcome, Australia remains committed to assisting the United Nations in its continuing presence in East Timor.80058005McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Now that the Howard government holds the all-time records for foreign debt, household debt, the worst household saving ratio on record, and the current account deficit, how can the minister explain exactly how this record constitutes fireproofing the Australian economy?8005Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I can say to Senator McKiernan this government holds quite a few records and, Senator, we can claim record growth—over four per cent. I would have thought that was a great record and certainly it is the envy of other countries around the world. Let me talk about another record, certainly a record in the last 30 years: record low interest rates—quite a record and of enormous help, can I say, Madam President, to all home owners who have mortgages, people in business and, I might say, many of Australia's battlers. Many of Australia's battlers receive a great benefit from the record low interest rates. Let me talk about another record that I think a lot of people—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I would remind you of the question that was put to you.WW4Senator KEMP—The question was about records. Madam President, thank you for your advice on that issue but the question was on records and about how this government can claim records. I am taking the senator through some of the records which we are now claiming. A record of which I am particularly proud in relation to the economy is the record levels of productivity that we are showing, Madam President. So can I say that in that area we have been able to deliver real wage rises to Australian workers, a record which, in contrast with the record of the Labor government, is one which we are particularly proud of.Then, of course, we have slowed the growth of foreign debt. From memory, the servicing ratio of foreign debt under the previous government reached a record of around 20 per cent; currently, the servicing burden is around nine per cent. It is a pretty good record, I would have thought. So this government has many records of which any government would be proud. With respect to fireproofing the economy, we have had recessions in many of the major economies of Asia.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—We have had a recession, Senator Conray.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, if you are going to refer to a senator, you should use his correct name.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. It is well known that the Japanese economy is in recession, the Philippine economy is in recession, the Thai economy is in recession and the Indonesian economy was in recession. We faced a dreadful scene in the Asian area, a crisis the like of which we have not seen, I might say, since World War II. But what happened to the Australian economy in this period? There was strong growth in the last year of over four per cent.Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—You asked about fireproofing the economy and I am telling you how we fireproofed the economy. We faced the greatest financial crisis that we have seen in the postwar era. Many of our major trading partners were in recession. They were in recession, but the Australian economy was growing—Senator Cook is looking interested, for a change—at over four per cent. (Time expired)8006McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has not broken his record by answering a question. I had asked him about Australian household debt, the worst household saving ratio on record and the current account deficit. I also ask: how does the minister explain the government presiding over the largest ever quarterly decline in private capital expenditure, another woeful record—this time an Australian record?8006Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If we are talking about the CAPEX figures, which I assume you are talking about—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—He's got no idea.WW4Senator KEMP—The senator is given a supplementary, and he has not got a clue. It is clear that the recent CAPEX figures showed a decline. That is correct. But the government has forecast that growth in the economy will slow—that is what we have said—and therefore there will be certain key factors, not surprisingly, which will also slow. So we have indicated that we will be coming off a very high base and that the economy will be slowing. But the forecast growth will still show that this economy is the envy of most countries around the world. It is a record that we are very proud of. (Time expired)80068006Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. The 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey was released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. I ask: will the minister explain how the government's Tough on Drugs strategy is working to address the use of illicit drugs by young Australians?8006Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Crane for the question and for his interest in this matter. Yes, of course, I am aware of the 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey which was released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It is the sixth in a series that has been going since 1985. Over 10,000 young Australians, aged 14 and over, responded. The survey covered questions in relation to drug use and knowledge and attitudes regarding drugs. It is one of the principal data collection vehicles to monitor trends and evaluate progress under the National Drug Strategy. It was conducted in July and August last year.Unfortunately, it did confirm the government's own assessment, and that is that illicit drug use amongst young Australians has increased during the 1990s. The government is acutely aware of the dangers that illicit drug use poses for young Australians. The government has vigorously responded to long-term increases in illicit drug use by young Australians. We have provided more than $516 million in a balanced range of measures covering law enforcement—my own particular responsibility—education, treatment and research. Of that total, $212 million—that is, 41 per cent—was specifically allocated to law enforcement. It is interesting to note that survey respondents, when asked hypothetically how they would allocate $100 towards combating use of heroin and cocaine, actually indicated that they would give $40 to that task, indicating that the mix that the government has struck between education, treatment and law enforcement programs is compatible with the expectations of young Australians in this area.We have been working cooperatively with all the states in a bipartisan manner to introduce compulsory diversion arrangements. Drug users will be identified by police early in their relationship with the criminal justice system and directed to education, assessment and treatment. Substantial resources to all Commonwealth law enforcement agencies have been provided to intercept international and domestic drug traffickers. The results of these law enforcement efforts have vastly increased the seizures of heroin and cocaine by the Australian Federal Police. It is a direct result of better intelligence, more resources and better cooperation between agencies within the Commonwealth and between the Commonwealth and the states—working together of course to ensure that suppliers of illicit drugs face higher and higher hurdles as they want to ply their deadly trade around Australia. There is an increasing likelihood that international drug traffickers will be caught and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So the government has been working to reduce demand through education, diverting users into treatment and reducing supply by getting tough on drug dealers.It is interesting to note the support for the government's Tough on Drugs strategy: 44 per cent of those surveyed supported it, 10 per cent directly did not, and the remainder were unfamiliar with the policy and therefore could not comment. What we have been doing is acting in response to the activity that was in the community and that has now shown up as being reflected in this survey. The most alarming point is the closing gap between the drug use of males and females. It shows the importance of female role models in society who might be asked about drug issues. Those people should take into account that it is important not to be trapped into appearing `cool'. Young female role models have an important opportunity and responsibility to discourage dangerous illicit drug use by young females. When asked by the media about personal drug use, they should not respond by giggling and saying, `I'd better not answer that; it might upset my mum.' They should use the opportunity to get the `drugs are dangerous' message across to other young Australians. (Time expired)80078007West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. How does the government explain the household debt to income ratio increasing from 80 per cent of disposable income before they came to power to 100 per cent now?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Oh, oh!8007Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If you don't mind, Senator Schacht, I thought that was very discourteous on your part. There are a number of reasons why household debt increases. One of the reasons, of course, is that it reflects the confidence that people have in the economy that they are prepared to borrow more. That is one of the reasons why people are prepared to go into debt. Equally, there are other factors: they are confident that, with the rise in real wages, with the low interest rates and with the rising value of asset prices, they have the capacity to borrow. So I believe we are seeing great consumer confidence in relation to the economy, and I believe recent surveys have shown that that confidence is out there in the community. So it is a reflection, on the one hand, of confidence; on the other hand, it is a reflection of the way in which these things are measured, of course. If my memory serves me correctly, this issue was very extensively discussed at recent Senate estimates hearings.Senator West, there is one way that this can be stopped. There is a Labor way to stop people borrowing, and Labor used it. Do you know how? They rocketed up interest rates. They lifted household interest rates to 17 per cent and heading north. That is not a policy that endears itself to this government. It was a policy endorsed by the Labor cabinet, of which Senator Ray and Senator Cook, among others, were members. They decided that one of the ways to deal with the problems they were facing was to lift the rates of interest. That is not our policy. We are a low interest rate party. We are a low tax party, and we will not go down the Labor road. But if you think the way to deal with this issue, Senator West, is to follow the Labor policy, then lift the rates of interest.8007West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the government has presided over household debt blowing out to record levels, does this also explain the 54 per cent increase in personal bankruptcies from 1995-96 to 1998-99—the three years that the Howard government has been in power?8007Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think that if you look closely at those issues, Senator West, you would find that some of the figures relate to credit cards. The fact of the matter is that the economy has never functioned better. This is a high-growth economy and what does Senator West want to talk about? Like all Labor senators, she wants to talk down the economy. Get out there, listen to people and listen to the opinion polls.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Oh, yes.WW4Senator KEMP—`Oh, yes,' they say. We say, `Oh, yes,' too. The reason is that people are sick of the nitpicking that Labor senators go on with. (Time expired)80088008Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, and it is in reference to the orange roughy fishery on the South Tasman Rise. I note that on Four Corners last night, New Zealand Minister Luxton said:There was no quota there. The arrangement has expired so it was open in international waters.Minister, in answer to my question yesterday, did you say:. . . Australia and New Zealand have both agreed to ban fishing on the South Tasman Rise until a new regional agreement has been negotiated.Minister, did you further say:. . . 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 . . . Can the minister tell the Senate who is correct? Is there a ban with New Zealand on fishing until a final agreement is signed or not?8008Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I can, perhaps, provide some further information. I am assuming that what I said yesterday was correct. There does not seem to be anything in this brief to suggest otherwise. What I have to assist the honourable senator is as follows. Australia is committed to working with other nations to protect fish stocks in our region and to ensure they are sustainably managed. Australia is working with New Zealand to establish a new fishing agreement for the South Pacific Rise. Until that agreement is finalised, both nations have an understanding not to allow fishing in the area. New Zealand is honouring that understanding. In relation to earlier incidents involving fishing vessels registered in South Africa and Belize, Australia undertook concerted diplomatic action and, with the cooperation of the governments of those two count ries, we achieved the cessation of those fishing activities.The government will shortly be introducing legislation that relates to implementing obligations necessary to ratify the international fish stocks agreement. The agreement and that legislation will considerably strengthen our capacity to promote and enforce sustainable fisheries management on the high seas. Our prompt and effective actions on the South Pacific Rise reflect our general concern in relation to illegal, unregulated or unsustainable fishing.Senators would be aware that Australia is leading efforts to reduce illegal and unregulated fishing for Patagonian toothfish in the Southern Ocean. It was concern for the unsustainability of southern bluefin tuna catches that led Australia to take legal action against Japan, which senators would be aware resulted in an injunction prohibiting Japan's so-called experimental fishing program.Whilst on that subject, I take the opportunity to congratulate Attorney-General Williams for his leadership of that case. He did a fine job on behalf of Australia. I particularly want to make mention of Senator Parer, who, as the former minister, took the lead on this issue. It was, in part, the determination of Senator Parer to stand up to the demand for unsustainable fishing levels that strengthened Australia's resolve and contributed to our taking this action, which has now brought, at least for the short term, a very satisfactory result. We hope Japan will take note that the international community believes that experimental takes should be from within allowable catches, not from without, and will cooperate fully with the commission in future. We hope, by doing so, that that will encourage other countries, such as Indonesia, Korea and Taiwan, also to come on board to ensure that the commission is more effective in the future.8008Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister agree that, despite his answer yesterday, it was clear from Four Corners that diplomatic efforts did not work and that, even though the ships and the countries of origins were repeatedly warned, they went back under the cover of darkness for three weeks, fished, and left only when full? When the aggregation occurs next time, will Australia take stronger measures to protect this fishery?8009Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am not sure what Australia is being invited to do. My advice was that the diplomatic efforts were effective in that instance. The honourable senator will know that, in circumstances within Australian waters—and I used the example of Patagonian toothfish—and in relation to waters that are covered by conventions to which we are a party, we have in the past taken even stronger action. We are committed and we are prepared not only to put in diplomatic resources but to take what efforts are necessary within the areas of our responsibility to ensure that sustainable fishing rates are achieved. We do take this matter seriously, and I would have thought that our record demonstrates that to date.80098009Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm whether any individuals or organisations outside cabinet have been given access to the Ralph committee Review of Business Taxation before it is publicly released? If any such access has been given, on what terms and conditions has access been granted; was a confidentiality agreement required to be signed; and how many individuals or organisations were granted access?8009Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The individuals who wrote the Ralph report were outside cabinet. That is the point. The question was: has anybody outside cabinet been shown the Ralph report? The first point I make is that the individuals who comprised the Ralph committee were outside cabinet.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—You did not ask that. It is correct: those people were not in cabinet. They prepared the Ralph report after wide—Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Well, it was a dopey question. He mucked up his question; give him a chance. The point is that, in conducting the Ralph committee inquiry, there were very widespread consultations with the community. There was the opportunity for people to make submissions, and seminars were held. It is an excellent example of how this government goes about important areas of public policy—in a consultative manner. When you are conducting major reforms, you have to get out and talk to people, and that is precisely what this government did.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Who else?WW4Senator KEMP—Who else, he says now.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I draw your attention to the question that was asked.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I have already confirmed that, in relation to his question, yes, there are people outside cabinet who have seen the Ralph report. They include, of course, Mr John Ralph and the people who prepared the report. I will look at other aspects of the question that Senator Conroy has raised, and I will see whether the Treasurer is prepared to provide him with an answer.8009Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister also confirm whether any economic modellers have been granted access to the full Ralph report or to any unreleased part? What steps has the government taken to ensure that proper confidentiality is maintained and that any privileged access to the report is not improperly used to tout for business?8009Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This government has very strict rules and, despite the huge efforts of Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner, those great public policy men, they have never been able to shoot holes in the way that this government goes about its business. To Senator Faulkner and to Senator Ray, who decided that Labor should be a public policy free zone: you people are over there and we are over here, and that is a pretty nice solution. I always try to assist Senator Conroy in any way I can, so I will refer his question to the Treasurer to see whether he is prepared to provide him with an answer.80108010Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, in response to allegations made on the 7.30 Report last year concerning vibrating and unsafe heavy vehicles, some responsible owners have decided not to drive those vehicles on public roads. As these trucks could pose an unacceptable risk to the public and repossessions are imminent, will the minister take appropriate action to ensure that these vehicles are not sold to unsuspecting persons, thereby putting them back on the road and putting the public at risk?8010Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Harris for his question. Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of information about that. It refers to an issue that was reported on the 7.30 Report last year, does it?8HCHARRISSenator Harris—Yes.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am afraid I am not personally familiar with that, Senator. I will refer your question to Mr Anderson to see if he has some interest in it. But, having said that, it does seem to me that it would be more a matter for state governments rather than the federal government. I would have thought that it would be up to the relevant state government to have a look at those sorts of issues. But I will refer your question to Mr Anderson and see if he has some information on it which may be of assistance to you.8010Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the fact that the federal government provides the funding for the main roads of this country and bearing in mind the responsibility we have to the people who use them, will the minister inform the Senate when the government will table the results of the independent investigation into the vibration and stability of heavy trucks, announced by Minister Anderson on 2 December last year, which was supposed to have been completed by March this year?8010Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Again, I will refer that question to Mr Anderson and see if the report has been finalised and, if so, where it is. Senator Harris does highlight the enormous contribution the federal government makes to the national highway. We provide hundreds of millions of dollars each year for that very important infrastructure, particularly for regional Australia—and Senator Harris, as I say, rightly highlights that. As well, we provide a lot of money for roads of national importance and, of course, for the very worthwhile Black Spot program that the Labor Party cancelled and this government reintroduced. The Black Spot program provides real benefits for the road users of Australia. Senator, again, I will refer your specific question to Mr Anderson for further information.80108010Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that an information booklet published by the department entitled Aged Care: Make the choices that are right for you clearly states at page 13 that the government's accommodation charge is indexed? Is it not the case that the Howard government's accommodation charge is currently fixed at $12 a day? Is the government proposing to index the accommodation charge? Can the minister guarantee that the charge will not be increased?8010Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Gibbs for the question. As part of the budget, the government has honoured in full its election commitment to exempt pre 1 October 1997 nursing home residents from paying the accommodation charge. The government has protected the people because it was not possible to achieve the implementation on 1 July this year as originally intended due to delays in passing the legislation through the Senate. The delays in fact relate to the opposition's decision to oppose the bill that contained the amendments.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I am quite happy for the minister to put on the record his answer to that question, but that was not the question asked of him. He was asked quite clearly by Senator Gibbs about whether the charge was indexed. It was a question of fact: is it or is it not indexed? He is now reading the prepared script about the aged care bill and why they have not listed it, but that is not the question.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, on the point of order: I had been going a minute and I was getting to the indexation question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I would remind you of the question that was asked, and I draw your attention to it, Senator Herron.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President. Senator Evans, in particular, has been trying to create a scare campaign and saying that the amount of funding to aged care has been reduced. We inherited a terrible problem when we came into office. There was a shortage of 10,000 aged care beds. We are rectifying that. In fact, we have increased the budget quite considerably. For example, our $280 million staying at home package raises the level of aged care places over the provision target of 100 places for every 1,000 older people in 2002. That will exceed even the Labor Party's target.There is no doubt that the amount of expenditure that is going into aged care has increased significantly. For example, the amount of funding we are putting into community aged care packages that will allow older Australians to remain in their own homes has increased by some 398 per cent. Since the coalition came to office, the number of approved places has increased from 4,431 to 13,723 places. Another 4,300 places will be available this year. The amount of funding that is going in and the fact that we are protecting the accommodation charges for pre—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Madam President, on a point of order: the minister has now had more than three minutes and he still has not come to the point of the question. We know that he has spent more on aged care. We know that the budget is out of control. That was not the question. The question was: is the charge indexed? He has not addressed anything to do with that question at all.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, on the point of order: Senator Evans made a fallacious statement that the budget is out of control. He has no point of order, Madam President, because it is not correct.Senator Chris Evans interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Evans, you are out of order! Senator Herron, I would remind you of Senator Gibbs's question that you are being asked to answer.8011Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Thank you, Madam President. I was merely making the point in relation to the indexation that accommodation charges are expected to generate more than $1.4 billion in the first 10 years of operation and $130 million a year by 2000-01. That is greater than the accepted industry benchmark identified by Professor Gregory.We are addressing the problems caused by the Labor Party when they were in power, and part of this is to protect those people who need to be protected in relation to accommodation charges. If there is anything further from the minister that I can add to the answer, I would be happy to do so and provide it to Senator Gibbs.8011Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister please answer my question: is the accommodation charge currently fixed or is it indexed?Opposition senators interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I made it—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Herron, you should not rise until I call you. I am asking senators to cease interjecting. Senator Herron.8011Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, as I said, we are fixing the problems that occurred under the Labor Party, and we are putting an enormous increasing amount of money into it. In fact, there will be 4,000 extra places.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Minister, I would remind you of the question that was asked.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President. I thought you were going to protect me from the interjection of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who constantly interjects and does not give me the opportunity to reply. As I said to Senator Gibbs, if there is any further information that I can get from the minister, I would be happy to do so.80128012Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to Senator Ian Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Will the minister outline to the Senate what measures the Howard government is taking to assist the local community and economy in the Eden area on the South Coast of New South Wales? How do these actions reflect the coalition's commitment to jobs in regional Australia?8012Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Coonan for that question. I appreciate it from her. She is an old country person from way back, and she obviously has an interest in rural and regional matters, unlike the Labor Party, who never ask me a question on these matters. The best thing the Howard government has done for jobs in rural and regional Australia is to get the big picture right: keep interest rates low, keep inflation low, and keep unemployment trending down. That way you give regional Australians the opportunity to get ahead and recover from the dark years of Labor.Senator Coonan mentioned, specifically, Eden. Whilst economies in Australia generally, including regional Australia, are going ahead very nicely, we recognise that there are some parts of Australia, particularly regional Australia, that are not doing quite as well as others, and our government is very conscious of that. Part of the reason for this is happenings beyond the control of government. For example, in Newcastle, BHP left, causing real problems. In the upper Spencer Gulf, in the Kalgoorlie-Boulder region and in northern Tasmania, there was a downturn when Australian National Rail was closed down. The government came in and provided adjustment packages in those areas, which helped private industry to expand and new businesses to come to town, and that created real long-term jobs.Senator Coonan, as a New South Wales senator, is obviously well aware of the difficulties in Eden, where the cannery recently shut down and where a timber mill closed some time ago. That particular area has had some real problems. In conjunction with Mr Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, we put together an Eden region adjustment package. That package is in excess of $3.6 million, and it will provide assistance to businesses in the Eden region to expand and create real and new jobs. The $3.6 million package we put together has been added to by the New South Wales government, who put forward $250,000; and Heinz, who closed the cannery, also put forward $250,000. Our package of over $3.6 million includes direct funding to small businesses in the Eden region. As well as that, we have provided $56,000 for an Eden business challenge project, $30,500 for a new business plan for the Eden region, and $184,000 from the Rural Plan moneys for a strategic action plan in that area.With this package we will add to expansion plans of businesses, existing and new, in the Eden region. We will not provide more than 50 per cent of the money required to expand, but the money that we do provide—less than 50 per cent of any particular project—will go to private business to expand the main criteria, being the creation of new, real, long-term jobs. That is the formula we have used in Newcastle and in the upper Spencer Gulf. We will be forming a local committee made up of local people who will investigate and assess the applications made. The applications will be called shortly.I have to congratulate Mr Gary Nairn, the member for Eden-Monaro, who put this package to us and who has worked tirelessly for the people of the Eden community in getting the federal government to do something concrete that will provide jobs for the workers there. The Labor Party, federal and state, have no interest in jobs for workers; we do.80128012Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that, under the government's now discredited policy of coalescence, over the next six years every nursing home resident in Victoria will have their care subsidy cut by over $1,300 a year, while residents in Tasmania face cuts of over $1,700 a year? These cuts total $144 million in Victoria and $22 million in Tasmania. Won't these cuts inevitably lead to a significant reduction in the quality of care provided to nursing home residents in these two states? Why did the government go ahead with implementing this coalescence policy on 1 July when the Productivity Commission, on the government's initiative, correctly described it as `inappropriate and inequitable' and recommended against its continuation in January this year?8013Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, I am always reluctant to accept any statements that Senator Evans makes, particularly when they are ex cathedra statements like that. I will allude to a press release that Senator Evans put out, so that you can gauge the quality of the question he just asked me. What I have learnt from Senator Evans's approach to this is the old scare campaign of the Labor Party: create something so that we all start getting concerned about it when, in fact, it is untrue. For example, in Senator Evans's press release of 26 August, he said:It was recently revealed in the Financial Review that these reforms have lead to a blow-out in the aged care budget and will fall well short of the government's own financial targets.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—True.VW4Senator HERRON—He is shouting out `true'. Not true, Madam President. For example, he said:Meanwhile good providers are complaining about the increased administrative burden being placed on staff under the government's new resident classification system which means more time filling in forms and less time caring for residents.Not true, Madam President.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—On a point of order, Madam President: I am quite happy to debate this matter with Senator Herron, but I would like him to answer the question about coalescence. It is a particular government policy; it is a specific Productivity Commission report which the government has had since January. Even Senator Herron must have a brief on this one.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, the point I was making is that implicit in the question were statements which are untrue. I am not going to reply to questions that are based on false premises. The government has not cut residential aged care places. Senator Evans put out a press statement saying that we have cut aged care places by 8,000. We have increased them by 4,000.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—No, you haven't, not as a ratio to population. You don't understand that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Evans, cease shouting across the chamber.VW4Senator HERRON—How can you accept the premise of the question that he has just put to me when it is blatantly untrue? Since this government came to office, almost 4,000 new residential aged care places have been created. In June 1996 there were 136,851 residential aged care places. In June 1999, this figure had increased by 3,979 to 140,830. An increase of almost 9,300 in care package places has seen total aged care places grow by more than 13,200 in the same period. The point I am making is that the falsity of the material that was contained in—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—On a point of order, Madam President: I really think we have been tolerant. The senator has been answering for four minutes. The question was about coalescence, the government's policy and the Productivity Commission report. I am happy that he reads my press releases, but I do think the Senate has a right to expect an answer that at least addresses the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I would draw your attention to the question, Senator Herron.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President. In relation to the Productivity Commission's report, the minister is addressing that and will be making an announcement in relation to it. Senator Evans is aware of that. It has been answered previously. If there is anything further that the minister wishes to add to that, I am happy to come back to Senator Evans with it.80148014Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, in reference to his answer to me yesterday regarding the orange roughy fishery on the South Tasman Rise. Yesterday the minister specifically said in his answer to my supplementary question in relation to the STR:In relation to fishing within Australia waters, those stock assessments have been taken.I ask the minister: is he aware that the Australian Fish Management Authority confirms that there definitely have not been any stock assessments of orange roughy done on the STR? Is it the fact that, despite the minister's answer yesterday, there has been no stock assessment of these fish on the South Tasman Rise?8014Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, what I thought I said yesterday was that the issue of the South Tasman Rise was being addressed and that I was referring to orange roughy fishing in other parts within Australian fishing waters.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Have you misled?BH4Senator HILL—No, not at all.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are you sure?BH4Senator HILL—I am not absolutely sure, but I don't think so. I can provide some further information in relation to what work has been done on the South Tasman Rise; that is, during 1998 a joint Australian New Zealand study was conducted on the stock. As a result of that, we know that it is a single, discrete stock. We know that it straddles the Australian exclusive economic zone. I will see whether I can find any further information.8014Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I understand there is a memorandum of understanding being finalised at present about this fishery. I ask the minister: given that the Australian Fish Management Authority, which has responsibility for this matter, believes that there has been no stock assessment done, how is it possible to determine quotas of these fish?8014Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It may require examination of the definition of `stock assessment'. But as I said to the honourable senator a moment ago, I understand that in 1998 a joint Australian-New Zealand study was conducted on the stock. I have told the honourable senator of certain of the outcomes of that assessment and I have said I will find out whether there are further outcomes that could assist him in the matter about which he is concerned.80148014Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the following reported comment from the community services arm of the Uniting Church in relation to the minister's failure to address the many urgent issues raised in the Productivity Commission's report on nursing home funding:We have said to the Government quite clearly that its inaction is a timebomb and that older Australians deserve a better deal, especially in the lower income and remote areas.Why, 18 months after the report was handed to the government, has the minister failed to respond to any of the commission's many recommendations?8014Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I would have thought that Senator Denman would not have been an accessory to the inaccuracy of Senator Evans's question. The Productivity Commission report on nursing home subsidies was released on 31 March this year—not 18 months ago. Senator Denman should check Senator Evans's facts. She should not trust Senator Evans. This is the second time he has been found out this afternoon. I might get Senator Alston to lead the prosecution because he is well versed in this aspect.Senator Faulkner interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—I must be upsetting Senator Faulkner, Madam President. I apologise if I am upsetting Senator Faulkner. The Productivity Commission found no evidence of a funding crisis in the residential care industry. Yet Senator Evans talks about a crisis and seeks to beat it up. I know he is trying to make a name for himself. I can understand that, when one is a nonentity on the frontbench in opposition. The Productivity Commission stated:The substantial prices paid for bed licences do not fit comfortably with the view that there is a funding crisis in the sector. Similarly, the Commission notes that many homes—private for profit and non-profit alike—are producing operating surpluses under the current subsidy levels, even in the lowest subsidy state.That gives the lie to the press releases that are put out by the honourable senator opposite. Madam President, you will note that he is looking at his desk at the moment. He does not want to take note of this. I suspect that, as this is not what he wants to hear, he puts Senator Denman up to ask the question. He did not know that the report had been released publicly on 31 March this year.In 1995-96, the Labor government spent $2.5 billion on residential aged care across Australia. The outlay in 1999-2000 is budgeted to be $3.5 billion. That is an increase of 42 per cent since the coalition was elected to government in 1996. Now that the Productivity Commission's report has been released, the government has begun a period of consultation. Industry and consumer stakeholders in all states have been consulted on the key issues raised. Senator Denman will be pleased to know that, when these consultations are completed, there will be a whole-of-government decision on the recommendations and the way ahead.The important point is that, in the three years that we have been in government, we have done far more than the Labor Party did at any time. We have increased the funding by 42 per cent. Senator Evans is trying to generate a mock scare campaign. He will probably move to take note of the answer after question time so that he can rave on and, for a day or so, get his name in lights and get his 15 seconds of fame.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Don't you talk about people raving on.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Faulkner alleges that I am raving on. I have been under constant tutelage from the other side of the table for some years.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the question and ask you to ignore the interjections.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I will ignore the interjection, now that I have completed the answer.8015Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. First of all, I wish to correct my question. I believe I said `18 months', when I should have said `eight months'. That has been drawn to my attention. However, the minister would have known what I meant. Is this not yet another example of the minister failing to act on the premise that it is better to avoid a decision than make a bad one, and this way survive longer than her predecessors?8015Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thought better of Senator Denman. She really should not accept such questions from Senator Evans. It is not in her nature to come out with one of these types of questions.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You can't answer them, whoever asks them.VW4Senator HERRON—I am happy to answer the question. That is not correct. The minister is doing an enormous amount of good for the residential aged care sector. She has increased the funding by $1 billion since 1995-96. In her own state of Tasmania, the providers will receive an estimated $104.4 million. That is an increase of $6.6 million over and above what they received last year. I would like Senator Denman to go back to Tasmania and tell the Tasmanian aged care providers that they are getting $6.6 million over and above what they received last year. It is a significant increase. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous8015801515:05:008015Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I inform Senator Harris that the office of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided me with some information that answers his question earlier today. An investigation into complaints of vibration and stability problems was announced in December last year, as Senator Harris rightly said. The Federal Office of Road Safety did receive those complaints. Road User International, consultants to the department, are conducting the investigation. The time required for the work has increased significantly because of the technical complexity of the issues raised and some legal action taken by owners of the vehicles involved.A draft interim report detailing complaints received and the overall investigation process was distributed to owners, manufacturers and interested parties for comment in June 1999. The report is also publicly available via the Internet. Thirteen vehicles have been inspected and test driven, and instrumented testing of five of these plus a further two benchmark vehicles is now complete. Work is now progressing on simulation analysis and preparation of a draft final report. I am advised that the draft final report is expected to be completed very shortly. It will be circulated to interested parties for comment before a final report is produced and submitted to the department. I will ask Mr Anderson's office to make sure that Senator Harris receives a copy of the final report when it is available.801615:07:008016Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—On 23 August Senator Stott Despoja asked a question of me representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care in relation to the Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act. The minister has provided me with a supplementary answer to that. In the earlier answer there was a slight error in referring to the vacant position as the person to represent the interests of the general public. The minister is seeking a nomination for that position in relation to a person of wider environmental and public health experience, as noted in the answer of 24 August. I seek leave to incorporate this answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator STOTT DESPOJA —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care.Is the minister aware that, under the ARPANSA legislation, a Radiation and Health Safety Advisory Council is established which has a community representative. Is it the case that both the National Environment Consultative Forum nominees have been rejected—both nominees put forward by that forum have been rejected by the Minister for Health and Aged Care? If so, could the minister provide reasons for the rejection of both nominees and could the minister also confirm whether these are the only nominations received by the minister that have been rejected?SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Health and Aged Care has now announced the membership of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council. The membership is:Chair—Dr Rick McLeanThe CEO of ARPANSA—Dr John Loy2 State radiation control officers—Mrs Jill Fitch and Mr Howard AcklandA person to represent the interests of the general public—Mr Peter RaueOther members—- Dr Nick de Klerk- Dr Graeme Dickie- Ms Sylvia Kidziak- Dr Lorraine Robb- Dr Richard Smart- Dr Garry SmithThe Minister's media release 25 August 1999 notes that there is one position remaining to be appointed. This is the position for which the Minister is seeking a person of wider environmental and public health experience as noted in the answer tabled on 24 August 1999. The earlier answer was in error in referring to the vacant position as the person to represent the interests of the general public.801615:08:008016Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) to questions without notice asked today relating to aged care funding.It became perfectly clear that the minister did not have any idea about a proper answer to the questions asked. Those are questions that went to very specific policies that are part of the government's so-called aged care reforms. Those aged care reforms are in tatters. They are falling apart at the seams. But, because of the political problems the government has had with aged care since it came to office, it is unwilling to take the remedial action necessary to fix up those things. We are increasingly seeing industry, consumers, unions and other people involved in the industry getting frustrated at the government's inability to get problems fixed because it is too scared to revisit aged care because of the political problems that it has experienced since coming to office.The minister had no idea whether the accommodation charge was indexed. I honestly do not know. It was a good question. We would like to know the answer. The former minister, Minister Smith, said it was going to be, but he lost his seat. We have not been able to find out since. We have now got the situation where the concessional supplement paid by the government has been indexed and is now at $12.34 per day, but the accommodation charge, as far as I can tell, has not been indexed and is still at $12. I do not know the answer to the question. I would like to know the answer to the question.My question went to the issue of coalescence, the policy decision by which the government has started to rip money out of the care subsidies provided to Victorian and Tasmanian providers. The government itself accepted that this was a policy that needed to be reviewed. It organised a review by the Productivity Commission following pressure from the industry. In January it received the report from the Productivity Commission recommending that it abandon the policy because of its inequity. Here we are at the end of August, and the minister apparently is still considering the issue. The minister considers all issues but nothing ever comes back out of her office. Nothing that is wrong in aged care, nothing that needs fixing, ever gets fixed.What you see is a system under tremendous strain, a system bordering on collapse, because the minister refuses to deal with the fact that the aged care reforms have failed. One of the reasons the government is spending much more money—which is the defence the minister hides behind—is that the reforms have not worked. I accept that the government is spending more money on aged care. That is because the reforms have failed. The government has been forced to pay more for aged care; it has been forced to spend beyond what it was intending to spend, because its reforms have not collected the revenue it thought they were going to. The government said 27 per cent of residents in nursing homes would be concessional. It is near 47 per cent and rising. The whole basis on which the aged care reforms were erected has collapsed. Yes, the government is spending more money. That is because its aged care reforms have totally failed.The other defence the government likes to use to the concern in the community about the increased waiting times to get family members into nursing homes and their concerns about the quality of the system is to say that the government has increased the number of residential places. In a way it has, but there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The government has increased the number of places but it has always been accepted in this community that the measure of residential places is the number per thousand of people aged 70 and over. That is the measure we have always used to assess the number of residential places in aged care in this country.What we have seen is that over the last three years—1995 to 1998—the ratio has fallen from 92.2 residential places per thousand people aged 70 and over to 87.3. That is a drop of 4.9 places per thousand people. The minister and Senator Herron today like to say that there are 4,000 or 6,000 new places. But we have a situation where the aged population is increasing. We have far more people aged 70 and over who are in need of residential places. The accurate measure of the commitment to aged care in this country is the number of residential places per thousand people. Under this government it is falling. For the minister to try to pretend that it is not is wrong and counterintuitive. People know—and the minister's own statistics show—that it takes longer to get into a nursing home now than it used to, particularly in Victoria, where we have the worst record. In Victoria the ratio is down to 83.4 per cent per thousand people aged 70 and over.These are the minister's figures. These are not my figures; these are departmental statistics. The problem is that the minister has not provided enough residential places. The ratio is falling; there are longer waiting lists; people are having difficulty getting into homes, getting HACC services and getting access to respite care. There are a whole range of problems in aged care that need to be addressed, but the minister refuses to address them. Coalescence is one example; accommodation charges for residents is another. The government will not address the problems. (Time expired)15:13:008018Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Labor's catcalling today is absolutely hollow and empty. It is, I guess, a reflection of the fact that they cannot admit to their own shortcomings when they were in government with regard to issues affecting older people, issues affecting aged care in nursing homes and hostels. I have said over and over again here that I give credit where credit is due and admit that the reforms they brought in to address the issues in hostels back in the late 1980s were effective and created some hostels with world-class care. But they were unable to go further and to do something about reforming the nursing home sector.There were a number of things. They were unable to reform the sector in that people who were living in hostels who became frail aged, especially in rural and remote areas, had to move from hostels to nursing homes, sometimes 150 or more kilometres away. They did not focus on ageing in place to enable older people to stay, especially, as I said, in remote and rural areas, where they were required to move. They did not have the foresight or the ability to do anything about that. Another thing that they did was fail to address the issue of homes of concern. The minister, in speaking in the other place in June of this year, outlined that the legacy that Labor left was appalling. She said:I found that aged care homes which ought not to have been allowed to operate were still in oper ation, and when I looked at the record of the Labor Party I found that in the last 10 years of their rule they had closed down only four—nursing homes—in 10 years.In other words, they were prepared to accept a standard which this government is not prepared to accept.When I was in opposition I used to constantly ask, `How can this nursing home still be allowed to operate? How could this nursing home, where I would not have allowed any relative of mine to go, still be allowed to operate?' Yet Labor were not prepared to bite the bullet to address the issue and do something about reforming capital funding for nursing homes, to enable those nursing homes which had the will to do something about it to provide quality and world-class care. They were not prepared to do something about those nursing homes which were ripping off older people and did not have an interest in providing world-class care. They did nothing about the capital funding issue and nothing about those nursing homes where the standard of care was appalling.That cannot be turned around in three years. It is like turning the Titanic around. But this government has brought in reforms to address some of those issues, enabling staying at home and enabling people to be funded in place and stay in the facility in which they start off. If they start off requiring hostel care at the beginning, then need to move on to another place of care and there is no other place for them to move to in that area, they can be cared for in place—`ageing in place'. We have addressed some of the neglect that Labor left behind.When Labor were in government, 75 per cent of nursing homes did not meet building standards. Professor Gregory wrote a report, commissioned by the Labor Party. They were told, `Your nursing homes are not up to scratch.' I will always admit that they did do something about hostels. But they failed to do anything in the difficult area of nursing homes. Thirteen per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards; 11 per cent of the homes did not meet basic health standards. They cut funding to nursing homes by 75 per cent in the last four years.They were told over and over again, especially by the Gregory report, that reforms needed to be brought into place to enable capital funding to upgrade nursing homes to an acceptable standard. There was no access to private capital funding for nursing homes and proprietors had to rely on the government. Banks were reluctant to lend to proprietors on this basis and, as I said, objective standards of building quality were not enforced. There was no protection of money for people who put money into hostels.I could go on and on. For this Labor Party in opposition now to get up and to criticise the reforms that the coalition brought in is absolutely outrageous. They need to go back and look in the mirror at their own performance. It was appalling. It was disgraceful with respect to nursing homes and they needed to lift their game. They could now cooperate with the coalition, suggest—as I used to in opposition—ways in which changes could be made if they are legitimate and be cooperative rather than running around like Ms Macklin has over and over, scaring and frightening older people—which is their wont, something we did not do in opposition. (Time expired)15:18:008019Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—We have heard Senator Patterson talk of all the wonderful things that this government has done in the aged care sector, but I say that this government has failed and failed and failed again. I want to speak today about the most important area in the aged care sector, that is, the way nurses are being reclassified, their wages are being cut and their conditions are being cut to the detriment of the patients in the nursing homes.I have spoken once before in this place of the reclassification process conducted by one of the larger aged care sector organisations, the Churches of Christ organisation in Queensland. Their policy was to reclassify enrolled nurses and assistants in nursing as aged care workers. This meant that assistants in nursing will suffer a loss in wages, shift penalties, one week's annual leave and their title of `assistants in nursing'. Enrolled nurses will lose up to $3,500 each year in wages as well as shift penalties, annual leave and job title.Even more devastating in this reclassification process is the fact that, if enrolled nurses remain employed as aged care workers for three years, they lose their level of entitlement, and if they return to work as enrolled nurses they will be at the lowest classification and pay point. This reclassification program has caused an enormous amount of stress amongst nurses in this area, because they care for the job that they do and they feel that their job is important. More importantly, the patients care about it. I might add that this is only in the Queensland organisation of the Churches of Christ, that I know of. I had a phone call from the administrator in Western Australia, who assured me that this did not happen in Western Australia.I would like to go on and talk about the impacts that these cuts have had. The Nurses Union in Queensland have conducted a 12-month report on the impact of aged care reform on nurses in Queensland. They have found that cuts in nursing hours are having a major impact on nursing staff. There was already low morale throughout the sector. Nurses have reported that 31 per cent of facilities staff are not being replaced when they leave. Extensive unpaid overtime is being worked in 32 per cent of facilities. Changes to rosters, often designed to avoid payment of meal allowances or penalty rates, and/or reduction in casual working hours as well as the shortening in shifts, are occurring in 25 per cent of facilities. Other industrial issues such as underpayment of wages are being reported in 12 per cent of facilities. The aged care sector is under extreme stress.They also report that positions are being cut in all levels of nursing. Of the facilities that have been surveyed, 53 per cent have cut the hours of all categories of staff. For example, at one facility all staff had their weekly hours cut by one hour per week. Twenty-five per cent of facilities have cut the hours worked by registered nurses, nine per cent have cut the hours worked by enrolled nurses and 13 per cent have cut the hours worked by assistants in nursing.What has been the result of these cuts to nursing hours? The QNU has received reports about the numbers of residents being cared for by nursing staff, and this is particularly important: reports of one registered nurse to supervise the care of between 60 and 120 residents are becoming increasingly common. This works out to the care from a registered nurse averaging 1.8 hours a day. This is less time than a domiciliary nurse spends on a daily visit. This is absolutely appalling. How can you say that the reforms of this government are good when obviously the standard of aged care in this country is decreasing all the time? (Time expired)15:23:008020Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I am amazed that the Labor Party can come in here and talk about issues such as the number of beds, aged care places per thousand of population, standards of nursing homes and funding for nursing homes when the record of the Labor government in the area of aged care was absolutely pitiful. Senator Evans talked about a fall in the number of aged care places per thousand of population as the key performance indicator for assessing service in this area. But let us have a look at the Labor record. Given that he is the shadow spokesman in this area, I am amazed that he would dare to draw anybody's attention to these matters when Labor's record is so poor. The Labor Party ran down residential care over its 13 years in office and reduced funding by some $1.5 billion. When the coalition came into office, the number of beds available for aged care was 10,000 places short of Labor's own benchmark. That is an incredible figure—10,000 residential places short of Labor's benchmark.The ANAO report tabled in parliament on 8 December 1998 showed a large drop in aged care places over the last 10 years the ALP was in office. In 1986 the Labor government promised that there would be 100 aged care places for every 1,000 people over 70 years of age. The actual number at that time in 1986 was 98.3 places. Ten years later—by 1996—this ratio had fallen to 93.4. Over the last decade when Labor was in office, this ratio of places per thousand population over 70 was dropping steadily. Far from being a government which provided service to the aged, it is quite obvious that the Labor Party while in government denied care to thousands of individuals who needed it. It can be said that Labor offered no vision—just an ongoing campaign based on fear and deception, and a reduction in service to the aged of this country.When Senator Evans talks about capital funding, we have to face the fact that, sadly, Labor's record in that area is pretty bad too. In its last four years in office, Labor cut capital funding to nursing homes by 75 per cent. That is a dismal record. It is a horrendous thing to have done to the aged people of Australia—to have cut funding by 75 per cent. That is something that the Labor Party, I am sure, feels very ashamed about, and it certainly does not give Senator Evans any credibility when he comes in here and attacks the record of the coalition. The coalition's record in terms of providing funding for aged care has been very good.The Howard government is strongly committed to ensuring that the aged care sector is able to deliver sustainable and quality aged care services for older Australians wherever they are located—not just in capital cities but in regional areas. The Howard government has introduced new capital funding arrangements for aged care facilities in order to improve the quality of buildings. As Senator Patterson said, in the past many aged care facilities were overcrowded and did not meet health or fire safety requirements. In fact, it was quite a national scandal that the old people of Australia had been left to live in such appalling conditions. The federal government now in office introduced a system—copied, I must say, from Labor—in hostels of people paying a sum which guarantees them a bed in these aged care facilities, and it is intended that this money will be used to improve the standard of accommodation in these facilities. This is consistent with the Howard government's policy objective of improving services to aged care. (Time expired)15:28:008020McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—I wish to add to the discussion about this government's agenda for aged care. The Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care in his answers to questions today avoided some of the critical issues affecting aged people, especially those needing care and especially those in Queensland. I refer to the government's own figures on the availability of and access to nursing home and hostel beds. Those figures show that, in June 1994, there were 92.5 beds per 1,000 persons aged over 70. In the four years following that date to June 1998 we moved to a situation where there were only 87.3 beds per 1,000 persons aged over 70. In a period of four years, we lost 5.2 beds for every 1,000 people who potentially could use those facilities. This is in a climate where Australia's aged population is growing. The number of places where people can access aged care is actually diminishing. The government's own target is 90 beds per 1,000 people aged over 70, made up of 40 nursing home beds and 50 hostel beds. The figures show that we are in a continual downward slide away from that target figure.In Queensland, this loss of access to care has resulted in a huge increase in waiting times for access to nursing home services. The average waiting time in 1997-98 was 65 days, about nine weeks, and this has blown out in 1998-99 to an average waiting time of 93 days, which is more than three months when aged and frail people are waiting to access care.The questions that the minister should have addressed this afternoon are: firstly, who is caring for these people while they are waiting to access aged care facilities; and, secondly, what hurt and trauma is this causing elderly people themselves and their families as they wait for professional care. The answer to the first question is very clear. In Queensland it is the state government which is shouldering much of the cost of the care of elderly citizens through the public health system. This is blatant cost shifting by this government—something that this government regularly accuses the states of. This is moving the cost of care from the federal aged care budget to the Queensland state health budget. The federal government has the responsibility of providing long-term residential care to elderly Australians, and it is abrogating this responsi bility and forcing Queensland to carry the cost of aged care. This is particularly the case in the Gold Coast region, where many elderly people cannot be moved into nursing homes due to the long waiting lists and are having to be cared for in acute beds in the public health system.The second question goes to the human side of these statistics. The question is what hurt and trauma this is causing the people themselves and their families as they wait for professional care. Everyone in this place has had the difficult phone calls from the families of elderly and unwell people who are dealing with the dilemma of affording the aged care required by their parents and the emotional difficulty and trauma of coming to a decision to actually place their aged parents into a home or hostel. The blow-out of time that these families are having to deal with—as I said earlier, it is over three months—is exacerbating that emotional difficulty faced by those families and extending the period of family discussion by months, causing extreme hurt and trauma to those families. I note the comments from Senator Herron this afternoon when he talked about the increased funds being allocated to aged care, but can I suggest that in fact the government's policy is not working. The bottom line is that there are fewer beds and that the waiting time is blowing out.15:32:008021Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—This afternoon Senator Evans took to task the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care in that he is supposedly unable to answer a question about whether nursing home costs will be indexed. While other senators have commented on whether Senator Evans's information is reliable, I hesitate to criticise a senior senator on the other side on whether his information is reliable. However, Senator Evans's insistence that the minister must be able to answer whether costs will be indexed indicates to me a rigidity of his mind-set and that he is unable to see the real problem that faces the Australian community in terms of aged care. What is happening is that we have an ageing population. This process will continue through the years and there is unlikely to be any limit to it. Given that the population will continue to age and that the health of this population will change as well because, for example, a 70-year-old today generally speaking will be healthier than a 70-year-old, say, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago—84LMCLUCASSenator McLucas—What about the 90-year-old?86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—We will all get old, Senator McLucas, even though you might not like it. As the population gets old, we cannot try to fix this ageing population into a particular pattern of aged care, assuming that people of a particular age should go into hostel care and people of a greater age should go into nursing home care. Unfortunately, that is the way the Labor Party seems to think, that everybody should be fixed into little boxes.What the government wants to do is look at the problem as a changeable problem with a changeable solution. Within this context, the only way we can be certain of anything is to have a commitment to a purpose, and the government is committed to raising the quality of care and accommodation for residential care facilities, and for all other age groups as well. We wish to provide care facilities relative to what the actual needs are. Senator Eggleston has already commented on Labor's record in the aged care areas during its years in government. If you look at the statistics, you see that, as Senator Eggleston has already said, the funding has been stripped out of aged care areas and the number of aged care places has dropped. Senator McLucas actually revisited this point and said that the bottom line of the standard of measurement should be the number of beds per thousand of population. She said that at the end of the time of the Labor government the level of service was 93.4 beds per thousand and that in four years this has dropped to 87.3 beds per thousand.What this ignores is that throughout its four years the government has implemented a program to change the ways in which aged care beds are being provided. During the Labor years the standard adopted by Labor was 100 beds per thousand, so the 93.4 beds per thousand actually provided means it was 6.6 beds short per thousand, whereas with the government's program the standard required is 90 beds per thousand after other forms of care have been provided. At 87.3, that means we are actually 2.7 beds per thousand short, which is substantially less than 6.6 beds per thousand short. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.802210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:802275DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned call on the Federal Parliament to ensure that the current regulations relating to food content are retained by the Australian New Zealand Food Authority and that adequate food labelling is introduced which allows the Australian community to make a real choice when it comes to the purchase and consumption of food.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support legislation which will ensure that all processed food products sold in Australia be fully labelled. This labelling must include:all additivespercentage of ingredientsnutritional informationcountry of originfood derived from genetically engineered organismsSenator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 75 citizens)8022142DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows strong disappointment in the Australian Government's inadequate protection of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area from the destructive practices of prawn trawling. Prawn trawling destroys up to 10 tonnes of other reef life for every one tonne of prawns while clearfelling the sea floor. There are 11 million square kilometres of Australia's ocean territory of which the reef represents just 350,000 square kilometres.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support the phasing out of all prawn trawling in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by the year 2005.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 142 citizens)8023663I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned demand the Australian Government implement regulation for the mandatory labelling of all food or food components which are genetically modified and/or irradiated.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 66 citizens)8023403I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on all Senators to oppose the imposition of a Goods and Services Tax on any services or goods supplied to students for purposes of higher education or relating to educational needs including, but not limited to: text books, amenity and service fees, library fees and fines, accommodation, transport, child minding services, stationery and other related equipment, photocopying and private tutoring.Students and universities have suffered under the Federal Government's severe budgetary cuts to higher education. If a Goods and Services Tax is applied to higher education, resources and services that are stretched thin, could disappear altogether. Cuts to Austudy and increases in fees have meant that many students already cannot afford to pay for essential items such as text books and many young people are opting out of higher education. Any increase to the costs of higher education would put it beyond the reach of many students.We ask you all to accord a high priority to supporting and implementing our petition.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 40 citizens)Petitions received.Notices80238023Senator Vanstone to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the 50th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949;(b) congratulates the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on its continuous fostering of the principles of international humanitarian law to limit human suffering in times of armed conflict and to prevent atrocities, especially against civilian populations, the wounded, and prisoners of war; (c) recalls Australia's ratification of the Conventions and of the two Additional Protocols of 1977;(d) affirms all parliamentary measures taken in support of such ratification;(e) encourages the fullest implementation of the Conventions and Additional Protocols by the military forces and civilian organisations of all nations;(f) encourages ratification by all nations of the Conventions and Additional Protocols; and(g) recognises the extraordinary contribution made by many individual Australians, including Australian Red Cross members, volunteers and staff, to the practical carrying into effect of the humanitarian ideals and legal principles expressed in the Conventions and Additional Protocols.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Australian company ICM Agribusiness holds a 46.5 per cent stake in food and beverage maker Berri and significant grain growing, beef feedlot and meat processing operations, (ii) the company has called for a moratorium on the use of genetically-modified organisms in food production, and (iii) the company sees a moratorium as necessary to provide time for appropriate consideration of the adoption of gene technology in Australia and its long-term impacts;(b) recognises industry concerns regarding the fast-tracking of genetic technologies and endorses the application of the precautionary principle in adopting genetic technology; and(c) calls for a review of current gene technology regulations, which are effectively `fast-tracking' in focus and which fail to ensure consumer confidence.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the National Farmers Federation (NFF) recommended the separation of genetically-modified foods from traditional crops at the Agforce National Conference on 6 August 1999, (ii) the NFF is a member of the industry body the Australian Agrifood Alliance, and (iii) the NFF stated that separation of genetically-modified foods from organic and chemically enhanced foods would allow people to avoid genetically-modified foods if they chose; and(b) calls on the Government to investigate and implement effective standard segregation measures based on independent scientific data to ensure that: (i) consumers can choose foods free of genetic modifications, (ii) horizontal gene transfer is minimised between organisms, and (iii) food labels claiming products are free of genetically-modified foods are meaningful.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) congratulates the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Macdonald) for continuing the rollout of the Federal Government's $10 million Hunter Structural Adjustment Package;(b) notes that: (i) the Government has now allocated $8.6 million and announced six projects from the package, designed to assist Newcastle develop new industry and employment opportunities in the wake of the close of BHP's steel-making operations, and (ii) up to 1500 new jobs are expected as a direct result of the package, with many times that number coming from indirect jobs and other projects yet to be announced;(c) commends the Minister for turning the first sod at Newcastle Airport's upgrade and extension works on 27 August 1999, a project that will receive $1.5 million from the HSAP; and(d) notes that the upgrade and extension to Newcastle Airport will generate up to 300 jobs in aircraft servicing, passenger and cargo operations and twice that number of indirect jobs.Senator Brown, Senator Crossin and Senator Greig to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters, arising from the introduction of the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999, be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in the year 2000:(a) the legal, social and other impacts of mandatory sentencing;(b) Australia's international human rights obligations in regard to mandatory sentencing laws in Australia;(c) the implications of mandatory sentencing for particular groups, including Australia's indigenous people and people with disabilities; and(d) the constitutional power of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect to existing laws affecting mandatory sentencing.Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate, noting the desire of the Australian community to satisfactorily resolve outstanding issues concerning the stolen generations referred to in the recommendations of the report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home , calls on the Government:(a) to settle the stolen generation case currently before the Federal Court in the Northern Territory; and(b) after consultation and agreement with appropriate representatives of the stolen generations, to: (i) establish an alternative dispute resolution tribunal to assist members of the stolen generations by resolving claims for compensation through consultation, conciliation and negotiation, rather than adversarial litigation and, where appropriate and agreed to, deliver alternative forms of restitution, and (ii) set up processes and mechanisms, which are adequately funded, to: (a) provide counselling, (b) record the testimonies of members of the stolen generations, (c) educate Australians about their history and current plight, (d) help them to establish their ancestry and to access family reunion services, and (e) help them to re-establish or rebuild their links to their culture, language and history.15:40:008024Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries and Others) Bill 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Statement of reasons for introduction and passage in the 1999 spring sittings.COAL MINING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (OAKDALE COLLIERIES) BILL 1999Purpose of the BillTo amend the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992 so as to enable and require payments from the Fund (previously established by the Act) to certain former employees in the black coal industry, particularly former employees of Oakdale Collieries Pty Limited, in respect of outstanding entitlements arising from the termination of their employment (where the employer has entered administration or liquidation on or after 1 January 1999).To amend the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 1992 so as to remove the statement of the purpose for which the levy under this act was originally imposed, given the amendments to the Funding Act which will enable the Fund to provide payments in respect of the entitlements other than long service leave, in the specific cases of these closures,Reasons for urgencyWithout this legislation, former employees of the Oakdale and Merrywood Collieries would be unlikely to receive more than a small share of their entitlements. Employees are experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the absence of payments since the termination of their employment in respect of entitlements other than long service leave. The Government is committed to securing payment of outstanding entitlements for these employees as soon as possible.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business)Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins, 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 References Committee on regional employment and unemployment be extended to 30 September 1999.Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Cooney, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on search and entry provisions in Commonwealth legislation be extended to 21 October 1999.15:41:008025O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he shall move:That the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills be authorised to hold public meetings on 13 and 14 September 1999 on its inquiry into search and entry provisions in Commonwealth legislation.I seek leave to make a short statement on behalf of Senator Cooney in relation to this motion.Leave granted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Standing order 24, which sets out the duties and powers of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, only authorises that committee to hold its hearings in private. This motion seeks the Senate's authority to hold those hearings in public in the same manner as all legislative and general purpose standing committees.Committees80258025802515:42:008025Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I seek leave to move a motion to grant an extension of time to a committee report.Leave not granted.Notices80258025Items 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 1 September 1999. General business notice of motion no. 284 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to Internet censorship legislation, postponed till 1 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 285 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to programs for people with disabilities, postponed till 1 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 256 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the introduction of the Convention on Climate Change Implementation Bill 1999, postponed till 2 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 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 1 September 1999.Committees802680268026Motion (by Senator O'Brien at the request of Senator Gibson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the committee on the scrutiny of annual reports be extended to 2 September 1999.80268026Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Tierney) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous8026Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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. Committees80268026802615:44:008026Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the second reports of 1999 on the scrutiny of annual reports for the following legislation committees: Economics Legislation Committee; Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee; Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee; and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.Ordered that the reports be printed.Matters of Urgency8026802610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President received a letter proposing an urgency motion that was submitted by Senator Stott Despoja earlier today. She has subsequently received notification from Senator Stott Despoja that she does not intend to proceed with the proposed motion and accordingly I shall not read the letter.Committees8026802610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.15:46:008026Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to move a motion to vary the membership of committees.Leave not granted.Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Economics References Committee— Participating member: Senator Stott Despoja for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation OfficeFinance and Public Administration References Committee— Appointed: Senator Lightfoot Discharged: Senator BrownhillPrivileges—Standing Committee— Appointed: Senator McGauran Discharged: Senator CoonanRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator O'Brien to replace Senator Mackay for all inquiries relating to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolioScrutiny of Bills—Standing Committee— Appointed: Senator Mason Discharged: Senator Coonan.Miscellaneous802715:47:008027Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:That the following instruments, made under section 43A of the Native Title Act 1993 , be disallowed:(a) Native Title (Right to Negotiate—Alternative Provisions) (Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Laws) Determination 1999;(b) Native Title (Right to Negotiate—Alternative Provisions) (Northern Territory Mining Laws) Determination 1999; and(c) Native Title (Right to Negotiate—Alternative Provisions) (Northern Territory Petroleum Laws) Determination 1999.Today's motion before the Senate seeks to call to an end an appalling saga of legislative malice, legislative oversight and ministerial incompetence on the part of the Commonwealth, married to the incompetence, the bad faith, and the wilful disregard for indigenous rights persistently displayed by the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party government. Section 43A of the Native Title Act was born of a compromise between Senator Harradine and the Prime Minister, a compromise designed to ensure the passage of the government's 1998 amendments to that act. The 1998 amendment package itself derived from the Prime Minister's 10-point plan, with its tenfold buckets of extinguishment of native title, and that infamous 10-point plan was a cynical and ill-considered political device.The plan was concocted on a pretext of needing to respond to the High Court's decision on Wik. But the High Court majority in Wik found, amongst other things, that the issuing of a pastoral lease did not necessarily extinguish native title over all or part of the land subject to such a lease. Despite the fact that they also found that the rights exercisable under a pastoral lease always take precedence over any surviving native title, the government and certain interest groups embarked upon a politically motivated fear campaign in regional Australia. Just as they did after the Mabo decision in 1992, they deliberately set out to spread fear and misinformation. In a conscious response to the perceived need to outflank the emerging One Nation ranks to their right, they threw everything into this campaign. So the 10-point plan was not a response to real issues; it was a response to the fear and misinformation that they themselves had set out to nurture.There was another fundamental error intrinsic to the Howard-Harradine compromise. It is an error that has been repeated a number of times since, particularly in this place. I fully understood the anxiety being expressed at that time that the Senate impasse on the government's native title legislation could lead to a race based double dissolution election. I accept that Senator Harradine, at least, proceeded with goodwill and a sincere desire for solutions. But real problems and differences in the community should be addressed by going to the root causes of such conflicts, not by quick and secret deals.You cannot simply wish a problem away. And there is more than a touch of middle-class niceness in the view that seems to hold that the biggest problem facing the nation is the anxiety about unseemly squabbles between the nation's elected representatives. We cannot sweep all our issues under a carpet of media relief and short-term self-congratulation. But that seems to be a prevailing view. The big issues are the real issues, the things on which politicians will rightly and properly differ from time to time. A deal cut to take an issue or a piece of legislation off the parliamentary agenda solves nothing in itself. Issues of national significance—be they native title, environmental protection, the plight of indigenous peoples or the plight of the poor and the unemployed—will keep on coming back until we get it right. They will not go away when we cut deals to stop talking about them.So we are here essentially to address solutions to the nation's problems, not solutions to momentary government problems. The government's problem under debate at this time arose from the Prime Minister's inflexibility. It is the same man who cannot say sorry; who can find only spurious solutions, not real answers, to problems created by him and his deliberate campaign to outflank, as I said earlier, One Nation on the right. The promise of `bucketloads of extinguishment' was to be accompanied and enhanced by a severe wind back of the application and effectiveness of the native title claimants' right to negotiate. But let us remember, in the context of the Native Title Act of 1993, that that act confirmed the validity of every interest in land granted since European settlement of this country, including the arguably invalid interests granted after the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. In recognising the possible survival of native title in some places it did not give potential holders of such title any right to veto the grant of later interests such as was given, for instance, in the Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.In order to counterbalance the override of the RDA and thereby remain consistent with Australia's obligations as a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of Race Discrimination, the 1993 NTA gave native title claimants a substantive and procedural right—the right to negotiate. Then in 1998, the Labor Party, the Democrats, the Greens and, in the first instance, Senator Harradine rejected government amendments that removed the right to negotiate where native title coexisted with later granted interests.Essentially, we are today debating this motion because Senator Harradine found a way for the Prime Minister to save face at that time. Without consultation and without the consent of those whose rights were being diminished, Senator Harradine and the government devised a scheme whereby the substantive procedural protection for native title in situations of coexisting tenures was able to be removed. They drafted section 43A as an amendment to the act. That amendment gave states and territories the capacity to replace the right to negotiate available under the Commonwealth legislation with alternative and potentially inferior rights and procedures legislated and administered by the states and territories.The problems being addressed by the amendment were not ones of workability or of equity but the political problems of the Prime Minister—his problems with his backbenchers, his problems with the National Party and their problems with One Nation, and his problems with the need to be seen to address the spurious problems concocted in a fear campaign in which he was complicit. It was a secret deal done behind closed doors. It was a deal which had, and still has, the potential to erode indigenous rights far more, I must say, than I am sure Senator Harradine may have imagined.But with the government's focus on the wrong game, it is fair to say that they botched it. I accept that Senator Harradine was unaware, and let us accept for argument's sake that the government were unaware, of the dangerous loopholes in that legislation. Whatever the facts are on the matter, the loopholes still exist. Let us remember that the Native Title Act contains some 35 disallowable instruments. Delegations of responsibilities, procedures and powers under this act were held to need special scrutiny by the parliament, and this is one of them. But with regard to this one, the legislation has a fundamental flaw for, whilst an approval by the Attorney-General of such a scheme under 43A(1)(b) of the act is disallowable, any later amended scheme is free from any parliamentary scrutiny.This is a critical issue in considering the scheme put forward by the Northern Territory government—the proposal before us today. In this case it has to be said that the Commonwealth in general, and the Attorney-General in particular, made the worst of a potentially bad situation and, in doing so, they gave the show away. By giving preliminary advice in February of this year and a final determination in April that the Territory scheme complies with 43A(1)(b) of the act, I think the Attorney-General made a fool of himself and a mockery of the process. Everybody but the A-G knew in April that the Northern Territory scheme was non-compliant, unworkable and inadequate. But in giving it the tick at that time, he let the cat out of the bag. It is now clear that what is acceptable to him is something substantially less than what even the Northern Territory government now thinks is acceptable. He set a low benchmark for the future, and that should send a signal to anyone in this place concerned about the benchmarks in the legislation.To accentuate the A-G's embarrassment, the Territory government has since seen fit to make a number of amendments to its scheme. It did so in June this year. A number of issues between stakeholders that were raised in the process—one that Senator Harradine and his advisers have in many ways presided over—are yet to be seen reflected in formulated amendments. They may very well be in the future. The problem is that all this cleaning up that has taken place since the A-G's determination can be thrown out by the Northern Territory government when it sees fit. This debate finishes at 6.50 p.m. They can meet tonight and change the legislation. They can meet tomorrow. If we fail in our disallowance motion today, the Senate will never be able to—Senator Harradine interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Harradine is shaking his head. Senator Harradine, even a first-year articled law clerk will tell you that. I do not know what your advisers are on at the moment, but even a first-year articled law clerk can tell you that is the case.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—You're behind the play.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I am behind the play! I do not know what pack you are leading, Senator Harradine, but I have had good advisers here. The play essentially is that the Northern Territory government can meet tonight and change the legislation. If we do not carry this disallowance motion today, we will never see it again. That is the play; that is the loophole in the legislation. It is one that you cannot run away from and it is one that your legal advisers cannot run away from, unless they want to reduce themselves to the level of first-year articled law clerks. That is the problem. In identifying that problem, there has been advice around for quite some time, Senator Harradine, and you know it. And the most recent advice comes from a no less eminent source than the Clerk of the Senate.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Why didn't you say an eminent source?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I said `a no less eminent source', Senator Hill. You may guffaw as you like, and so may Senator Harradine. I asked a couple of questions last week about this mechanism in the legislation—the security under the alternative provisions after the time for disallowance of a determination is passed. The advice is clear:. . . it is clear that there is nothing to prevent the amendment by a state or territory of alternative right-to-negotiate provisions after the time for disallowance of a determination by either House of the Commonwealth Parliament has passed. Such provisions would operate as amended so long as the Commonwealth minister's determination is not revoked by the minister. Amendments could significantly alter the provisions, but the Senate would not be able to prevent such amendments.That is clear. Senator Harradine, you may laugh away the rights of indigenous Australians. You did not laugh them away last time, but you may laugh them away now. You will come to me and say, `But there are benchmarks in the legislation,' but they are also not worth the paper they are written on.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—You are behind the play. You do not know what you are talking about.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Are you supporting the disallowance motion?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, please address the chair. Senator Harradine, please cease interjecting.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—In relation to that second point in terms of the benchmarks in the legislation, Mr Evans's advice is also clear. He says:. . . it is also clear that there is nothing the Senate could do to compel the Commonwealth minister to revoke a determination under subsection 43A(9), even if the relevant state or territory provisions had been amended so they no longer met the threshold conditions . . . the only possible way of compelling the minister to revoke a determination would be to bring an action in the courts to seek a court order that the minister revoke a determination. Apart from questions of standing, there would appear to be a significant hurdle in the way of such an action: subsections 43A(4), (6) and (7) provide that alternative provisions meet the threshold conditions if "in the opinion of the Commonwealth Minister" they provide for the matters set out in the subsections. Such an action in the courts would therefore need to overturn not only a decision by the minister not to revoke a determination but also the formation of the minister's opinion as to the compliance of the alternative provisions with the threshold conditions.He goes on to say:I am not able to assess the likelihood of success of such an action.I will table that advice later on, Senator Harradine. This is clear evidence; that is fairly obvious.Senator Harradine interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Harradine, maybe it is not obvious, but this debate should not be about protecting our respective roles in history; this debate should be about protecting native title. If you come in here with an honest appreciation of the law as it stands, and you say you do, then you have no alternative but to support this disallowance motion. This is not about protecting our respective roles in history; this is about protecting native title.The fact is that successive CLP governments in the Territory have an appalling and shameful record in dealing with the rights of indigenous Australians. They have opposed every single claim. You might think they have acted in good faith, but they have opposed every single claim made by indigenous Australians under the Northern Territory act over the last 20 years or so. At every election since self-government, the CLP has trotted out negative devices—stereotypical campaigns—against the rights of indigenous Territorians.One of the problems we have today is that self-government has created an artificial crisis in the mining industry in the Territory. Since the Wik decision, the Northern Territory government has imposed a moratorium on the processing of mining applications. It is a moratorium that has been unnecessary, and which has arisen solely out of the govern ment's refusal to utilise the right to negotiation processes of the Native Title Act. They have sought to transfer the blame for this on indigenous Territorians. It is to the mercy of the Northern Territory government that we would throw native title if we do not support this disallowance motion.Territory government Chief Minister, Mr Burke, said yesterday that he is willing to enter into an agreement to guarantee the security but that he is unable legally to do so. At best, once again, he has been disingenuous. He knows full well, on the advice available to him, that the issues before him are capable of being registered in the Federal Court as an ILUA under the Native Title Act. You say he will give his personal guarantee, but they have had three Chief Ministers in the Territory in the last five years. What expectation could people have of a personal guarantee from a CLP minister in the Territory?It would also be a grave mistake to think that the only arguments for disallowance went to a lack of trust or the fear of bad intentions. There are substantial problems with the provisions of the scheme as it stands. There are at least eight major shortfalls, the addressing of which is fundamental to the protection of native title. They have been discussed at length with the Northern Territory government officers prior to 23 June. Because my time is running out, I will table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document detailing at least eight of those major flaws in the legislation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Are you seeking leave now?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard , a document entitled `Major shortfalls in the territory legislation', together with the advice from the Clerk of the Senate.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Can I have a look at it?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Yes.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—They have all been fixed.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—You might say so.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—I will actually be supporting this disallowance motion.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I asked you a little while ago. I seek leave to incorporate the advice.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You may incorporate the document at the end of your speech, by which time Senator Harradine will have looked at it.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Harradine says they are all fixed. He says he is supporting the disallowance motion, which I am very pleased to hear, but there were some fundamental problems as of about an hour ago when I last met with advisers from the CLC, the NLC and some of the leading people in those organisations. They were not just the clerks; they were some of the CEOs and more senior people in those organisations. The list of problems include the nature of objection, lodgment of objections, the agreements, effective conditions.Senator Harradine interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—With the flick of a switch, Senator Harradine fixes them all up. It is great to see, Senator Harradine. All power to you! I know you have been talking but, once again, there are people who need to be talking in this process who have not been brought up to date with the fact that you may have fixed up all of these seven or eight issues. I am glad that you have done that, but I am also glad that you are supporting this disallowance motion.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Stop abusing him.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Carr has asked me to stop abusing Senator Harradine, which must be a first in terms of this Senate process. As I said earlier, the security issues are enormously important, as are issues such as resourcing. We have thrown a lot of responsibility on land councils in the Territory in respect of this process—responsibilities emanating from the Native Title Act, as amended in 1998. The land councils are being stretched at the moment. I am glad they are not being asked to sign off on an eleventh-hour deal in this particular process, and I am glad Senator Harradine is also supporting us with respect to this.In conclusion, we have here a piece of legislation which, on the one hand, is fundamentally flawed in that it basically allows the legislation—having not been disallowed—to be amended at the whim of a state or territory government. We also have here before us legislation, though it has been amended some four times or so, that still does not address all the problems. Maybe in the last two hours or so Senator Harradine has been involved in a process to fix up some of these problems, but the legislation before the chamber does not fix them.In closing this particular point of the debate, this is an opportunity for us to give the security, the protection and a clear message to other state and territory governments that we are concerned about protecting native title and that we are concerned about a balanced outcome, even though the Native Title Act 1998 balanced itself so much against Aboriginal interests. We need to send a message to the other governments that this is the way the Senate is expressing its concern. With respect to those other governments, already the governments of New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania have indicated they are prepared to act, working under the Native Title Act. Those governments—the majority of state of governments—have already ditched the Howard-Harradine compromise, the alternative to section 43A.In closing this debate, once again I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the advice from the Clerk of the Senate and also the document detailing the substantial points.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Whose document is that? Who wrote it?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—It is one that I produced, Senator Hill.BH4HILLSenator Hill—It's a summary of ALP arguments?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—No, it is a summary of the major issues in dispute between the Territory government and indigenous people in the Territory with respect to their package of legislation.Senator Hill interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—It is an ALP document. Leave granted.The documents read as follows—AUSTRALIAN SENATECLERK OF THE SENATEPARLIAMENT HOUSECANBERRA ACT 2600TEL: (02) 6277 3350FAX: (02) 6277 3199E-mail: clerk.sen@aph.gov.auhc/let/1255327 August 1999Senator the Honourable N. BolkusThe SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator BolkusNative Title Act—State and Territory Right-To-Negotiate ProvisionsYou asked for a note on the following two points relating to a determination by the Commonwealth minister under paragraph 43A(1)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 in respect of state and territory alternative right-to-negotiate provisions:. the security of a right to negotiate under alternative provisions after the time for disallowance of a determination has passed. whether the Commonwealth minister could be compelled to revoke a determination under subsection 43A(9) if relevant alternative provisions fall below the threshold requirements of subsections 43A(4), (6) and (7).Attached is an advice by my colleague Dr Rosemary Laing which sets out the way in which section 43A works. As this advice points out, the right of the Senate to disallow a determination is a once-only right, and when the time for disallowance has passed the Senate has no further control over alternative provisions.In relation to the first point you raise, it is clear that there is nothing to prevent the amendment by a state or territory of alternative right-to-negotiate provisions after the time for disallowance of a determination by either House of the Commonwealth Parliament has passed. Such provisions would operate as amended so long as the Commonwealth minister's determination is not revoked by the minister. Amendments could significantly alter the provisions, but the Senate would not be able to prevent such amendments.In relation to your second point, it is also clear that there is nothing the Senate could do to compel the Commonwealth minister to revoke a determination under subsection 43A(9), even if the relevant state or territory provisions had been amended so they no longer met the threshold conditions.In that situation, the only possible way of compelling the minister to revoke a determination would be to bring an action in the courts to seek a court order that the minister revoke a determination. Apart from questions of standing, there would appear to be a significant hurdle in the way of such an action: subsections 43A(4), (6) and (7) provide that alternative provisions meet the threshold conditions if `in the opinion of the Commonwealth Minister' they provide for the matters set out in the subsections. Such an action in the courts would therefore need to overturn not only a decision by the minister not to revoke a determination but also the formation of the minister's opinion as to the compliance of the alternative provisions with the threshold conditions. I am not able to assess the likelihood of success of such an action.Please let me know if I or my colleague can be of any further assistance in this matter.Yours sincerely(Sgd) Harry EvansTHE SENATECANBERRA ACT 260027 August 1999Native Title Act—Section 43A DeterminationsAdvice has been sought on the affect of the notice of motion for the disallowance of three instruments made under paragraph 43A(1)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993, given by Senator Bolkus on 23 June 1999. On the current sitting pattern, the notice is due to be dealt with on 31 August 1999.Each of the three instruments that are the subject of the disallowance notice determine that certain laws of the Northern Territory, proposed to apply as alternative right to negotiate procedures, meet the threshold criteria for such alternative procedures set out in subsections 43A(4) and (6), and meet the requirements of subsection 43A(7), of the Native Title Act 1993.Section 43A of the Native Title Act 1993 allows the Commonwealth Minister to determine that provisions of a State or Territory law comply with certain threshold criteria. When such a determination is in place then those State or Territory provisions apply instead of the right to negotiate provisions in Subdivision P of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Native Title Act. Under section 214 of the Native Title Act, such determinations are disallowable instruments for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. This means that the provisions in Part XII of the Acts Interpretation Act for the scrutiny and disallowance of regulations apply to such instruments.The effect of disallowing a determination under paragraph 43A(1)(b) of the Native Title Act is that, in the absence of any authorised alternative State or Territory provisions, the right to negotiate provisions of the Native Title Act itself apply. Section 43A of the Native Title Act provides once-only parliamentary scrutiny of the alternative right to negotiate provisions. However, if the provisions are amended so that they no longer comply with the threshold requirements set out in subsections 43A(4) and (6), the Commonwealth Minister must, pursuant to subsection 43A(9), advise the State or Territory Minister of the non-compliance and if, after 90 days, the provisions still do not comply, the Commonwealth Minister must either revoke the determination or allow a further period of 90 days for the State or Territory Minister to bring the provisions back into compliance. The effect of revocation of a determination is that the alternative State or Territory provisions cease to be authorised and, therefore, the Native Title Act provisions in Subdivision P of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act again apply. The Commonwealth Minister's determination to allow a further 90 days for the State or Territory Minister to amend the provisions is also disallowable. The effect of disallowing such a determination would be to require the Commonwealth Minister to revoke the determination authorising non-compliance provisions without further delay.Once a determination under paragraph 43A(1)(b) is in place, the State or Territory Minister may amend (or initiate the amendment of) the provisions without further reference to the Commonwealth Parliament, provided that the provisions continue to meet the threshold criteria.Section 10A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that:Where an Act contains a reference to a short title or other citation that is or was provided by the law of a State or Territory for the citation of a law of that State or Territory as originally enacted or made or as amended, then, except so far as the contrary intention appears:(a) the reference shall be construed as a reference to that law as originally enacted or made and as amended from time to time . . .It is argued in the explanatory statements accompanying the determinations which are the subject of the disallowance notice (for example in the footnote on page 3 of the explanatory statement to the Native Title (Right to Negotiate—Alternative Provisions) (Northern Territory Mining Laws) Determination 1999) that by reason of section 10A and paragraph 46(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, a reference in the determination to a law of a Territory is construed as a reference to the law as originally enacted or as amended from time to time. This appears to be a reasonable assumption. If this were not the case, then the Commonwealth Minister would need to revoke and remake determinations every time there was a minor change in the relevant State or Territory law. Conceivably, amendments of the provisions which are the subject of the paragraph 43A(1)(b) determinations could provide for less favourable conditions than those originally determined as acceptable by the Commonwealth Minister, but, unless the provisions fall below the threshold level, the Commonwealth may take no action. While the Commonwealth Minister has a continuing role to ensure that the provisions remain acceptable, and must revoke a determination if they do not, the Commonwealth Parliament's role is limited to scrutiny of the paragraph 43A(1)(b) determination and any extension of time under subparagraph 43A(9)(c)(ii). Even if, after amendment, the provisions fail to meet the section 43A threshold criteria, the Parliament has no further role in the process unless a fresh determination under paragraph 43A(1)(b) is made.With regard to the determinations that are the subject of Senator Bolkus's disallowance notice, I have not been able to establish whether any of the provisions which are cited in the determinations have subsequently been amended. There is no requirement for a State or Territory Minister to notify the Commonwealth Parliament of any such amendments. However, the effect of a disallowance motion is quite clear. If the motion is agreed to then the Northern Territory provisions will not apply and the original Native Title Act provisions will continue to apply. It is irrelevant to the ultimate effect of the disallowance whether the provisions referred to in the determination are the provisions as they were at the date when the determinations were made or as they may be, after amendment, on the date of disallowance. However, as this question may be relevant to a decision by senators whether to vote for or against the disallowance motion, it is my view that disallowance of the determinations would represent a rejection of the provisions as they stood at the date of disallowance. The alternative interpretation (that the disallowance would affect only the provisions as they were at the date of making and not their amended form at the date of disallowance) would render parliamentary control of these instruments ineffective.(Sgd) Rosemary LaingClerk Assistant (Procedure)Telephone: (02) 6277 3380Fax: (02) 6277 3289E-mail: ca.procedure.sen@aph.gov.auMAJOR SHORTFALLS IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY LEGISLATIONThe limited scope of the brief negotiations between the Land Councils and the Northern Territory government did not permit a more detailed investigation of many issues relevant to the protection of native title. There are at least eight major shortfalls in the Northern Territory legislation which are fundamental to the protection of native title and were discussed at length with Northern Territory government officers prior to 23 June. There are other very appropriate initiatives which, due to the very limited contact between the Northern Territory government and the Land Councils, were not even broached in discussions (for example, the provision of indigenous input into the appointment of Tribunal members)The eight shortfalls that were discussed with the Northern Territory government are:The Nature of Objection: The trigger for the consultation process under the scheme is the lodgement of an objection to a proposed act or acts by a registered claimant. The formal requirements for lodging an objection (without which native title claimant would have no standing) places an indeterminate and unnecessarily onerous obligation on registered native title claimants and bodies corporate.The real possibility that a registered claimant could be denied standing on a technicality is unacceptable. Time constraints in correcting a technical problem could determine that a registered claimant be locked out of the consultation process.Lodgement of objections: Any time limited scheme needs to have a degree of flexibility if it is to demonstrate administrative fairness.When the clock starts running on a process, respondents can be at a disadvantage.The Territory scheme will still use the national registration system.However, there is no requirement for the National Native Title Tribunal to give priority to applications lodged in response to a notice given under a Northern Territory scheme.It is possible that due to no other factor than the human resources available, a claim could still be awaiting processing at the national level whilst the Northern Territory process reaches finality.The Northern Territory legislation should provide discretion for a Minister to extend the time period for the registration of a native title claim in such circumstances.Agreements: The consultation process fails to promote resolution of objections by agreement by providing the necessary focus and real substance to consultations. Neither does it provide agreements entered into under the Territory legislation with sufficient legal status to resolve all or part of a proposal.Effect Conditions: There is insufficient connection in the scheme between Lands and Mining Tribunal recommendations or the terms of agreements lodged in resolution of an objection and the instrument of grant itself. The scheme should provide that conditions of the grant of the proposed mining interest must be endorsed on the instrument of grant.How otherwise are the conditions to be enforced?Complaints procedure: With or without such endorsement, the Mining and Petroleum Acts lack a serious complaints procedure to ensure timely and cost-effective compliance with the terms of grants under those Acts. Indigenous interests need some assurance that this is more than a sham process.Limitation period on claims: The Northern Territory Scheme unreasonably imposes a three year time limitation on claims for compensation circumstances where the Native Title Act 1993 does not have such a limitation.This is yet another example of the territory scheme being a markedly inferior alternative to rights available to indigenous interests under the Native Title Act.Non-disclosure of cultural information: This issue is yet another illustration of the ingrained culture of cultural insensitivity in the Northern Territory government.The Lands and Mining Tribunal Act 1998 does not protect confidential, cultural evidence heard or subpoenaed in proceedings of the Tribunal from disclosure in other proceedings.Compensation: the legislative provisions dealing with compensation in the Territory scheme are unnecessarily rigid, preventing the low cost resolution of matters where the compensation involved is not significant. The Tribunal should be required, where determining that an act may be done, to also determine that compensation be paid into trust.If not, the act may be done, the profits dispersed and the proponents long gone before a formal legalistic compensation process is complete.These eight points are far from insubstantial. However, the Northern Territory government has dismissed them as such.Despite these concerns being put before them before its last round of legislation in June, the government has not engaged in meaningful negotiations on them.However, now that the matter is before the Senate, we are hearing a new flurry of public utterances and assurances that these matters can be dealt with.Well let them be dealt with.And let the security issue be dealt with.And let the Land Councils be thoroughly resourced to deal with these matters on behalf of their constituents. 16:07:008035Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is certainly the view of the government that it would be a tragedy if the ALP succeeds today in, in effect, voting down the new alternative scheme that has been put up by the Northern Territory government—a tragedy in such circumstances in which the Northern Territory legislation not only meets the statutory requirements of the Commonwealth act but also is fair. The Northern Territory government has put forward a proposition that is workable and, in being workable, can address the backlog that everyone acknowledges. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of the ALP's determination to win short-term political points, development and jobs and, in particular, the opportunities for jobs and economic betterment of indigenous people in the Northern Territory suffer.What I want to do is to put some facts on the table in relation to the process that has led the Northern Territory to the development of the legislation that is being debated in this chamber through this disallowance motion and then at the end to come back to the motivation of the ALP in being so determined to defeat the Northern Territory in its objective to put in place a workable, locally based scheme for addressing these development issues.An integral part of both the original and the amended Native Title Act of 1993 is the facilitation of alternative state regimes. State governments have always had responsibility for the management of land, including the issuing of mining tenements. It makes sense to allow the states and territories to integrate native title processes into their existing land management systems. The Northern Territory government has therefore chosen to pursue a section 43A determination for their mining, petroleum and land acquisition laws. The Northern Territory government first embarked on a section 43A scheme in August of last year and, since, has worked hard to create a scheme which, as I said, complies with the section 43A criteria, satisfies the genuine concerns of the representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bodies and provides a workable land management system in the Northern Territory.Section 43A was approved by the Senate as part of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997. Section 43A allows state and territory governments to introduce alternative schemes to the right to negotiate on what are essentially pastoral lease lands if their schemes satisfy the criteria set out in section 43A. The criteria have been agreed as an appropriate package of procedural rights over pastoral lease land where the native title rights are likely to be coexisting rights rather than rights of exclusive possession. The process by which state or territory legislation is allowed to operate requires the Commonwealth minister to be satisfied that the criteria are met, with that decision being subject, of course, to parliamentary review through tabling and disallowance and possibly judicial review.The criteria in section 43A guarantee native title claimants as well as native title holders certain procedural rights—in particular, the right to be notified; a right to object to the act in so far as it affects registered native title rights and interests; a right to be consulted on heritage and access issues for the purpose of minimising the impact of their native title rights and interests; a right to have an objection heard by an independent person or body; a right to a judicial review of the decision to do the act and conditions on the minister overriding the decision of the independent body; and the right to compensation. I stress: these procedural rights must be provided irrespective of rights held by others with an interest in the land.With that background, on 27 April 1999, the Commonwealth Attorney-General determined that the Northern Territory provisions comply with the criteria established by the parliament in section 43A. The Attorney-General tabled the determinations in the Senate on that day and in the House of Representatives on 11 May 1999. Prior to making these determinations, the Attorney-General invited and considered submissions from the land councils in the Northern Territory. The Attorney made a visit to the Northern Territory to meet with representatives of the Central Land Council and to hear their concerns face to face. The Northern Territory government has passed amendments to address most of the concerns that were raised by the land councils in that submission process. The result is that the Northern Territory scheme not only meets the criteria set out in section 43A but also goes beyond the criteria in that section.Parts of this scheme replicate the provisions of the right to negotiate. In particular, the time limits in the Northern Territory scheme are similar to those in the right to negotiate, the compensation provisions are largely the same as the right to negotiate, and the Northern Territory's independent body—the Lands and Mining Tribunal—has a similar de jure of independence to the National Native Title Tribunal. The Northern Territory scheme, like the right to negotiate, places emphasis on resolving issues through agreement. It is important to note that no-one is disputing the fact that the Northern Territory scheme not only meets the criteria of section 43A but also goes beyond those criteria. The development of the Northern Territory's alternative schemes has been a long and detailed process and has led to the first genuine negotiations between the representative bodies in the Northern Territory—the land councils—and the Northern Territory government on issues of native title.The Northern Territory government has displayed a willingness to amend the section 43A schemes, in response to comments made by the land councils. For example, the land councils made a comprehensive 120 page submission on the Northern Territory scheme to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The submission raised about 95 different issues. Of these 95 issues raised in the land councils' initial submission, the Northern Territory has passed legislation addressing around 85 per cent of the issues. Further, almost all of the issues raised did not relate to the compliance of the scheme with the section 43A criteria; therefore the Northern Territory passed amendments, not because it was required to but as a display of good faith towards addressing the land councils' concerns. I would suggest that, in those circumstances, disallowing the Northern Territory determinations would severely damage the developing, positive relationship between the Northern Territory government and the land councils.As I have already mentioned, in addition to the consultation between the Northern Territory government and the land councils, the Commonwealth Attorney-General undertook a comprehensive consultation process with the land councils. This consultation process included early informal briefings, provision of explanatory material, many discussions between officials, and a meeting between the Attorney-General and representatives of the CLC.So we come to the circumstances of today. What I think is not in dispute is, firstly, that the Northern Territory legislation complies with the Commonwealth legislation. Secondly, it goes beyond the Commonwealth legislation and provides for a number of other procedural matters that enhance the opportunities of indigenous people. Furthermore, in developing the legislation, the Northern Territory government has listened to the issues and concerns of indigenous people where they have gone beyond the procedural requirements of section 43A, as evidenced by the fact that the Northern Territory government has gone back and amended its legislation after the Commonwealth Attorney-General had already given recognition to the fact that the Northern Territory legislation met the statutory requirements of the Commonwealth act.In those circumstances, we find the ALP determined to vote down the new Northern Territory scheme, and one has to ask why. The answer, I would suggest, is apparent to all. On indigenous matters, the ALP has become extremely negative; arguably, even destructive. I know it was disappointing to the ALP—frustrating, perhaps—to see the amendments to the native title legislation passed in this place last year, but that is democracy. The legislation was amended in a way in which the majority in this place believed it would be more effective in addressing new issues that arose out of the Wik case—more effective, more practical, more usable. These were the decisions of this place. It may be frustrating to the ALP that the legislation put down when they were in government was amended, but that is a fact of life. But would the ALP go forward upon that and look to constructively contribute to helping make the new scheme work? No, the ALP is determined to bring it down. This is the first opportunity that the ALP has had to address an alternative states based rights scheme, developed in accordance with the legislation that was passed by this place, and the ALP has indicated today that it is determined to see it fail. What would be the consequences of that? Sadly, the consequences would be to return those in the Northern Territory to the trenches.Things have changed in the Northern Territory that the Australian Labor Party is not prepared to recognise. The Northern Territory government is a conciliatory government that is looking to build new bridges with indigenous people. The ALP is not prepared to recognise that, of course, because it sees that it undermines a traditional constituency. So rather than recognising that there is an opportunity to go forward, the Labor Party is determined to drag the parties in the Northern Territory backwards. It is determined to drag them backwards to what, for the ALP, is the old comfort zone in which it simply supports the land councils against the Northern Territory government—ground that it knows well.Unfortunately for ALP, it has never been able to win government in the Northern Territory, and that is an ongoing frustration. The reason it has not is because it has not been prepared to embrace the total constituency of the Northern Territory, and it is not today prepared to recognise that the people of the Northern Territory want to go on. They want to see that the scheme that they have implemented, put in place, and passed through their parliament in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth legislation is put into effect.What the people of the Northern Territory want now is to tackle the backlog. I think Senator Tambling will give some further information, but as I understand it there is a backlog of some 900 applications, and the Northern Territory people want to get on with tackling that backlog, because they are interested in development and jobs. And if the development and jobs are pursuant to the safety requirements that were written into the Commonwealth legislation, why shouldn't they be allowed to get on with their own business, implement their new piece of legislation, and start to create a climate in which development can occur and indigenous jobs can be created? But, no, this Labor Party is not prepared to go forward. It is frustrated and irritated by the fact that it lost the native title debate last year. It is frustrated and irritated by the fact that it lost the preamble debate only a matter of weeks ago, when it had an opportunity to be constructive and go forward, when it saw the signals of new senators coming into this place, but it was not prepared to remodel itself towards the future. It wanted to dwell on the past, and it is frustrated by the fact that it made such a fool of itself in relation to the reconciliation motion that went through in this place only a few days ago.On all of these issues there is no signal from the ALP that it is prepared to learn in indigenous matters and move forward. It wants to drag the debate back to the old days of confrontation. The trouble for the ALP is that circumstances within Australia have changed. People such as Lowitja O'Donoghue recognise that it has changed. Listen to the Prime Minister and you see that it has changed. Listen to the Australian Democrats and you see that it has changed. Indigenous people want to move on. They want to concentrate on what is necessary to produce jobs and to provide housing and education for their children in circumstances that can be achieved through better economic outcomes. That is where the debate for the future is—in a constructive and positive debate—and the Northern Territory government has provided the framework for that through its legislation that the ALP, federally, is now determined to vote down.What is the basis on which they are seeking to justify their case? The first is the one of security. The Commonwealth legislation provides the safeguard. It provides a threshold. The Northern Territory government cannot legislate below the threshold. They cannot go out and amend their legislation to have effect below the threshold, and Senator Bolkus knows that. So that is a furphy.Secondly, Senator Bolkus says he is not convinced that the Northern Territory government is genuinely prepared to tackle the backlog. The facts of life are that the Northern Territory government has already actively pursued the possibility of an agreement on how to deal with the outstanding applications, including by amending the legislation to provide a mechanism for staggering the applications in consultation with the land councils and offering financial assistance to facilitate a framework agreement between the land councils and the miners. So that argument does not carry any weight.The third shallow reason given by Senator Bolkus is that there are still some differences between the position of the Northern Territory legislation and the total ambit bid of the two land councils. As I said, 85 per cent of the Northern Territory land council's bid has been taken out and put into legislation, well beyond the minimum threshold provided in the Commonwealth legislation. If one looks at the eight remaining issues which Senator Bolkus says stand between both positions, one will find that they amount to very little. With a Northern Territory government that is prepared to work in a constructive way, those very few outstanding issues can easily be sorted out.In other words, on any objective analysis there is no basis on which to come in here today and vote down the Northern Territory's legislation. That is why I say we can have no doubt that the real objective of the ALP is to continue in its currently destructive mode on indigenous affairs, to continue to block and make it difficult for those who want to go forward. If that is the best they can do for the future, not only will they lose the rest of the Australian constituency but in the end they are going to lose the indigenous constituency as well. It is already happening when you see the attitude of indigenous people now wanting to get on and build partnerships, build new relationships with governments, and get some really decent economic outcomes for their benefit. In their desire, they are constantly being frustrated by this negative, carping ALP.The Labor Party has bid itself out of indigenous affairs at the moment. It is not prepared to offer anything new or positive for the future. If from that background they are successful today in frustrating the attempts of those who want to build bridges and move forward in a constructive way, I would suggest that that would be a matter that amounts to a great tragedy. I urge honourable senators, those who still have the capacity to affect the outcome of this debate today, to back the Northern Territory government, in its constructive mode, to implement its new legislation, which is both fair and workable. Let's put the real effort into providing economic outcomes for the benefit of all Northern Territorians, particularly for indigenous Northern Territorians who are badly in need of these economic opportunities and really do want us to move forward in this debate, not constantly backwards.16:26:008038Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I wish to speak in this debate on the disallowance of various instruments made under section 43A of the Native Title Act 1993. The 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act expanded the range of circumstances where the right to negotiate may be replaced by alternative procedures. Under section 43A of the amended Native Title Act, states and territories may replace the right to negotiate with alternative procedures which may be less favourable to native title holders, and I might add, which may then in fact provide not security but insecurity to all the stakeholders.Before state and territory alternative provisions under section 43A are accepted, however, the Commonwealth Attorney-General must make a determination that the scheme complies with the series of standards outlined in the act. The minister's determination is then subject to disallowance by the Senate. That is what brings us to this debate this afternoon.The Democrats have several concerns with the Northern Territory's alternative schemes under section 43A which the opposition has moved to disallow today. Let me put those on the record. Firstly, there is the issue of the content of the scheme. We note that there are still some unresolved issues with the legislation itself. However, I do want to acknowledge that through negotiations a great deal of amendment has already been made to the Northern Territory's original scheme.Secondly, there is the issue of the backlog of mining applications, which presents great difficulties. We understand that part of the reason for the backlog is that the Northern Territory government, under its previous leader, did not use the provisions under the Native Title Act to deal with these applications. So it is a bit rich to blame indigenous people for the backlog. Our discussions with the Northern Land Council suggest funding requirements may yield to a solution in the future in order to deal with the backlog of these applications. However, the Democrats accept that that is a matter which would need to be resolved through further negotiation between the Northern Territory government and the land councils. That would certainly have to be a proper resolution. Thirdly, there is the issue of future security for state and territory regimes. This is our biggest concern.During the Wik debate, the Democrats made clear our opposition to the Commonwealth handing over its responsibility in relation to the right to negotiate to state and territory governments. Our objections at the time were based on three factors. Firstly, the 1967 referendum gave power to the Commonwealth to make laws on behalf of indigenous Australians. This power has never been rescinded by any subsequent referendum. We believe, therefore, that the Commonwealth, in seeking to hand power to the states and territories, is abrogating the responsibility given to it under the amended Constitution. Secondly, the Democrats' experience in seeking to advocate for indigenous people has been mostly negative in regard to state and territory governments. I should indicate that my own experience in this area extends over 37 years, both in Queensland and at a national level. The third concern relates to the findings of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which states that amendments to the native title legislation appear to:. . . wind back protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia.In its findings, the CERD singled out:. . . restrictions concerning the right of indigenous title holders to negotiate with non-indigenous land users as one area of the Wik amendments which are particularly discriminative.The lack of any provision for ongoing Senate scrutiny of future amendments to state and territory alternative regimes has been the most crucial issue for the Democrats in deciding whether or not to support the opposition's motion to disallow the Northern Territory's alternative regime. Without ongoing Senate scrutiny, there will be absolutely nothing to stop state and territory governments amending existing provisions, provided they still meet the minimum standards outlined in the Native Title Act, at any time in the future. This means that, without Senate scrutiny, there can be no guarantee that state and territory alternative regimes will be favourable to native title holders in the future. It is important to note that these minimum standards significantly water down the right to negotiate provisions contained in the Commonwealth regime. One example is that the duty on governments and grantee parties to negotiate in good faith about all issues under the Commonwealth regime can be replaced with a duty to consult with native title holders. In reality, this may simply mean supplying native title holders with adequate information on a proposed development and allowing a reasonable time for a response. That is quite a different thing.Despite these problems, during our meeting and discussions with the Chief Minister, we were impressed with his sincerity, and we have acknowledged the efforts he has made to find common ground with the land councils. We believe there is a genuine desire to improve the past record in regard to race relations in the Northern Territory. We also believe that the Northern Territory land councils have made great efforts to find a way through to a solution. We have been most grateful for their advice and availability over the last few days. The problem is that, even with goodwill on both sides, we are yet to find a solution to this impasse.In determining our final position, the Democrats are convinced that the broader issue of security is the critical one. Without ongoing Senate scrutiny, there can be no guarantee that state and territory alternative regimes will be favourable to native title holders in the future. There will be absolutely nothing to stop state and territory governments amending existing provisions, provided they still meet the minimum standards outlined in the Native Title Act, at any time in the future. I heard what the minister said, but the problem for the Democrats is that we believe the Attorney-General would accept far too low a standard in signing off on those state regimes.As for solutions to the impasse, I understand that there are at least three possible options for addressing the security issue. One would be an amendment to the Commonwealth's Native Title Act to make provision for ongoing Senate scrutiny of any future state or territory amendments to section 43A alternative schemes. The second would be an indigenous land use agreement between the government of each state and territory and the relevant indigenous representative bodies. The third would be to disallow every state and territory regime so that the provisions for the right to negotiate would be covered by section 43 of the Commonwealth Native Title Act. In effect, this would mean working through the National Native Title Tribunal.I am not going to say at this stage which of those is the preferred solution because I do not know. All of them have problems. In discussions with various stakeholders, all of them have raised problems with each of those solutions. But I commit myself to continuing those kinds of negotiations and discussions so that a way through to a solution can be found. Therefore, the Democrats have decided to support the disallowance, primarily because of our grave concerns about the security question. We are hoping that this disallowance will pave the way for further negotiations with federal, state and territory governments on ways to overcome the problems with which we are faced.In the time remaining to me I would like to deal with some of the myths that surfaced in this debate. Those myths concern the whole operation of the Native Title Act through the Native Title Tribunal. But before doing that, I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council. We did ask them to put on paper the problems that they have with the various issues in terms of both the mining applications and also the legislation as it now stands. I notice Senator Bolkus is not here, and I know he tabled something similar to this, but I seek leave to table this letter so that it also can be part of the record.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Is leave granted?6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—Have the courtesies been extended?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—No.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You may circulate that now through the chamber and then at the end of your speech seek leave to have it incorporated.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Yes. I apologise to the chamber. I would have done that earlier, but I have just received the letter. If I could return to the issue of the operation of the Native Title Act through the Native Title Tribunal, I would like to acknowledge the help they have given me today in bringing me up to date on the way things are in terms of that tribunal. In the media there is a lot of myth in claims which are made about the National Native Title Tribunal and whether or not it has ability to deal with the issues which come before it.Let me put on the record some of these facts. Indigenous land use agreements are now possible. These help miners, local government and others to go about their business while protecting native title interests of indigenous people. Important legal benefits flow from registering agreements under the Native Title Act. In relation to formal determinations, since 30 September 1998, there have been two more voluntary agreements to settle native title applications—known as consent determinations—involving the Moa and Saibai islands in the Torres Strait. And there are more to come. To date there have been five consent determinations nationally, all of which are in Queensland and New South Wales. In addition, there have been four litigated determinations at the national level. In relation to consolidation of claims, the stringent new registration test which determines whether claimants have the right to have a say over mining, exploration and the like is being applied to most existing claims and all new claims. The tribunal has tested about 40 per cent of the claims nationwide; about 349 remain to be tested.In relation to decisions to date on registration tests, at a national level 225 claims have been tested, of which 106 have passed and 119 have failed. This is causing many claimants to think about the merits of their applications in the face of the stringency of the registration test, and they are deciding in some cases to withdraw or combine. In Western Australia this has been most profound, with one-third fewer claims—down to just over 200 now—than there were at the start of the Wik legislation. For miners and explorers this means that they have fewer claimants to deal with and can negotiate with some confidence that they are dealing with people who have demonstrated their credentials by passing the stringent conditions of the new registration test.The reason I am putting this on the record is that there is a lot of media comment, and comment from people who ought to know better, that the Native Title Tribunal is not working. In fact, it certainly is. Claims that fail the registration test may still continue in mediation. The result of the registration test does not determine whether applicants have native title; it determines only whether they have valuable procedural rights in the period between lodging the application and having it decided.There are about 150 active future act matters—that is, mining and exploration—before the tribunal. In relation to state regimes, Northern Territory and Queensland are seeking to set up tribunals to deal with future act—that is, mining and exploration matters—leaving the national tribunal to continue mediation and application of the registration test. The next part is very important. Western Australia remains the only state seeking to assume all functions of the National Native Title Tribunal. It has used the federal laws to process future act matters since 1995. South Australia, since 1996, has exercised the option to deal with future act matters through its Environment, Resources and Development Court. In the absence of state regimes, federal laws remain in place to handle future act matters.I want to place on the record the facts of the matter about the National Native Title Tribunal, because there are many myths that are circulating about its operation. It is operating efficiently, although with more resources it could operate at an even greater level of efficiency. The comment has been made that the Federal Court is a vigorous new player in the process, regardless of state regimes. The court is seeking mediation reports from the tribunal on many claims nationwide with a view to deciding whether they should resume or proceed in mediation or be referred to the court for trial. This shows that we have not a moribund National Native Title Tribunal and process but in fact a very alive, efficient and effective one. The Democrats believe therefore that the only way to progress a solution which will take account of the concerns of all stakeholders is to support the disallowance motion here this afternoon. In doing so, I again seek leave to table the document I presented earlier.Leave granted.16:44:008041Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise to speak in this debate this afternoon because it is a matter of extreme importance to the Northern Territory, a third of the population which I represent being the indigenous people. The mining and exploration companies up there, in light of today's debate on this issue, also need to be told some truths about the lack of action by the Northern Territory government to resolve this issue.Let me start by giving some background to where we are now. The Commonwealth's Native Title Act, enacted in 1993, empowered the states and territories to establish their own bodies to make determinations of native title, compensation and whether acts attracting the right to negotiate could be done on native title land. To date, only South Australia has established its own native title body. Under the original Native Title Act, native title holders were given the right to negotiate, which applied when certain types of activity were planned on native title land. For example, the right to negotiate applied if a government proposed to grant mining leases on notice land or to compulsorily acquire native title land for the benefit of a third party. There were time limits on the length of negotiation between the native title holders, the grantee party and the government, and if an agreement was not reached within the prescribed time limits then the parties had to go to arbitration and were bound by that decision.The right to negotiate has attracted support for a number of reasons. It is seen as part of a larger native title right to control access to native title land. The right to negotiate is also regarded as something which makes indigenous people participants in decision making about disruptive activities on their land and which empowers them economically—for example, by providing the means by which they could negotiate profit sharing or employment arrangements with mining companies. Those opposing the right to negotiate argue that it discourages investment and development—which is what we hear from the Northern Territory government—and unfairly gives indigenous peoples rights not possessed by other Australians. But this is not correct. Other Australians have access to a range of legislation which protects their property and land rights, and there should be no differences when it comes to indigenous Australians.For the most part, the Commonwealth's Native Title Act commenced on 30 September 1998. There is no doubt that this is a long and complex piece of legislation. It also enables state and territory governments to establish legislative schemes which provide exceptions to the right to negotiate on pastoral lease land and certain other types of land such as reserved land, and these regimes can be legislated for under section 43A of the Native Title Act—which we have before us in this disallowance motion. Under such regimes, native title holders must be accorded certain pro cedural rights including the right to be notified of future acts such as mining on their land, the right to object and the right to be consulted—though not the right to negotiate. The act also provides that, if the states and territories legislate under section 43A, then the Commonwealth minister must determine that the legislative scheme satisfies the requirement set out in the act tabled in parliament and the legislation can be disallowed by either house of parliament.Before I go into some merits of why we have moved this disallowance motion, I want to draw the Senate's attention to exactly what we have before us today. The act clearly talks about the scheme satisfying the requirements set out in the act and being disallowed by either house of parliament. We are dealing here with a Territory government that has been renowned for its use of matters relating to indigenous Territorians at times during their cycle and their terms of government which suit them. Indigenous issues are dangled before the public in the Northern Territory as political puppets and they are trotted out at times when it suits the Territory government.Today we are dealing with the misinformation and mistruths that are propagated by the Northern Territory government in relation to this issue. I want to show the Senate the kind of stunt that the Northern Territory government stoops to at times in relation to native title and land rights, an area which they love to be able to trot out at election time. I am showing the Senate a copy of a full page ad from the Tennant and District Times of 8 July—which was duplicated around the Territory. How timely on 8 July; just a couple of weeks before a couple of by-elections that we had in the Northern Territory. This is the information it tries to give Territorians. There is not one element of truth in its assertions. It talks about native title laws being the subject of this disallowance motion and it has a go at the now, most competent, Leader of the Opposition in the Territory, Clare Martin, saying she actively supports a system whereby Territorians no longer control their own laws. It says:She is actively supporting arrangements where an outsider could direct Territorians on how to change their laws.A stunt; misinformation. The Native Title Act clearly says that any legislation enacted under section 43A must come before either house of this parliament and can be subject to disallowance. So it is not correct to say that Territorians are no longer in control of their laws. It is in fact contempt to refer to the federal parliament as an outsider and a body that can direct Territorians how to change their laws. It is misinformation. It misleads the public in the Northern Territory. But it is something that most of us have got used to when we are dealing with the Northern Territory government and the way that they use indigenous Australians and the issue of native title as nothing more than a political stunt. This is what this is all about.The policy intention of the Commonwealth government in inserting section 43A into the Native Title Act in July 1998 was no doubt to remove the right to negotiate and thereby diminish the rights and interests of native title holders and their ability to protect their native title, their culture and their way of life. At the time, section 43A was clearly not acceptable to the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council and neither was it acceptable to all members of the National Indigenous Working Group. Throughout the national native title debate in 1997 and in 1998, the land councils and the National Indigenous Working Group opposed section 43A and advocated a position that all workability issues relating to future acts could be simply, flexibly and equitably resolved through the interaction of the right to negotiate with the indigenous land use agreements.In addition to the land councils' concerns that section 43A would offer nothing other than diminished rights to Northern Territory native title holders, it is now apparent that section 43A is worse than first envisaged, particularly as state and territory governments can amend their section 43A legislation, once it has passed the initial scrutiny of the Senate, to reduce the right of the native title holders even further. The current Chief Minister, Denis Burke, says, `Don't support this disallowance motion; I know you still have problems with the legislation, but I will fix it up later—trust me.' It is a bit like: `I'm from the government; you can have every faith in what I say.' For how long? 24 hours? A week? Until we get the next Chief Minister? The last couple have been so poor they have been rolled over and rolled out like a piece of pastry.The Northern Territory government embraced this with enthusiasm and enacted the section 43A legislation prior to the section 43A even coming into operation. Its approach to consultation regarding its proposed section 43A scheme has been extremely poor. In fact, the ability of the Northern Territory government to negotiate properly with Aboriginal people leaves a lot to be desired. During this same period it worked closely with the Commonwealth to develop the scheme beyond its initial legislation to a point where the Attorney-General, as Senator Woodley said, formed a preliminary view that the legislation complied with section 43A way back on 19 February this year. From late February until 27 April the Territory government left all consultation with the land councils to the Commonwealth. Only after the Attorney-General's determination of 27 April, when it realised that Senator Harradine would not support its proposed scheme back then, did the Territory government engage with the land councils in an attempt to win their support. Given the complex legal and policy issues involved, the short period in which discussions took place did not yield an outcome that satisfactorily addressed the land councils' major concerns. I know that Senator Bolkus has sought to table today the eight remaining concerns.Senator Harradine talked before about the major concerns being fixed. My quick consultation with the people involved indicates that they may be fixable, but they are not fixed; it may be possible to have discussions about the principles around which those outstanding items may well be fixed, but what the Northern Territory government may seek to do at this late hour—as they always seem to want to do when they feel that a deal they have put up in conjunction with their mates in government down here is not working—is to put a proposal on a wing and a prayer, write it on the back of a tram ticket, and hope and believe that some of us in here will be sucked into supporting it. This time it is not going to work. The concerns about the security of the legislation, which I will come back to, have been put before us by Senator Bolkus and Senator Woodley, and there is no security in relation to the Northern Territory government. They have proven time and time again that they are not a government that can be trusted when it comes to dealing with indigenous concerns.The land councils have said that the proposed schemes will erode the protection currently offered to Northern Territory native title holders under the Native Title Act. They have said that there are eight major shortfalls in the protection offered to native title holders by the Territory legislation. I understand that they are more than willing to sit down and talk about these eight remaining shortfalls, but to say at this time that they have been fixed would be an incorrect statement about the state of play.The proposed schemes do not provide a realistic or fair process to deal with the large accumulation of mining applications, which, I understand, is around 917 as at 13 May this year, and which has resulted from the Northern Territory government's refusal, as Senator Woodley has placed so correctly on record this afternoon, to utilise the right to negotiate since the Wik decision on 23 December 1996. In sorting out the accumulation of mining applications, the ball is clearly in the Northern Territory government's court. It is up to them, once having received an application, to not simply shelve it in the too-hard basket but to initiate the process by advising the land councils that they have received an application. They have not done that since 1996, and that is why we have a backlog of applications. The land councils lack the resources to deal with the Northern Territory's intended process for dealing with the backlog. I believe this will deny native title holders the ability to protect their rights and interests adequately.The proposed schemes are likely to lead to the further erosion of the rights of native title holders in the Northern Territory because section 43A fails to provide adequate safeguards against the Northern Territory government's unilateral amendment of its legislation establishing the schemes once the schemes have passed the initial scrutiny of this Senate. It is on this basis that this disallowance motion has been moved. It provides an opportunity for the Northern Territory government to address the outstanding issues. Back on 23 June, when notice of this disallowance motion was given, there was adequate time for the Territory government to approach the land councils and seek to continue—or probably commence in any genuine way—negotiations. I understand that the land councils requested further discussions on 22 June, 19 July and 18 August, and none have occurred.Let me turn to the two main areas that have been alluded to today: security and the backlog. Given the intention of section 43A to permit state and territory governments to replace the right to negotiate with lesser rights, Territory native title holders find themselves in the unfortunate and ironic position of being concerned that section 43A cannot even secure the best of what can only be a losing situation for native title holders. In the context of the history of relations between the Northern Territory and Aboriginal Territorians, the land councils are concerned that the Northern Territory government will amend its legislation to reduce the rights of native title holders in the future. There have been three different Chief Ministers in the past five years, and each of them has had a different approach to indigenous issues.It is ironic that this debate today, about genuine consultation with Aboriginal people and their right to be listened to and to have their concerns taken on board, occurs the very day after the report Unlocking the future was tabled in the House of Representatives. It is a report which looks at what has now become commonly known as the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1996.John Reeves was commissioned at the behest of the Northern Territory government and in consultation with their Liberal mates, so we are now talking about the Territory Liberals and the federal Liberals in cahoots to actually get a review of the land rights act done by John Reeves. But recommendation 1 says it all. It is ironic that we stand here the day after this report was tabled, and I think it sums up quite accurately the actions of the Northern Territory government not just in the last 12 months but in most of the 25 years that they have been in government. This report actually recommends, as stated in recommendation No. 1, the main recommendation, that the land rights act not be amended without traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory first understanding the nature and purpose of any amendments and as a group giving their consent, and any Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected having been consulted and given adequate opportunity to express their views. So we have the federal government, in cahoots with the Northern Territory government, wanting to unilaterally review and amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.A majority report yesterday from the House of Representatives committee, from both sides of parliament, makes some very strong comments about the lack of consultation with Aboriginal people in the Territory and the lack of opportunity for them to be able to understand the nature and purpose of the amendments. Today we have a chance for the Senate to actually scrutinise what is happening with the section 43A legislation under the Native Title Act. You wonder why we would not be suspicious about the genuineness of the Northern Territory never amending this legislation and about not being given the opportunity for the legislation to come back before this federal parliament for further scrutiny.In relation to the current Territory proposals, it is a matter of grave concern that the Commonwealth minister indicated a preliminary view that the Northern Territory laws as in force on 22 February this year would comply with the requirements of the Native Title Act. If this disallowance motion does not get up today and their scheme under section 43A is approved and goes ahead, there is no doubt that any further amendments will just get the big tick from their mates on the other side of the chamber.In my few remaining minutes I turn to the issue that I know Denis Burke will hang his hat on in the Territory and that the media no doubt will run with very largely there, and that is the backlog of claims. I will try to dispel some of the myths and misinformation that have been put around about this issue. I have said on record previously that the policy intention of inserting section 43A into the act was to remove the right to negotiate and thereby diminish the rights and interests of native title holders. Section 43A was never about simply providing for state or territory based legislation. That was already provided for by the Native Title Act under section 43, and that provides for a state or territory based right to negotiate process.The South Australian government intends to continue with its own legislation establishing a section 43 scheme—not a section 43A scheme. New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania appear content to retain the Commonwealth right to negotiate. It is clear that the Northern Territory government, in developing this scheme, is interested—it should be truthful about this—only in taking away the existing rights of native title holders in the Territory. In May this year there were 917 outstanding mining exploration applications. This situation is the result of the Northern Territory's self-imposed moratorium on mining applications since the Wik decision. The moratorium was self-imposed unnecessarily and arose entirely from the Territory government's refusal to utilise the right to negotiate process under the Native Title Act 1993. That continues to this present day. The bulk of the backlog applications have accumulated in the 2½ years since the Wik decision, and a significant number of applications accumulated prior to Wik.Since 16 June the land councils have been awaiting data from the Northern Territory government regarding the 548 non-exploration applications that make up more than half of the backlog. This vital information will enable the necessary assessment for the development of a comprehensive strategy to deal with these matters. The Northern Territory government claims that the current Native Title Act cannot deal with the backlog, yet it has never attempted to deal with the mining applications in accordance with the Native Title Act. The only fault with the current Commonwealth right to negotiate is that it can be triggered only by the Northern Territory government issuing a notice under section 29 of the Native Title Act, and the Territory has steadfastly refused to get the process working so that now, nearly three years after Wik, it can say, `Look, the process isn't working, and this is why we need a scheme that takes away the right to negotiate.' Of course, if you scratch the surface a little, you will find that the Northern Territory government has decided that the right to negotiate process was very workable when it wanted to get an agreement about the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. It had no qualms then about triggering the right to negotiate. What happened? An agreement for over 1,400 kilometres of proposed railway happened in approximately six months.There are many more things I would like to say about this disallowance motion, but my time is very fast running out. I urge the Senate to support this motion by the Labor Party. This is nothing more than an attempt on behalf of the Northern Territory government to further reduce the rights of indigenous Territorians in the Territory and another stunt on their behalf.17:06:008046Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The effect of the High Court's Wik decision in 1996 was that it extended the right to negotiate procedures of the original 1993 Native Title Act to all land where native title may coexist. The 1998 amendment to the Native Title Act made provision for states and territories to set up alternative land administration schemes for future development over such land. For these alternative provision schemes to operate, the state or territory scheme has to go through a consultation process that has to comply with the national standards set out in the Native Title Act.The issue of what land administration regime is to apply is of particular importance to the Northern Territory. This is because 50 per cent of the Territory comes within the control of the Commonwealth's Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, 42 per cent of the Territory is Aboriginal land and a further eight per cent is under claim under that act. The land rights act has its own land administration procedures that apply instead of those in the Native Title Act. While the land rights act has been very successful in returning land to Aboriginal Territorians, it has not delivered in regard to promoting indigenous employment or creating development opportunities.In addition to this 50 per cent under the control of the land rights act, a further 49 per cent of the Territory is pastoral lease land over which there may be coexisting native title. The combined effect of the Commonwealth's land rights act and the Native Title Act is that special restrictive land administration laws apply to over 99 per cent of the Northern Territory. This has retarded development in the Territory and has had a detrimental effect on employment opportunities for Aboriginal Territorians. It is therefore of utmost importance that the Territory has the best possible land administration system for that 49 per cent of the Territory covered by the pastoral estate. It is important for the future of the Territory, it is important for the future of Aboriginal Territorians and ultimately it will be important for the integrity of the Native Title Act.The Northern Territory applied for three determinations for alternative provision schemes under section 43A of the Native Title Act. They related to the Mining Act, the Petroleum Act and the Land Acquisition Act. The schemes were developed in three stages. The first step was the enactment of legislation to such a stage whereby the Commonwealth Attorney-General had come to a preliminary view that the schemes complied with the requirements of the Native Title Act. Once this stage had been reached, the consultation process with the representative bodies commenced. This resulted in a number a meetings and submissions. As a result of the consultation process, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly made a number of amendments to its schemes. These amendments addressed compliance issues and workability matters.Following these amendments, the Attorney-General made the determinations that the Territory schemes complied with the requirements of the Native Title Act. These determinations were dated 27 April 1999. As a result of ongoing discussions with the representative bodies, the Territory made further amendments to its schemes in June 1999. These amendments go above and beyond section 43A compliance and were made in an effort to reach agreement with the representative bodies.Unfortunately, it was not possible to reach an agreement with the representative bodies and the ALP lodged motions of disallowance against all three schemes on 24 June 1999. At the end of the extensive consultations between the representative bodies and the Northern Territory government, there were three issues standing in the way of an agreement: the content of the legislation, security regarding future amendments to Territory schemes and how to deal with the backlog of exploration and mining applications.In regard to the content of the legislation, the joint land councils made an initial submission—some 100 pages long and about an inch thick—at the start of the consultation phase. By 22 June the outstanding matters had been reduced to eight relatively insignificant matters. Of these eight issues, the Territory says that its legislative schemes clearly address three and the Commonwealth has said that it will address one.The remaining issues are as follows. Firstly, the representative bodies say that the requirements in the Territory schemes—that claimants should give particulars of how the proposed development is likely to affect their rights and interests—should be removed. The Territory says these particulars are necessary to allow the consultation process—to minimise the impact of the activity on native title interests—to work. The provision of details will facilitate agreements being reached regarding projects.Secondly, the representative bodies say that superior courts should be prevented from obtaining access to anthropological material, filed in the Territory's land and mining tribunal, for the purpose of making recommendations regarding development or mining applications. The Northern Territory schemes already make provision for the protection of culturally sensitive material, and the Northern Territory governments says that it is contrary to public policy to have secrecy provisions.Thirdly, the representative bodies want the removal of a provision requiring those claiming compensation to give notice of the claim within three years. The Territory's response is that this provision applies to all those with an interest in land, can be complied with simply by sending in a one-line letter and is necessary to allow for orderly land administration. In any event, there is a procedure for extending the time period by applying to the land and mining tribunal. Fourthly, and finally, in some circumstances the representative bodies say that compensation should be paid without proof of native title. This proposal has already been fully considered and debated in this chamber; it is clearly untenable.The significance and merits of these outstanding legislative issues need to be considered in the context of the schemes in their entirety and in the context of the concessions and accommodations made to date. I am informed that there were three months of consultation on this Territory legislation with the land councils before this disallowance motion and that from August 1998 there were four or five specific invitations to the NLC and the CLC—from the NT government to discuss these issues—which were not responded to.Any reasonable assessment would have to conclude that these outstanding legislative issues are of little consequence. That leaves the issue of security regarding future amendments and the backlog of outstanding mining applications. It is important that the security issue is clearly understood. The Native Title Act sets out the national standards that state and Territory alternative provision schemes have to comply with. There is in-built security in the Native Title Act, which sets out the process for reviewing and revoking determinations if a state or Territory scheme is amend ed at any stage in the future so that it falls below the specified requirements.Nine-tenths of the Territory schemes are reviewable under the process set out in section 43A(9) of the Native Title Act. It is only those enhancements made to the scheme which go above and beyond the Native Title Act requirements that are at issue. Notwithstanding the fact that the issue involves only future amendments above the national standards set by this parliament, the Northern Territory has proposed a scheme to deal with these concerns. It involves the passing of legislation at the next sittings of the Legislative Assembly requiring consultation with the representative bodies prior to any amendment to section 43A; agreeing to allow at least two months between the introduction of any amendment bill and debate; consultation with representative bodies with a view to reaching agreement concerning the form of the amendments; and providing a draft bill and reasons for amendment prior to introduction.The Northern Territory has no intention of making any amendments to its schemes. However, it has to be recognised that unforeseen circumstances and workability issues arise over the passage of time. That is the reason that parliaments have the capacity to make amendments. The Territory's proposals will make the procedure for any amendment as open and transparent as possible.It has been suggested that one way of dealing with this security issue is to abandon the section 43A schemes and place them in an indigenous land use agreement—an ILUA. The ILUA proposal is fundamentally flawed. It is contrary to public policy and probably illegal. It would require the current Territory government to delegate legislative authority and fetter the discretion of future Territory parliaments. Given that these schemes can only operate on coexisting land, the ILUA proposal would split land administration procedures into multiple layers: one legislative layer for non-native title issues, and a private agreement for native title procedures. We are talking about land administration procedures for 49 per cent of the Northern Territory, not some discrete area where the native title holders are known. The concept of an indigenous land use agreement is simply not viable in these circumstances.It seems to me that the Territory is being punished for enhancing its legislation beyond the standards set out in the Native Title Act. If you follow the arguments of those proposing an ILUA through to their natural conclusion, the Territory would have been better off if it had stuck to the schemes as determined by the Attorney-General and had not tried to address the concerns raised by the indigenous representatives. That just cannot be right.If there is a genuine problem here—and I say there is not—then the issue is one for the federal parliament. It is up to this parliament to amend the national standards that it requires state and territory schemes to comply with. It offends parliamentary propriety to set legislative standards, have a jurisdiction comply with those standards, and for this chamber to then say that compliance with the standards we set is not the basis upon which state and territory schemes will be assessed. The Northern Territory Chief Minister has said that he is prepared to undertake not to amend the Territory section 43A schemes for at least a year to allow the federal parliament to make up its mind as to additional arrangements regarding future amendments of state and territory schemes and to make the appropriate changes to the Commonwealth act.The security issue is not a problem of the Northern Territory's making. There is already in-built security in the Native Title Act to ensure state and territory schemes do not get amended to fall below the standards set out in the federal act. The Territory has offered to do all that it legislatively can to address the concerns raised. The security issue is not a valid reason for disallowing the Territory's schemes.That leaves the issue of outstanding exploration and mining applications. There are currently some 917 outstanding applications. Because many of these are by the same company in the same locality, a number of applications can be grouped together and dealt with at the same time. This will result in there being about 300 applications to be dealt with. Let me make this clear. These applications have to be dealt with either under the Territory's alternative provision schemes or under the right to negotiate scheme. Under either procedure the representative bodies are funded to represent claimants. There is no additional cost to representative bodies that arises from the Territory schemes. The multimillion dollar claims by the land councils are a complete furphy. The claims are without foundation. In fact, under the Territory schemes, the Territory has offered an orderly and staggered approach to dealing with the backlog. This measured approach would assist in keeping work levels fairly even and would greatly assist resourcing and funding requirements.The Territory has made a reasonable and balanced offer as to how to deal with the backlog if the Territory schemes are allowed to operate. These include: a two-month period to allow representative bodies to get prepared—this would be on top of the statutory four-month period for lodging objections; limiting backlog applications to two per week per representative body for exploration applications; provision of a schedule showing which applications would be dealt with and when; and joint development of standard term agreements that protect indigenous interests.The consequence of disallowance will be that all outstanding and all future development applications will be forced back into the already overloaded and stressed right to negotiate process—a process that is having difficulty keeping up with the influx of applications and difficulty in producing timely and cost-efficient results. Excluding expedited procedure matters, it is understood that there are currently over 6,000 development applications outstanding, with the numbers now rising by about 3,000 per year. Since 1993 there have been just under 500 agreements and only a handful of tribunal determinations.The signs are on the wall in big letters. The right to negotiate is a system heading for trouble. It is a system that was simply not designed to cope with the added pressure of coexisting land. The relief valve was to be state and territory alternative provisions. If these alternative schemes are not allowed to operate, the right to negotiate procedures of the Native Title Act are going to need major amendment in the very near future. That is the choice facing the Senate. Some of you may recall the national angst the last time major amendments were necessary.It has been suggested that the Territory's schemes would only proceed if the Territory had been able to obtain the consent of the representative bodies. The Northern Territory engaged in an extensive process of negotiations with the representative bodies, with a view to reaching agreement. For a variety of reasons, most of them having nothing to do with the Territory or its schemes, it was not possible to reach an agreement. In regard to this suggestion I simply make the observation that the consent of a body with a vested interest is unlikely to be a valid substitute for an objective appraisal of the Territory's schemes. The Northern Territory government made a real effort to resolve all indigenous concerns. We submit that our schemes do address all issues of substance.The Northern Territory schemes comply with every requirement set out in the federal legislation. The Northern Territory schemes will produce better results, deliver more to Aboriginal Territorians, be better for the future of the Territory and ultimately be better for the nation. The Northern Territory schemes give appropriate recognition to indigenous interests and yet allow land administration to be left in the hands of the appropriate level of government. Disallowance will shatter attempts to build better relationships. Those of you who vote for disallowance will be directly responsible for this and will bear responsibility to the nation for the costs and delays caused by an overloaded right to negotiate process.I urge the Senate to endorse a new beginning, a fresh start, to the imposing task of addressing Aboriginal disadvantage and generating indigenous employment. The Northern Territory schemes are reasonable and balanced. They more than comply with the requirements of the Native Title Act and they should be given the chance to work. An example of this community and commercial frustration is the strong representation I received from the Extractive Industry Associa tion of the Northern Territory. I quote from their recent letter:The Extractive Industry supplied all sand, gravel, soil and rock for the construction of houses and other buildings, road-making, gardening, landscaping and landfill. This includes material for manufacturing concrete, blocks and bricks, plaster, pavers, road base, road surfacing, etc.The loss of land access to supply these raw materials will result in a virtual shutdown of all industry in the Territory. Alternative supply options would prove unacceptable due to the cost.Senator Crossin, federal member Warren Snowdon and their Labor mates in Canberra now have to explain to the people of the Territory why they have once again held up jobs and development in the Northern Territory. Senator Bolkus, the Labor meddler from South Australia, has destroyed native title legislation that was fair and workable and which gave a chance for Territorians—both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal—to work together and progress development and jobs.The Northern Territory programs were worked out with Northern Territory Aboriginal councils. Senator Bolkus now proposes, because he thinks he has the right, to negotiate exclusively with land councils and the Northern Territory branch of the ALP. Senator Bolkus is being very hypocritical in the way he has approached this. He is doing deals in Queensland with the premier. Let me quote from radio 4QR—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! You will have to withdraw that comment about Senator Bolkus.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I withdraw the comment. At 4 p.m. on radio 4QR in Brisbane today, the newsreader said:Mr Beattie says the Queensland legislation won't face the same fate due to an agreement with officials in Kim Beazley's office.And a quote from Mr Beattie:They're not going to support a disallowance of a negotiated and sensible outcome for native title in this state.So we are seeing a backroom deal being done between a Labor premier and Senator Bolkus on an issue that relates to this motion. It is absolutely deplorable that Senator Crossin, in particular, will once again support a move that overturns a bill of the Northern Territory parliament. Her Labor colleagues in the Northern Territory supported this legislation as it went through the Northern Territory parliament. In this place, Senator Crossin takes a different stance. First she attempted to compromise law and order in the Territory by trying to overturn mandatory sentencing, and now she is compromising jobs for Territory constituents, including Aboriginal people, with her disloyalty. This important matter today is about jobs, investment, confidence and giving rights to Aboriginal people for their future and their development. Sadly, this disallowance motion will cause havoc to Aboriginal Territorians.17:25:008050Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I certainly pay tribute to that contribution by my colleague Senator Tambling. It made eminent sense to me. The Northern Territory's native title regime fulfils all the requirements called for in section 43A of the Commonwealth Native Title Act. It is well known on our side of politics that the Attorney-General is no easy touch on such things, and he has given the Northern Territory regime a tick.Section 43A says that a state or territory regime complies if they contain appropriate procedures for notifying native title claimants, body corporates and other representatives; provide a right to object to a proposed act so far as it affects their registered native title rights and interests; provide for consultation about ways of `minimising the act's impact on registered native title rights and interests'; provide for objections `to be heard by an independent person or body'; and `provide for judicial review of the decision to do the act'. It makes the independent body ruling binding, except for the limited circumstances where the state minister for indigenous affairs must still be consulted and if it is in the interests of the state or territory overall. The state or territory regime must confer rights on claimants that are not less favourable than if they held ordinary title to the land and waters concerned. There are also requirements as to compensation in subsection (7). Those requirements are that areas of significance must be preserved. The Commonwealth Attorney-General has examined the Northern Territory's alternative provisions, consulted with indigenous bodies and been satisfied that the provisions comply with subsections (4) and (6) and that the requirements of subsection (7) are totally complied with.The federal government's part in this process began in March 1999. The Attorney-General announced that he had written to various land councils seeking submissions on the Northern Territory's request for three separate section 43A determinations for future acts covered by their mining, lands acquisition and petroleum legislation. The Northern Territory system contains requirements to notify of intent to develop, right to object and a consultation process, where agreements between the parties cannot be reached and the matter is referred to an independent body—that is, the land and mining tribunal. This tribunal's decisions are binding on the government, except in the limited areas requiring consultation with the minister for Aboriginal affairs and involving the interests of the whole of the Territory.The Northern Territory regime follows the template laid down by the parliament in the Native Title Act, and it has met every provision. I refer the Senate to section 43A, subsection (9), which deals with the revocation of such a determination, as made by the Attorney-General. This subsection provides that, if at any time the alternative provisions are amended—so if the state government amends those provisions—so that they no longer comply, the Commonwealth minister must revoke the determination. A state or territory regime must always meet the set national standards of the Attorney-General, or he can revoke the determination. If future amendments by the state or territory government jeopardise those standards, then the Commonwealth government still retains the power to enforce them. The federal act protects the national standards at all times.When a state wishes to go further than those standards and to include features which go above and beyond the national standards, the Senate has a once only opportunity to review them, as we are today. The Democrats and the Labor Party want the right to review not only the national standards but also the enhanced features of the state or territory regime. This, effectively, would transfer land administration from the states and territories to the Senate. That is not what the Senate is here to do. It is inappropriate; it is centralisation of the political power and states rights. We have to ask ourselves: what else is going to be caught up in this net—state legislation on heritage sites, and so on?In the second reading speech on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997, the Attorney-General said that the bill was designed to achieve several outcomes, the first of which was:. . . to provide an application and determination system which is constitutionally secure and which will enable the States and Territories to develop their own systems for dealing with native title matters provided they comply with national standards.Labor is trying to rewrite the national standards so that a whole range of other state matters will have to get the nod from the Senate. On 7 July last year, during the native title debate on state regimes, Senator Minchin commented:. . . this Commonwealth parliament basically has no experience in, expertise in or familiarity with the property law of this country because it does not deal with it. That is the sovereign right of state parliaments. By virtue of the races power and native title decisions, all of a sudden we have quite massive intervention in property law by the Commonwealth parliament, and there is not that much familiarity with it. The fact is that these are the sorts of procedures laid down, and they have probably been there for 100 years at state level.He also made it clear that, whoever makes the decision, the act shall be subject to judicial review. So there are many in-built protection measures that relate to the state alternative provisions on native title—the Senate can disallow it, the Attorney-General can revoke it, and the Supreme Court can review it.It is not necessary or in the interests of good government for the Senate to double-dip and to control every decision-making process impinging on native title in this country. The effect on the Senate of disallowing state regimes is to force a return to the slow and costly right-to-negotiate process. Rural and regional areas need job creating projects. The right to negotiate does not deliver them; it obstructs them. There are currently some 6,029 development applications awaiting resolution of the right-to-negotiate process. Every year there are another 3,000 or so. After four years, we have seen some 500 determinations, and that is all. They are coming in faster than they are going out.There is a lot of talk these days about mutual obligation. The Senate has an obligation to let the states get on with handling native title in their own way, provided minimum standards are met. We have to help the states and territories pursue jobs in industry, especially in rural and regional areas. Sentencing them to return to the logjam of the right to negotiate process is not the way to get any of those developments moving.The truth is that Labor are upset at having been dealt out of the game on the big issues of the day, so they are weighing in for all they are worth on this one. The great pity about it all is that, by doing so, Labor have reignited the bush against native title. Just when national progress was being made on reconciliation, Labor have to lay a political dead cat on the table. Just as there was positive momentum on indigenous issues, Labor spat in the eyes of land owners under claim and job creating investors. I can tell you that the mood of the bush has turned overnight on this issue. After all the years of native title debate, and the agony that both sides went through trying to reach some sort of agreement in the process, after all the compromises, the Labor Party want to rub salt into the wounds and get everyone upset again.My phone has been ringing about this issue today, and I can tell you the kinds of responses my office has been getting. This morning a person rang me and said, `It would have been kinder to tell us all to go at the beginning of the native title debate.' That is what one landowner said, and nothing now has changed.17:35:008052Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The Senate is facing a situation which, if goodwill prevails on all sides, can be satisfactorily resolved in the interests of all of the stakeholders and all of those where native title coexists with other land interests. The Senate is debating a disallowance motion on the Northern Territory alternative provisions determinations.Let me go back to the response of the government to Wik. As honourable senators will know, that response came before this parliament in 1997. It was defeated by the Senate late in that year on my vote. When the matter again came before the Senate in 1998, there was a huge build-up. There were negotiations conducted with the government. There were something like 220-odd amendments to the legislation.One of those amendments was section 43A. The purpose of section 43A was to allow states and territories to establish alternative provisions which would be able to be delivered to the indigenous people and others with interests in the area. Because these schemes would be owned by the state or the territory, they would have an interest in ensuring the success of these schemes. I insisted that it would be desirable—and, in fact, constitutionally correct—for the state or territory legislation to be referred to the Attorney-General and for the Attorney-General to make a determination with respect to those schemes. I also insisted that that determination be subject to disallowance by the federal parliament. In other words, the parliament would be obliged to exercise its rights—in fact, its duties—under the Aboriginal affairs powers of the Constitution. On the other hand, of course, the states would own the schemes because of their responsibility for land management. It is because I so insisted that this matter is here before us today. I am surprised, frankly, that Senator Bolkus is not up to steam on what has been happening.I also insisted upon a number of other matters with respect to the sunset clause. There is no sunset clause. The government was proposing a sunset clause. I ensured that the registration tests were extended to cover the stolen generation and the victims of the locked gates. I insisted that the legislation be subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. All of that, bear in mind, when it went through the parliament avoided a bitter race based election.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You wouldn't have been game.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—`Wouldn't have been game,' says Senator Bolkus. One Nation actually got, I think, 54 per cent in one particular seat in Queensland. The fact that I did avoid a race based election may have resulted in One Nation giving Senator Brown and the Labor Party preferences before me at the last election.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I wasn't even standing.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I am sorry—the Greens. You are right, Senator Brown, it was not you. It was Senator Brown's party—the Greens.Let us come now to the Northern Territory scheme. I suppose you could say that this scheme has had a chequered history. Mark I of the scheme was legislated in the Northern Territory on 19 August 1998, Mark II was legislated on 1 October 1998, and there were further amendments. In fact, the scheme at the present moment is Mark VII. But let me make it perfectly clear who it was who proposed to move the first disallowance of the Northern Territory scheme. It was I.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You were prepared to move this one, too, but you didn't.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Don't fret; I am supporting this one. When I did that, things started to move, and the parties were called together under my auspices. I must say that a great deal is owed to my legal advisers, Messrs McCarthy QC and Kildea, who are experts on native title. It was in their chambers that the first substantive discussions took place between the land councils, the Northern Territory government, ATSIC and other stakeholders.The current provisions are said to be above the minima. So what concerns the land councils and, indeed, ATSIC most is how to secure the advantages that have been gained in the development of alternative state and territory schemes and how to make sure that those advantages are preserved against any state or territory introducing and passing legislation which will reduce those particular benefits down to the minima as required in the act. That is a matter which I addressed to Mr Burke last week. To give Mr Burke his credit, he was prepared to agree to such a scheme and to agree to legislation going through this parliament to ensure that occurred. That is point one. So the major issue of security can be fixed.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—It is not fixed.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—There are other people involved—not yourself—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Where is it fixed?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—There are various ways that this can be done. Things can be changed, legislation can go through this place. If this passes, recision motions can be carried by the Senate if other things are in place. There are a few things to go yet.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Nothing is fixed. That is right.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I have not seen Senator Bolkus being interested enough to attempt to get some sort of resolution of this matter.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—We talked about this six weeks ago.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! Senator Bolkus, there is too much cross-chamber discussion.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator Bolkus then tabled eight points from the land councils. The fact is the Northern Territory government is not prepared to die in a ditch on those particular points. They are not critical points.The question of the backlog is the third matter of the land councils. That is a matter which has been discussed, and there is a recognition that that needs to be determined properly so that the backlog can be attended to by well resourced representative groups.I understand the concern of the land councils about the need to get all of this into place before the matter is finally resolved. I also acknowledge that it is important sometimes to get the burner going and to have a situation where people's minds are focused. It is clear that the minds of the various parties are focused at the present moment, and I acknowledge now that there is a need for a little bit of time for these matters to be resolved, but there are ways of allowing the situation to proceed.I acknowledge the statement by Senator Woodley. I listened carefully to Senator Woodley. He indicated that indigenous land use agreements were an important factor, and I acknowledge that as well, but might I be permitted to observe that they were part of the Native Title Amendment Bill—Senator Woodley interjecting—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Thank you. Yes, I would have loved the Democrats to have voted for them at the time. They are working and they have their place. Quite clearly, however, the Labor Premier of Queensland feels that it is not appropriate, as some federal Labor members are saying, that Queensland can fix their problem with an ILUA. Clearly these members do not know about section 24DJ of the Native Title Act. Appeals under that section would take forever to resolve, to the detriment of the Queensland people—Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.The Queensland Premier and his government have spent much time developing their section 43A, and I do acknowledge that the 43A system is regarded, politically, as a desirable measure, because it is owned by the states and the territories, provided that the Commonwealth parliament is able to exercise its responsibilities under the race powers of the Constitution. And that is the essence of the matter.I am not going to support the Northern Territory legislation without there being a procedure whereby the Commonwealth parliament exercises its proper authority and duty in respect of Aboriginal people. As you would all know, there is a way to go yet, but the legislation giving effect to that need can be passed through this parliament quite quickly, and other matters can be settled quite quickly. I agree with the land councils that it does need a little bit of time, but we have a situation now where matters can be resolved relatively quickly.This parliament stands ready, I believe, to see and enact legislation which will have the effect of ensuring that amendments to state based schemes are looked over by the federal parliament. You might say, `They have to come to the Attorney-General. Isn't that sufficient for the purposes of the Commonwealth's duty in regard to Aboriginal people?' I would say no, because the Attorney-General need only determine the matter on what he or she considers to be the minimum. I think it is important for the parliament itself to have that responsibility. I am sure the parliament will exercise that responsibility in a reasonable and proper fashion, so far as the Queensland legislation is concerned and so far as the Northern Territory legislation is concerned, if those eight points can be resolved. That is why I started off my contribution urging goodwill on all sides.I do not know Mr Burke as well as others do, but I have a strong impression that he wants to have a new deal so that he can enter into a more cooperative framework for discussions with the stakeholders than has been the case previously. Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, the Chairman of ATSIC, did say to me that yes, the security matter was the major issue. He said that there should not be any `midnight takeaway legislation'. I will be supporting the disallowance motion to enable the framework to come before this parliament quickly so that there will not be any such midnight takeaways, if any state or territory be so inclined.17:56:008054Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Before I speak to this disallowance motion, I would like to bring to the Senate's notice that I do have mining interests. I would like to address a few of the issues raised by senators in this debate. Senator Bolkus raised the issue of the impact of native title on the indigenous people of the Northern Territory. I would also like to raise the issue that it equally impacts on non-indigenous people of the Northern Territory. I believe there are processes that will eventually address all of those problems. Senator Bolkus then went on to say that the Senate needs `to send a clear message to the other states'. Is Senator Bolkus saying that we are no longer addressing the virtues of this legislation? Are we now using this opportunity to show to the states that they are going to have to comply with another section of the act? `Don't bother about putting up state alternative processes under section 43; just comply with the rest of the act.'Senator Hill spoke briefly about the time lines in the Northern Territory process and he indicated that they are similar to those in the Commonwealth legislation, as is the right to negotiate. There is a willingness on the part of traditional owners in the areas to come to agreement on these issues. I am fearful that the agreements that are brought about in the negotiations between the miners and the traditional owners will be subverted by either legal process or the political process.Senator Woodley said that clearly the input of traditional owners may not be recognised and that the issues and the ideals of this Senate should prevail. I believe that that is in total contrast to the spirit of this legislation. If the spirit of the legislation is not to protect the cultural heritage of the indigenous people as those indigenous people see it, who are we to be judging on their behalf?Senator Woodley went on further to say that he gave great credence to and recognised the input of the land councils and, similar to Senator Bolkus, tabled documents pertaining to that. I would like to put to Senator Woodley: where is the balance in the assessment of the Democrats of this legislation? Where is the input from the mining industry that he took into consideration prior to making the determinations that he put here today? I ask Senator Woodley to table those documents and that input.Senator Crossin raised the issue of direction coming from outside the Territory, not only for this legislation but also for the Commonwealth act. Would the Senate like to consider the input of Erica Irine Days, a permanent secretary to the indigenous working group with the UN? Is the Senate prepared to acknowledge her input into the development of the legislation? Is it willing to accept the input of Alfonse Martineze, the chairman of a United Nations working group whose specific task is to look at treaties made between nations and states? We do have influ ence on legislation and documentation and input into these from outside the Northern Territory, but we need to look at that in a balanced way.There are other documents I could refer to, such as A good idea waiting to happen, and I could consider the influence that that will ultimately have, not only on this chamber but also on indigenous issues throughout Australia. In the document that Senator Bolkus tabled today, reference is made to the nature of the objection and the fact that traditional owners have no other recourse than to apply for a native title determination to be part of the requirements of these acts. In actuality, this is because of the Commonwealth legislation itself. I put it to the Senate: how can a mining company progress an agreement unless it is sure whom it is talking to? How can you have a consultative process when you have no surety that the person you are consulting is the correct person? The problem raised in the document of the nature of objection is a function of the act that this parliament has actually produced.Senator Bolkus went on to talk about time lines and the fact that the clock has started running. I would draw the Senate's attention to the inordinate delays in the processing of claims by government and the NNTT. There needs to be a clock running. The document further talked about agreements. There are other processes within the Commonwealth legislation for progressing indigenous land use agreements, and it will be very interesting to see the development of these throughout Australia.In the document that Senator Woodley tabled today, there was reference to the Miriuwong-Gajerrong case that sits between the Northern Territory and Western Australia. There was, again, very interesting input into that decision by Justice Lee. If we need to look at who is having input, let us look at the Canadian precedents that were used by Justice Lee in that determination: the Sparrow case, Badger, Gladston, Adams, Cote and Van der Peet. These were all Canadian determinations in the Canadian High Court that are influencing decisions in courts in this country. It is also worth while noting that in Canada the traditional owners in that Commonwealth do have rights to mineral resources. Therefore, there would be direct conflict in using those determinations in Australia, where the Australian Commonwealth clearly reserves the rights of minerals to the Commonwealth.There are many other issues that we need to assess during the discussion on this disallowance motion. We need to look at the costs. Senator Tambling brought up the costs involved in this process. In Queensland the Northern Land Council responded to 18 section 29 notices at a cost of over $150,000. The land councils themselves clearly indicate they cannot sustain the costs involved following the process of the 1993 Commonwealth Native Title Act. The land councils themselves clearly say they require alternative processes. The state alternative processes—section 43A—are the vehicle that will attain that. With the correct consultation with the land councils and the state governments, this is how this can be achieved.Again, in relation to those applications and the responses to those section 29 notices, some are over an area of one hectare. The traditional owners, through their land council, are responding to those claims over one hectare of land, which, when the resulting mining tenures are granted, clearly indicates that the native title issues, their heritage, have been addressed. They have no option other than to continue that application for a native title determination all the way through the High Court, with enormous expense to the Australian taxpayer and to the land council involved, to attain something they already have when the mining lease is granted. Yes, there is a need for state alternative processes.Senator Harradine himself, in the chamber, just before me, stated that the conditions in the Northern Territory proposals actually exceed the requirement of the Commonwealth legislation, and then proceeded to say that he is still going to vote against the motion. Is he assessing this disallowance motion on the merits of the legislation? I do not believe he is.We need to look at the issue as to whether the state has consulted with the traditional owners and the land councils. We also need to take note that land management is a state responsibility. It is the requirement of the states to manage their land use. We need to realise that and accept that. We need to look at another issue, substantial impact. What is substantial impact? Why are we disallowing these state proposals? Is it because of substantial impact? Has anybody defined substantial impact here today? I do not believe they have.My concern is for the future generations of children and also for the work force in the Northern Territory—not only of indigenous people but also of non-indigenous people. We need to assess this legislation on its merit, not play politics. We need to look for a process that will give security to the traditional owners. We need to look to a process that will give security for mining. I sincerely believe that the state alternative processes do move in the right direction for achieving that.18:11:008056Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I agree that we need a process that is going to lead to security for all. The problem here is that, because of hasty action to try to cobble together an agreement which would get through the Native Title Amendment Bill last year, there was not proper regard given to the consequences, and so here we are in this position of having to disallow Northern Territory legislation which does not adequately reflect the intention of this place, the parliament, at that time.My colleague of last year, Senator Dee Margetts from Western Australia, put forward a motion at the outset of the debate then that, because there had been insufficient consultation and negotiation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people regarding changes to the Native Title Act 1993 and the entire issue of indigenous land justice, the bill at that time should have been withdrawn until a comprehensive process of negotiation and agreement with the many indigenous communities of the continent had taken place. Had the other components of the Senate heeded that move by then Senator Margetts, we would not be in this situation. I remember clearly the rapid moves to amend the legislation as it was before the Senate and the insertion of subclause 43A. In my speech in the second reading debate, I had this to say:Senator Harradine said last night that this is an occasion which will not come again—`If we don't get it right, I cannot foresee a future time when we will get it right.' How wrong he is—because we are not getting it right here, and it is going to continue to trouble us, and we are going to have to get it right further down the line.Here we are a year later trying to get it right. There were amendments being hastily cobbled together by Senator Harradine and Senator Colston and the government last year, and they did not pay sufficient regard to the concerns of many players, but in particular the concerns of the indigenous people of this country. But it is good to hear Senator Harradine now acceding to the numbers in the place, which mean that the Northern Territory legislation will be disallowed by the Senate, and recognising that there is going to be a need for legislation to come back in here to fix up the hole in amendment 43A which he put before the parliament a year ago. He quite rightly says it is because I insisted on this amendment, 43A, that the scheme is up before the Senate today. But the problem is that we ought to have a watertight right for indigenous people to negotiate over their lands in the Native Title Act. It should be nationally guaranteed. Instead of that, the Harradine-government process, the Harradine-Howard process, was to devolve that right—and the formulation of it, or the handling of it essentially—as a template in the bill, to the states and territories.It was quite clear that this would lead to an effort to minimise the rights of the indigenous people and to advantage others. We as a parliament ought not to have allowed that process to occur, but we did because the numbers were with Senator Harradine and Senator Colston at the time. We are now here charged with a responsibility to fix it up. I notice that Senator Harradine said that the first substantial negotiations took place with the Northern Territory land councils on the Northern Territory legislation in chambers at his arrangement. That bespoke the failure up until that time of the Northern Territory authorities to have negotiated with the Territory participants, in particular the land councils. So Senator Harradine was acquainted with that some months ago. He said:. . . I acknowledge now that there is a need for a little bit of time now for these matters to be resolved, . . . The problem is that that little bit of time was not granted to this chamber a year ago. When it was not granted, we were effectively being denied the wish of the Greens at that time in particular, as expressed by Senator Margetts, that there be adequate consultation with the indigenous stakeholders. I am supporting this disallowance very strongly. It is leverage for indigenous people to stop the erosion of justice for them. It is some leverage to enable them to be given the negotiating rights over the legislation, let alone their lands, that was owed them by the Northern Territory authorities in the first place. And it is a warning to other state and territory jurisdictions that, at least as the Senate is configured at the moment, they are not going to be able to pull the rug from under the very limited indigenous rights that ended up being in the Native Title Act.If we look at the proposed declaration on the rights of indigenous people, which is making very slow progress through the United Nations—but at least it has world authorities behind it supporting those universal rights—and move to article 26 on ownership, amongst other things, it states:Indigenous peoples have the right to own and control the use of their land, waters and other resources.That is basic. We are a long way, in this debate taking place today, from accepting that as basic, just as we were a long way from accepting that as basic when the debate took place on the Native Title Bill more than 12 months ago. Article 30 of the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people says: Indigenous peoples have the right to determine strategies for the development of their land and resources.It goes on to say:Governments must obtain the consent of indigenous peoples before giving approval to activities affecting their land resources, particularly the development of mineral, water and other resources.Whether or not a declaration of such rights ever gets to being—and one has to be cautious about being optimistic on the matter because of the enormous sway that international corporations particularly have over the evolution of such humanitarian ideals or, I might say, such ideals of basic human and civil rights—there is inculcated into that draft a principle which should be guiding our deliberations.Last year the parliament passed legislation which infringes those basic rights and which cut the ground from under these principles which are self-evident. That being so, we have here not just the opportunity but the responsibility to see that the ground is not cut even further by state and territory administrations against the interests of indigenous people. I am very pleased to be supporting this motion because hopefully it is going to ensure that at least we will not have the awful circumstance in which a Northern Territory ordinance, bill or act gets approval in this place and the next day or late the next night the Territory authorities change it and we are left devoid of the power and ability to redress a perfidious act like that.It is extraordinarily important that the Senate have this right. It is a little redress to the handing away of rights to establish national benchmarks for all indigenous people in this situation, that handing away having occurred in the vote by the government and the two Independent senators last year. I support the disallowance motion from the Labor Party and I look forward to seeing that this one fault amongst many in the Native Title Act is corrected.18:21:008058Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise to speak on this disallowance motion and state clearly and categorically that I think this disallowance motion is a total miscarriage of the purpose of the Senate and what it is about. It is a straight intrusion into the rights and capacity of the Northern Territory government to carry out what its process should be and, extending it further, into the rights and proper process of the states' constitutional rights in managing land, whether it be in terms of the native title legislation, whether it be for mining or for farming, whether it be in our cities, or wherever it might be.This process that the Senate is now involved in, where it thinks it has a power that is greater, in my view, than the Constitution, is absolutely and totally wrong; and it has the potential to do long-term damage to this nation of ours and, more importantly, to bring this chamber into total disrespect with the people out on the ground. As regards the current proposal before us concerning the Northern Territory, we are thousands of miles from where the action occurs, and we are trying to dictate to the Northern Territory how they should run their own affairs and how they should deal with this question of land management through the Native Title Act.In the position adopted at the time the 10-point plan was before us in the legislation—which ended up being a nine-point plan—many of us found it very difficult to accept this proposition before us. The extension of the debate in yesterday's newspapers to further amendments to the Native Title Act to further restrict the rights of the states must be fought at all cost. It will make it almost impossible for the states and territories to manage their land in an appropriate and proper manner. It is an issue that is not in the best interests of resource development, the creation of jobs in this nation or the conservation requirements of land management and landcare. I do not care what angle you look at it from, but the more we intrude into this area, the worse the job that will be done in these matters.This is not just about native title. We have seen in the resource security legislation for the RFAs an attempt to make RFAs a disallowable instrument in this chamber. Once again that is very clearly a task that was set out by our forefathers in the Constitution as being for the states. I challenge the advocates of what is happening now. That this Senate has the right to override an agreement signed by the Prime Minister and a Premier is totally out of order and is something that will do enormous damage to what Australia is about and what it stands for.One could talk for a long time about this matter and certain aspects of it. I do not have the time tonight to do that, but I want to record quite clearly my very strong objection to the process that is going on now. In the short term it is going to be detrimental in a range of areas, including the management of land, resources and the environment, right through the Commonwealth of Australia. It is about time this Senate woke up to what it is doing. I would suggest that, if you put this issue to a referendum of the Australian people right now, you would get your pants thrashed off because it would not be acceptable to the community out there. We are seeing a situation where this Senate is trying to usurp a power that should remain with the states. I cannot say it any stronger than that, other than to express my disappointment that the Northern Territory government, which has put a lot of effort into putting together their state regime—which is allowed under the native title legislation—will now almost certainly be subject to a disallowance motion in this chamber. That will cost all Northern Territory people jobs and it will be detrimental to Aboriginal people.18:27:008059Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—in reply—I indicate that I will not be speaking at length, but a lot has been said in this debate that needs replying to. I will reply to a couple of points and make a couple of extra ones. We have heard a lot of extraordinary contributions in this parliament from time to time, but the last one from Senator Crane has to take the cake. He says that, because a state Premier or territory Chief Minister and the Prime Minister come to an agreement, then the national parliament of the country has no right to involve itself. Don't you know about the rule of law, for a start? Don't you know that people in parliaments, wherever they are, have to act in accordance with the law? The law governs relations between governments and individuals and governments and governments. In this case we have a law of this parliament—the Native Title Act, as amended 1998, section 43A of which gives us specific and ongoing responsibility to do exactly what we are doing today; and no Prime Minister and no Premier can get together in a backroom deal and override the legislation passed in this parliament. If you contend that seriously, then you may as well contend that the rule of law is no longer relevant in this country. It was a fly-by-night, bunkum contribution by Senator Crane, which does neither him nor the government any credit. Another point that needs to be made is in respect of backlog. Crocodile tears are shed by Senator Tambling and Senator Hill about the backlog under the right to negotiate provisions in the Northern Territory—that some 917 applications are current. What they do not admit is the truth of the situation. There is no backlog; it is just that no-one is allowed to get on the track. There is no hold-up in applications; those applications are not even allowed into the system. Why not? Because the Territory government has put a moratorium on the processing of claims under the Native Title Act. You cannot get into a backlog situation when you cannot even get into the game. For three years they have been saying, `We don't accept the Native Title Act; therefore, we will put a moratorium in place and ensure that applications are not processed.'It is a national scandal that this is happening, but it is an even greater national scandal that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, came in here and defended it and criticised the outcome rather than the fact that his colleagues—his respected colleagues, as he calls them, but no-one else in the country respects them—have put the moratorium on, and it is this moratorium that has meant that applications cannot be handled in the process. It is a scandal. You would have thought that there would be responsibility in this place on this government to ensure the proper functioning of the native title provisions. But, no, they just sit back and say, `Oh, isn't it terrible that we have got this backlog?' when they themselves know that not one application has been processed because the Northern Territory government has not triggered the process under section 29 of the Native Title Act. It is a scandal, and it is a scandal that has been raised in debate here.At long last in this debate we have had vindication of the opposition's position. At long last we have had acknowledgment of the position of the opposition spokesman, Daryl Melham, in this area. He was ridiculed for some time and criticised for threats to the Western economy, security and whatever—all these things were thrown at him in the financial press and other parts of the media by people who did not take the time to understand. But at the end of the day we have acknowledgment by the father of the scheme, Senator Harradine, that there is a flaw in the system, and a flaw that needs to be fixed up. One person who should be vindicated tonight is Daryl Melham. Instead of putting themselves behind the barricades or in the trenches and taking a confrontationist approach, had the government listened to him earlier, had they acknowledged there was a problem, maybe we would not be going through this today.That is something the government has got to cop the rap for, because there was a knee-jerk reaction—put your head in the ground and believe nothing wrong is happening. It is a knee-jerk reaction which led Daryl Williams to sign up to the first draft of this legislation, and it is a knee-jerk reaction which means that at the end of the day we are here at last acknowledging, through Senator Harradine, that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. I remind Senator Harradine that six to eight weeks ago I raised the same issue with him and someone was going to come back to me, but the phone has not yet rung. There probably does not need to be much more said than that. There is a problem in the legislation that needs to be fixed up.I close on one particular point, and I am glad Senator Woodley is in here. Senator Woodley referred to the benchmarks in 43A(1)(b) of the legislation that will give some protection. I would ask you to have a close look at the letter from the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans. One question I asked him is whether the Commonwealth minister could be compelled to revoke a determination under subsection 43A(9) if relevant alternative provisions fall below the threshold requirements of 43A(4), (6) and (7). You said there were threshold requirements and the provisions of a state or territory regime cannot fall below those requirements. I asked the Clerk whether in fact a Commonwealth minister could be compelled to revoke his or her approval, his or her determination, if the provisions fall below the threshold. This is the advice we got back from the Clerk of the Senate, and I think it is quite pertinent advice that needs to be put on the record again at this point in the debate. In relation to my second point, which was the question of provisions falling below the threshold requirements, the Clerk says:It is also clear that there is nothing the Senate could do to compel the Commonwealth Minister to revoke a determination under 43A(9) even if the relevant state or territory provisions had been amended so that they no longer met the threshold conditions.BH4HILLSenator Hill—It is only a statutory obligation.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—That is precisely the point that we need to keep in mind as we go through the already signalled next part of this debate and these discussions. I will put this on the record as well.BH4HILLSenator Hill—You think it is commonplace for Attorneys to ignore their statutory obligations, do you?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I think the point you raise is quite a valid one, but it is addressed by the advice from the Clerk. He says:In that situation, the only possible way of compelling the Minister to revoke a determination would be to bring an action in the courts to seek a court order that the Minister revoke a determination. Apart from questions of standing, there would appear to be a significant hurdle in the way of such an action. Subsections 43A(4), (6) and (7) provide that alternative provisions meet the threshold test if `in the opinion of the Commonwealth Minister they provide for the matters set out in that subsection'. Such an action in the courts would therefore need to overturn not only a decision by the Minister not to revoke a determination but also the formation of the Minister's opinion as to the compliance of the alternative provisions with the threshold conditions.BH4HILLSenator Hill—It relies on Attorneys acting responsibly.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—First of all, Senator Hill, what a court would be asked to do is to overturn the minister's exercise of discretion.BH4HILLSenator Hill—It does not have to go to court.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—Order!BH4HILLSenator Hill—He said he would only take 30 seconds.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—If you would keep quiet, I might complete it quicker. That is something we need to take into consideration in the next part of this debate, which I am sure we are about to enter into.The other thing is that in this particular instance the Attorney-General has shown his hand. He agreed to legislation months ago, and that legislation has been amended four times now. What was acceptable to him in this process is no longer acceptable to the national parliament nor the Territory parliament. Basically what that shows is that discretion under this legislation is a very lethal discretion that can be exercised against native title holders and claimants. In closing the debate, I ask the Senate to support the opposition's disallowance motion.Question put:That the motion (Senator Bolkus's ) be agreed to.18:40:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)36Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Harris, L. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bourne, V. Tierney, J.Campbell, G. Gibson, B. F.Lundy, K. Alston, R. K. R.Murphy, S. M. Payne, M. A.* denotes tellerIn division—8HCHARRISSenator Harris—Madam President, I would like to draw to the Senate's attention my mining interests before I vote on this issue.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bills8061r6468061Consideration resumed from 30 August.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and opposition amendments (R4) and (6), moved by Senator Forshaw. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.18:45:008061Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—To refresh the committee's memory, at the moment we are dealing with the Labor amendments which would ensure that regional forest agreements from the mainland would be able to be vetted by each house of parliament. There are exceptions. They are the regional forest agreements for East Gippsland and the Central Highlands of Victoria, which for reasons which are unfathomable have been left off the list.Tasmania, which suffers two-thirds of the export woodchip industry eating into its forests, is also left out. That is because of the power of the Bacon Labor government in Tasmania to insist that the woodchippers' rights are pre-eminent in that state. Although world heritage forests are at stake, including enormous tracts of rainforest—and these are now ending up on the woodchip piles on the Burnie wharf en route to the Japanese paper mills—the Bacon government, which says it is in favour of making sure this industry works to the benefit of Tasmania, does not want the Senate or the House of Representatives to look at that agreement.I reiterate here that hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money is going into this regional forest agreement process. It is unconscionable—to use the last word I used before this debate broke off yesterday—that the government should say to the taxpayers of Australia, `Well, we are putting hundreds of millions of dollars of your money basically into infrastructure to support the job shedding woodchip industry, but we don't want parliament to account for it.' I cannot think of any other example of such enormous amounts of money being out of the reach of parliamentary survey.The Democrats moved an amendment to ensure that the Tasmanian, East Gippsland and Central Highlands RFAs were included but, though I supported that amendment, it failed in the Senate last night. So we are left with the regional forest agreements in the rest of the country to be at least vetted by the Senate. You will note that overnight I have added a new amendment here. I draw that to the government's and opposition's attention. Hopefully, through that, we will avoid the problem we have just been dealing with on native title. This amendment is to ensure that, where regional forest agreements are vetted by the Senate—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Are you moving an amendment to the opposition amendments?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No, I am foreshadowing an amendment, Chair. The amendment is to ensure that there will not be a similar situation arise where the Prime Minister gets together with the Premier after the Senate has vetted the regional forest agreement and changes it. So I ask the opposition in particular to look at that overnight for consideration tomorrow, because it is an important amendment to this opposition amendment which I will be supporting.It goes without saying that the Greens have taken charge of defending Australia's forests in this matter. We think that it is reprehensible that the regional forest agreements are being signed without the parliament looking at them. We think it is reprehensible that Australia's forests are not subject to the protection of at least debate in the parliament before the Prime Minister goes off to see the Premier to give them over to the woodchippers. But be that as it may, we amend this bill where we can.Progress reported.Adjournment806210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—Order! I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.806218:50:008062Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Tonight I would like to speak again, as I have before, about the fringe benefits tax and the impact it has had in the more remote areas of Australia, particularly the north-west of Western Australia where I have a particular interest. It has to be said that the impact of the fringe benefits tax on development in the north of Western Australia has been quite devastating and has had a very negative impact on regional development. It has led to the loss of population in the north of Australia and led to the development of fly-in fly-out operations, which has meant that new towns have not been created.Most importantly, I would like to make the point tonight that, while the problems caused by the fringe benefits tax on the pastoral and mining industries in the more remote areas of Australia have been well recognised, the fact is that all businesses and non-taxable institutions, like local government, development commissions and so on—other independent non-taxable bodies in these areas—have also suffered very deleterious effects because of the fringe benefits tax.The mining and petroleum industry in Australia provides around 82,000 direct jobs and 327,000 indirect jobs and, indeed, it makes a massive contribution to the Austral ian economy. The industry contributes some $60 billion annually to Australia's export markets, or 30 per cent of Australia's total exports. Mining and related industries generally operate in regional and remote areas of our country and, of course, are a big feature of the economy of the North-West of Western Australia. In recognition of the contribution that mining and related industries make to Australia's regional and national economies, and the potential these industries have to provide employment in regional and remote areas, the government has sought to exempt the mining industry from the fringe benefits tax on housing and matters associated with housing, like electricity for airconditioning. That was done in the last budget. In the previous budget, of course, the pastoral industry was exempted from the fringe benefits tax. While that is something I applaud and I think is a very important step—and it will certainly be a very important point in encouraging regional development—there is a very anomalous situation, as I said in my introduction, when it comes to small businesses in remote areas and businesses which might be associated with mineral extraction but not actually doing so by mining, such as the salt industry.As far as small businesses and local government are concerned, you can have a town like Broome or Karratha or Kununurra where mining industry people have houses and the large mining companies are exempt from the fringe benefits tax paid on subsidies provided to their employees for housing and to cover the cost of electricity. But a subcontractor to those mining companies, or a body like local government—which also has to attract people to those areas and has to offer housing, electricity subsidies, cars, return air fares and so on—not only has to bear the cost of providing those attractions but also has to pay fringe benefits tax on them. This means that small business and non-taxable institutions like local government are put at a huge disadvantage in terms of the extra cost burden they have to bear in bringing people to the remote areas of Australia.I think it is time that situation was considered and reformed, because it means that there is a significant inhibiting factor to regional development while those types of businesses and organisations are subject to fringe benefits tax. In fact, when one looks into the matter, one finds that in other countries that have a fringe benefits tax, like the United States, Canada and South Africa, the importance of not hindering regional development is recognised in their fringe benefits tax regimes and specific exemptions are made for all businesses, tax exempt organisations and institutions in remote areas so that they do not have to bear the additional cost burden that a fringe benefits tax puts on them in these areas.I think that in this present atmosphere, where the whole of our tax regime is under review, it would be a very significant step forward for the Australian government to consider exempting all businesses in remote areas from fringe benefits tax on housing and on benefits which are required to attract employees to remote areas, because the people in remote areas, of course, are engaged in regional development. They are often playing a vital part in providing services to the major industries, which are usually the mining industries in those areas, and it is very important that they are encouraged in every possible way.The Pilbara Development Commission recently published a report on the negative impact of the fringe benefits tax on regional development in the Pilbara. The report stated:The present system of FBT in Australia has had a significantly negative impact on the development of the Pilbara since the introduction of this tax in 1986. Economic modelling results indicate that without FBT (and assuming an increase in income to compensate for FBT) the gross output of the region would have been 3.4% higher than under the existing system, over 670 additional jobs (supporting 1400 residents) would have been created, and an additional $14.5 million would have been invested and over $413 million in additional consumption expenditure would have been incurred. This is equivalent of an additional $50,000 for every retail establishment in the region. It is estimated that FBT costs business enterprises the equivalent of four jobs per establishment.I think that is something we should all regret very much, because it shows the extent to which the fringe benefits tax is hindering regional development. A recent visit by Dampier Salt brought to my attention another anomaly in the present fringe benefits tax exemption regime. Dampier Salt has plants in the north of Western Australia which produce salt by evaporating sea water. They run sea water into large pans and that is evaporated down to salt, which is then harvested. They also have, near Carnarvon, a plant where they mine salt from a salt lake. For the plant near Carnarvon, the housing of its employees is FBT exempt because the salt is mined. In Karratha and Dampier, where they produce salt by an evaporation process, Dampier Salt has to pay fringe benefits tax on all the benefits paid to its employees, including housing. In the same streets as its employees there are homes of Woodside and Hamersley Iron employees. Those companies do not pay fringe benefits tax on the benefits paid to their employees in terms of housing because they are defined as mining companies.This is an important issue in terms of regional development. I very strongly believe that, in the interest of promoting regional development, we should follow the example of Canada and provide exemptions for fringe benefits tax on all businesses and tax exempt organisations in the remote areas of Australia.806419:01:008064Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Almost 68 years ago, on 20 September 1931, Norman Leslie Gallagher was born. He grew up in Collingwood when its sense of community was high but the life of its citizens hard. People burnt Collingwood coke, the leather off-cuts from the local footwear industry, for heat. The smell permeated the air during those times of depression. Today Norm Gallagher was buried in the cemetery at Yarram where the air was clearer. He died last Thursday, 26 August 1999, three days before Collingwood, of whom he was an enduring supporter, played its last home game at Victoria Park.What formal education Norm Gallagher had was gained at St Joseph's Catholic Convent in Collingwood. He served on the altar at his local church. He played football with the Young Christian Workers. He boxed in the Golden Gloves and later professionally. In those days, children growing up in Collingwood had a limited range of jobs to look to for their future working lives. There were the boot factories, the clothing mills, the brewery, the local council—all of which were located within that suburb—or building sites or wharves further afield. All involved tough and repetitive tasks, bad conditions and poor pay.Norm Gallagher left school when he was 13 and, having worked for a while in the boot trade and as a jockey on a truck, became a builder's labourer. He joined the union covering that industry and while in his teens was made an official of it. Ultimately he became Secretary of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers Federation, better known as the BLF.When Norm Gallagher started in the building industry, the lot of a labourer was a harsh and dangerous one, plagued by low wages and dirty and unsafe construction sites. When he departed it, things were immeasurably better. He and his union transformed what had previously been an appalling state of affairs into one where life and limb were as secure as could reasonably be, and working conditions were much more civilised. That his reforms have meant the saving of many lives and the prevention of innumerable injuries which would otherwise have occurred is indisputable.The BLF, under Norm Gallagher, took industrial action which is still remembered vividly but in different ways by a variety of people and institutions. The building industry he knew was a rough and raw one. Soft negotiations had little chance of success. Issues at stake were high and included issues of life and limb. But there were other matters of moment that he was associated with, including the saving of places like the Victoria Market, the Regent Theatre and the City Baths.Ted Hill was an eminent Melbourne barrister and a committed Marxist and had great influence over Norm Gallagher. Norm Gallagher had in pride of place on the wall of his office a photo of himself, Ted Hill and Mao Zedong, taken in Beijing. Today his coffin was piped to the grave to the tune of God Save Ireland, which shows that Norm Gallagher's life was affected by a range of factors.Norm Gallagher was a member of the executive of the ACTU and was prominent on the Victorian Trades Hall Council.As the 1980s developed, troubled times came upon Norm Gallagher. Shadows crossed his career. The processes of the law descended upon him and upon his union with shattering force. As time went by, old links and seemingly enduring structures were torn asunder.It is proper that, while these matters be remembered, others of higher moment be balanced against them. We all have within us forces of light and forces of darkness. That is one of the great human truths. If there is an audit of life after death, there will be a balancing of the good things and the bad things all of us have done. Norm Gallagher was a public man whose best and worst was there for the public to see. What is undeniable is that many men, women and children have gained much from the reforms he instituted. There is every reason to accord greater credit than debit to his eternal account. He deserves to be remembered well.806519:06:008065Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I want to talk tonight in the brief moments available to me about a project proposed for the goldfields of Western Australia in one of the richest areas for minerals in the world. The project will rival that internationally famous project established by C.Y. O'Connor in the early part of this century. The project proposes to bring desalinated water from Esperance over 300 kilometres north to the joint townships of Kalgoorlie and Boulder.The project is envisaged to eventually proceed further north to the giant and now world renowned nickel and cobalt deposits of Murrin Murrin, which are being exploited by the publicly listed company, Anaconda. If that happened, the pipeline would be something like 700 kilometres long—if it went through Leonora—and would be the longest water pipeline in the world. Currently the C.Y. O'Connor Perth to Kalgoorlie water pipeline is something less than a metre in diameter and is something akin to 500 kilometres long rather than the proposed 700 kilometres.I want to outline some of the benefits that would be derived from this visionary project if it is undertaken. The infrastructure proposed for the pipeline would significantly be on site. It can be either a conventional cement-lined steel pipeline or a new type of plastic pipeline that could be extruded on site. It is proposed to be about one metre in diameter and would be extruded in perhaps Esperance, Norseman or even Kalgoorlie. The route for the pipeline is along the current railway easement that travels from Kalgoorlie in a rather circuitous route through Coolgardie and down through Norseman to the port of Esperance.The pipeline is desperately needed. Currently the mining industry is being somewhat inhibited by the cost involved in using the potable water from the Mundaring pipeline and the infrastructure costs that mining companies are required to contribute to that is not refundable by the Water Corporation. Also, because water is so expensive, some of the palaeo-channels—that is, fossil water—is exploited. This fossil water is either supersaline or hypersaline and can often be 12 times saltier than sea water—something akin to the Dead Sea. This creates metallurgical problems and requires more chemicals than would otherwise be needed if the water was potable.This project is to be undertaken by a company called Goldfields Utilities Limited in conjunction with an American company called Global Environment Fund. Global Environment Fund specialises in funding water projects throughout the world and has a cross-shareholding with a company in America called The Atlantis Water Fund. The project envisages the extension of the Karratha to Kalgoorlie gas pipeline down to Esperance. It currently terminates in Kalgoorlie. It is envisaged that that would be extended to Esperance.It must be remembered that the goldfields are, on average, about 1,000 feet—300 metres—above sea level and the pumping will require a significant engineering feat. It is not impossible. It is expensive, but not impossible. The synergy that has been suggested between the vast lignite deposits south of Norseman—north of Esperance—could also be used in the feasibility study. In situ production of ligneous gas to power the pumps along the proposed water pipeline could be utilised.One of the great inhibiting factors of the goldfields development has always been the lack of water. Most goldfields people, like me, thank God for the visionary C.Y. O'Connor, who established one of the great pipelines of the world. It remained so until the early 1990s when a pipeline was built from the Red Sea port in Saudi Arabia to the capital city of Riyadh—a distance just exceeding that of C.Y. O'Connor's pipeline. So it was something like 90 years before a desalination plant was built in Saudi Arabia that exceeded the C.Y. O'Connor pipeline.But it is not just for the benefit of the industry. With Australia being one of the signatories of the Kyoto Convention—handled so deftly, adroitly and astutely by Senator Robert Hill on behalf of Australian industry—that limited the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2, it became obvious to the goldfields that, if the vast empty areas above what we call the `mulga line' could be utilised for plantation timber—particularly Eucalyptus globulus but not limited to that—some contra with respect to greenhouse gas emissions could be of great benefit to Australia also.It is proposed that, if the pipeline is extended north from Kalgoorlie through Menzies, Leonora and ultimately to Murrin Murrin—one of the biggest developments this century in Western Australia in terms of its dollar expenditure—then those vast areas could be utilised for the contra of greenhouse gas emissions and, ultimately, for the use of plantation timbers. This would mean employment in the district, and that has the approval of the Aboriginal people who see the great benefit that developments of this nature can have for alternative employment for their children.The project has the approval of the Premier of Western Australia, Richard Court, the Deputy Premier and Leader of the National Party in Western Australia, the Hon. Hendy Cowan, and government departments. What it needs is some assistance and encouragement from the federal government to undertake this $½ billion project that could be under way as soon as Christmas this year.I believe that it is a significant project for Western Australia, and it is significant for Australia. It opens up what is otherwise extraordinarily undeveloped and empty country on that goldfields plateau of the Yilgarn Craton, and it has many benefits, not least of all the further expenditure of half a billion dollars in the goldfields—and with the downturn in gold prices, that can only be described as very desirable.There is, however, one dichotomy that exists, and that is with respect to the Water Corporation. This is a wholly owned government subsidiary, corporatised from a utility. From information that I have received, I understand that it is undertaking its own feasibility study about bringing salt water from Esperance, roughly along the same route as with this potable water, and using sea water in the mining industry to alleviate the reduction of hypersaline and supersaline palaeo-channels—fossil waters. That can only be described as disastrous.We need to get rid of our salt in Western Australia. We are working on it, and we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it. A government instrumentality, seemingly somewhat out of control, that wants to bring salt water up to Kalgoorlie is something that I think ought to be discouraged. Not only that, but it is unfair in terms of its opposition to a project that is quite clearly in the best interests of the public sector, and that can only be in the best interests of goldfields people. (Time expired)806619:16:008066Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to talk about a very important although often overlooked issue, and that is the plight of Australians who are growing older with a mental illness. According to a new study by SANE—that is formerly the Schizophrenia Association—there are tens of thousands of older Australians who have a mental illness. I am not just talking about conditions which are generally associated with aging, such as dementia. I am talking about the whole spectrum of non-age-specific mental illnesses, including conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and severe depression—conditions which are more likely to strike in younger adulthood and which are more likely to be appropriately treated when sufferers are young rather than when they are older. It is an unfortunate reflection on the attitudes which seem to prevail in today's society that, as people with mental disorders grow older, they are much more likely to be treated as though they are approaching their use-by date and therefore it is not worth spending money or effort on their care.According to SANE Australia, the majority of older Australians with a mental illness are hidden away. They are warehoused in dingy boarding houses with little or no support, and they are often on industrial strength doses of older medications which have not been reviewed. A recent report on the study undertaken by SANE Australia, entitled Senior Service? A national survey of services for older Australians with a mental illness, 1999, exposes widespread neglect of older Australians living with a mental illness. The findings contained in this report leave me with very little doubt that older Australians with a mental illness currently face a wide range of unmet needs. The report begins by asking if anything has really changed since 1993, when the statement was made that `In the competition for scarce mental health resources, the elderly take low priority.' That of course appeared in the Burdekin report into the human rights of people with a mental illness. Sadly, SANE Australia concludes that, in 1999, very little has changed. As the report puts it:For the tens of thousands of Australians growing older with a mental illness, who still live in rundown boarding homes or are homeless, who remain on what one clinician has called industrial strength doses of older antipsychotic agents which are not reviewed, whose only clinical support is an occasional visit to a GP, and who receive no support to access rehabilitation and recreation, the answer would surely be `Not a lot has really changed. In this, the International Year of Older Persons, SANE Australia is finding that people growing older with a mental illness are one of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in Australian society. That is disappointing, and it is clearly unacceptable.It is not fair, it seems to me, to ignore the unmet needs of older Australians living with a mental illness. There are already around 103,000 people over 60 affected by mental illness, and of course Australia's population, like that of many Western countries, is rapidly ageing. It is a widely accepted fact that, by the year 2001, 18 per cent of Australians will be over 60. By the year 2021, this figure is expected to have grown to a whopping 25 per cent. I think it must be assumed that this rapid growth will be accompanied by a rapid growth in the number of older Australians with mental illness and, of course, a rapid growth in the need for specific and appropriate services to assist them.As SANE Australia rightly points out, there is now an urgent need to plan care for this group, and that includes support, mental health care and specialised accommodation. Responsibility for services needed by older Australians living with a mental illness is currently shared by the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The fact that neither tier of government has sole responsibility for these services means that neither has assumed responsibility and that both will pass the buck to the other all too readily.Mental health services are funded by the states and territories together with local government, whilst aged care, frail aged services, residential aged care and community care packages are handled by the Commonwealth and, of course, partly by local government. Home and community care services are jointly funded by states and territories, local government and the Commonwealth. The needs of older Australians living with mental illness can therefore only be met with a joint effort between the three tiers of government.SANE Australia's report suggests that policy makers need to begin by asking three broad questions when considering future strategies for addressing and funding needs in this area: what recognition is there of the treatment and support needs of people growing older with a mental illness, as distinct from people with age-related illnesses; what policies and funding are in place with a specific focus on people growing older with a mental illness; and what services actually exist for people growing older with a mental illness. When considering these questions, it is important to recognise that some regions are already doing better than others. In fact, according to SANE Australia, there are indeed some excellent programs already in place. However, as the report says, `The tragedy is that these programs remain isolated examples.'Clearly, what should be happening now is that we should be looking at extending these programs, which have been shown to be successful in every state and territory in the country. I would like to finish with a quote from Associate Professor John Snowdon from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, who said, on welcoming the work undertaken by SANE Australia, `So often the focus on the problems and tragedies of young adults with mental illness often seems blind to the continuing tragedy experienced by many older Australians.'In this International Year of Older Persons, I call on the government to recognise, without further delay, the unmet needs of older Australians living with mental illness. I call on all tiers of government to work together to improve links between existing services and adopt a partnership approach to policies and funding affecting older Australians living with mental illness.Senate adjourned at 7.24 p.m.Documents80688068The following government document was tabled:Reserve Bank of Australia—Report for 1998-99.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Customs Act—Notice No. 2 (1999).Excise Act—Notice No. 2 (1999). 8068The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 August 1999:Environment—Answers to Questions—Copies of answers to questions put to the Department of Environment and Heritage during budget estimates hearings 1999-2000— Environment and Heritage portfolio— All agencies [1]. Australian Greenhouse Office— Corporate [1]. Sustainable Energy Group [3] Department of the Environment—Policy Coordination Division [4 and attachment]. Department of the Environment and Heritage—Marine [4]. Environment—Biodiversity Group [7] Environment Australia— Australian and the World Heritage Group [5]. Environment Protection [7 and attachments [3]].8068The 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—Australia Council.Australian Broadcasting Authority.Australian Broadcasting Commission.Australian Communications Authority.Australian Electoral Commission.Australian Film Commission.Australian Industrial Relations Registry.Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.Australian National Maritime Museum.Australian Trade Commission.Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.Department of Finance and Administration, Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing. Department of Defence.Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Affirmative Action Agency and Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal.National Gallery of Australia.National Museum of Australia.National Occupational Health and Safety Commission.Office of Employment Advocate (nil return).ScreenSound Australia.Special Broadcasting Service.Answers to Questions on Notice8070The following answers to questions were circulated:8070(Question No. 1014)10148070Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator Ferris5L6SALP10 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 June 1999:(1) (a) What was the total expenditure; and (b) was any additional amount committed for renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings at (i) Kirribilli House; and (ii) The Lodge, during the period 1 March 1993 to 1 March 1996.(2) With reference to The Lodge and Kirribilli House, what was: (a) the nature of; (b) the location of; and (c) the cost of expenditure on, major renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings from 1 January 1993 to 3 March 1996.(3) What was the total cost of security works and maintenance undertaken in the period 1 January 1993 to 3 March 1996.8070Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department that the details are as follows.(1) (a) (i) $102,827.69.(a) (ii) $520,389.20.(b) (i) Yes. $6,990.(b )(ii) No.(2) (a—c) From 1 January 1993 to 3 March 1996 there were no major renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings at Kirribilli House. During this period, the following major renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings were undertaken at The Lodge.DateWork UndertakenCost ($)March 1993Final payment for carport and carpark facilities (22.5% of total expenditure)50,950April 1993Make and supply two sofas, two arm chairs and one footstool and cushions21,468.80May 1994Purchase and install Rational oven16,283.00August 1994Purchase three light fittings8,250.00February—May 1995Driveway upgrade164,895.00November 1995Final driveway upgrade payment12,166.20Other information relevant to this question was provided in my answer to parliamentary question number 2705 published on 15 July 1998 (House of Representatives Hansard , pp 6204-6206).(3) $397,497.32 ($252,210.12 for The Lodge and $145,287.20 for Kirribilli House).8070(Question No. 1095)10958070O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:With reference to the answer (reference EXEC03(S)) to a question asked during additional estimates supplementary hearings on 4 May and 6 May 1999, in which the Minister advised that, a fringe benefits tax (FBT) of $6,692.97 was paid on functions attended by the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp): (a) How many functions in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years attracted FBT; and (b) what was: (i) the nature of expenditure for each function, (ii) the type of each function, and (iii) the classification of attendees that required the tax to be paid.8070Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) My Department has advised that FBT was applicable in respect of 15 functions in the 1996-97 financial year and 12 functions in the 1997-98 financial year. In respect of these functions, FBT is only applicable to certain classes of those who attended.(b)DateNature of ExpenditureType of FunctionClassification of Attendees leading to FBT13-08-96 Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on aviation mattersMinister's Staff19-09-96 Official HospitalityDrinks; meeting with media representativesMinister26-09-96Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on aviation mattersMinister's Staff2-10-96Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on UK experience with rail reformMinister's Staff Commonwealth Employee15-10-96 Official HospitalityDinner; meeting with media representativesMinister's Staff7-11-96Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on Shipping Reform Group progressCommonwealth Employee28-11-96Official HospitalityDinner; Shipping Reform Group meetingMinister's Staff11-12-96Official HospitalityDinner; in Honour of Dr Haryanto, Indonesian Minister for CommunicationsMinister's Wife Minister's Staff Commonwealth Employee18-02-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on aviation mattersMinister's Staff4-03-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on transport mattersMinister's Staff Commonwealth Employee25-03-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion with Shipping Reform GroupCommonwealth Employee3-04-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussions on transport related issuesMinister's Staff 8-04-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on aviation mattersCommonwealth Employee20-05-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on Program Advisory Panel's work programMinister's Staff 3-06-97 Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on transport mattersMinister's Staff Commonwealth Employee3-07-97 Official HospitalityLunch; meeting with media representativeMinister9-07-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on Supermarket to Asia issuesMinister's Staff 22-07-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on transport mattersMinister's Staff 30-07-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on Australia/Indonesian transport issuesCommonwealth Employee 4-08-97 Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on transport mattersMinister's Staff 13-08-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussion on CASA issuesMinister's Staff 15-08-97Official HospitalityDinner; discuss transport issuesMinister Minister's Wife25-08-97Official HospitalityDinner; CASA Review Commonwealth Employee2-09-97Official HospitalityDinner; discussions on Australia/Japan transport issuesMinister's Staff 3-09-97Official HospitalityDinner; to discuss Airspace 2000Commonwealth Employee15-09-97Official HospitalityLunch; meeting with media representativeMinister's Staff 22-09-97Official HospitalityDinner; meeting with media representativeMinister's Staff 8072(Question No. 1103)11038072O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial years.8072Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations Program (GVCO)National Estate Grants Program (NEGP)Cultural Heritage Projects Program (CHPP)Federation Cultural and Heritage Program (FCHP)Bureau of Meteorology Services—Tasmania RegionNatural Heritage Trust Projects:- Bushcare Program- National Wetlands Program- Waterwatch Program- Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry (AFFA) and Environment Australia (EA) Joint Projects- National Reserves Systems Program.- Endangered Species Program- Tasmanian Strategic Natural Heritage Program—Nature Based Tourism- Riverworks Tasmania Projects- Coastcare Program- Clean Seas Program- Coastal Monitoring Program- Introduced Marine Pests Program- Coastal and Marine Planning Program(2-3)LEVEL OF FUNDINGThe following table shows, for each of the programs and grants identified in the answer to question 1 above where available, actual expenditures in 1997-98 and 1998-99 and estimated expenditure in 1999-2000. For the two programs marked * at the end of the table, the amounts represent total expenditure in Tasmania rather than expenditure in Bass as funds are provided on a State-wide basis. No estimates have been provided for those programs/grants marked ** in 1999-2000 as allocations have not yet been decided.PROGRAM/GRANT1997-98 $1998-99 $ESTIMATED FUNDING 1999-2000 $GVCO15,00010,000**NEGP (subsumed by CHPP with effect from 1999-2000)30,000130,685CHPP ***FCHP415,000Bureau of Meteorology Services795,000799,000818,000Natural Heritage Trust:**- Bushcare Program40,545132,990**- National Wetlands Program49,00031,376**- Waterwatch Program108,040101,219**- AFFA/EA Joint Projects46,000**- National Reserves Systems Program29,200121,900- Endangered Species Program*40,000142,018**- Tasmanian Strategic Natural Heritage Program—Nature Based Tourism*2,395,0002,725,000- Riverworks Tasmania Projects381,000200,000**- Coastcare Program39,78323,845**- Clean Seas Program3,354346,023**- Coastal Monitoring Program115,1153,690**- Introduced Marine Pests Program103,583**- Coastal and Marine Planning Program150,000**TOTAL1,662,8374,598,6294,079,900* It is not possible to identify how much of these funds were spent within Bass as all projects cover most of the north-east Tasmania.** Allocations have not yet been decided for a number of grants/programs.8073(Question No. 1115)11158073O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.8073Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Commonwealth Legal Aid Program—funds are provided to the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania for Commonwealth legal aid matters. These funds are used by the Commission to provide legal aid services in Commonwealth matters across Tasmania. While it is not possible to identify how much of the funding is provided to the electorate of Bass, some funds would go to private practitioners to provide services in the electorate. The Commission also have a number of regional offices established throughout Tasmania. For the electoral division of Bass, the regional office is in Launceston.Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program—funding is provided to the Launceston Community Legal Service which would provide legal assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass. The Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program also provides funding to the Women's Legal Service, Tenants' Union of Tasmania and Environmental Defender's Office (Tas); all are located in Hobart but are funded to provide services across the whole of Tasmania.(2) The total Commonwealth grants paid to the Commission for the Commonwealth Legal Aid Program for the years requested are: . 1997-98 $3,720,000; 48% of which was spent on matters referred to private practitioners.. 1998-99 $3,720,000; the Commonwealth's data is incomplete in relation to the amount spent on matters referred to private practitioners, but it is in the order of 44%.In relation to the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program, funding provided to the Launceston Community Legal Service was $206,039 for 1997-98 and $218,243 for 1998-99.(3) The total Commonwealth grants to be provided to the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania for the year 1999-2000 will be $3,720,000.Funds to be allocated to the Launceston Community Legal Service in 1999-2000 will be $219,733.8074(Question No. 1185)11858074O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:(1) What was the staffing establishment for the setting and maintaining of aviation standards section of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as at (a) 30 June 1995; (b) 30 June 1996; (c) 30 June 1997; (d) 30 June 1998; and (e) 30 June 1999.(2) What was the staffing establishment for the regulatory enforcement section of CASA as at (a) 30 June 1995; (b) 30 June 1996; (c) 30 June 1997; (d) 30 June 1998; and (e) 30 June 1999.(3) What was the staffing establishment for the safety checks and inspections of aircraft section of CASA as at (a) 30 June 1995; (b) 30 June 1996; (c) 30 June 1997; (d) 30 June 1998; and (e) 30 June 1999.(4) What was the staffing establishment for the monitoring of safety performance and identification of safety trends and risks section of CASA as at (a) 30 June 1995; (b) 30 June 1996; (c) 30 June 1997; (d) 30 June 1998; and (e) 30 June 1999.(5) What was the staffing establishment for the section within CASA that communicates with the aviation industry and the travelling public on aviation safety matters as at (a) 30 June 1995; (b) 30 June 1996; (c) 30 June 1997; (d) 30 June 1998; and (e) 30 June 1999.8074Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided the following information:Establishment figures requested "as at 30 June 1995" are not able to be provided as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority was not established until 6 July 1995.(1)30 June `9630 June `9730 June `9830 June `99167168146161(2)30 June `9630 June `9730 June `9830 June `9911141414(3)30 June `9630 June `9730 June `9830 June `99205206209208(4)30 June `9630 June `9730 June `9830 June `99214215217223(5)30 June `9630 June `9730 June `9830 June `99192524258075(Question No. 1196)11968075O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 July 1999:(1) Does the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) encourage its employees to undertake external studies; if so, what direct financial assistance does CASA provide to employees undertaking further studies.(2) How many hours per week are CASA employees able to spend away from their workplace to undertake studies.(3) Are CASA employees who are undertaking external studies able to use CASA facilities, or resources, during or after work hours for that purpose; if so, what limits are placed on the use of CASA resources or facilities for external studies.8075Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised that:CASA has established a staff development program (the Program) which is designed to meet the professional needs of its officers. The Program acknowledges the need for certain officers to possess and maintain mandatory technical qualifications. It also recognises the benefits of staff undertaking further studies (and training) as part of their professional development.During 1998-99, CASA spent approximately $1.6m on non-salary training expenses. This can be attributed to three main external forms—technical (aviation-related); tertiary (university, TAFE etc); and workplace related training. The Program is reviewed from time-to-time to reflect recommendations made by external inquiries such as Plane Safe, Seaview, Monarch and reports by the Australian National Audit Office.As a general principle, CASA permits reasonable costs associated with training and where necessary has guidelines in place. CASA also permits reasonable access to resources and facilities.(1) CASA provides at its discretion, assistance to staff who undertake external studies in the form of both leave and financial assistance. CASA's "Assistance to Employees for Study" provisions are contained in Section 3 of its Staff Policy Manual (SPM). A copy of that Section has been provided to the Table Office.Essentially, CASA may provide approved students with 5 hours paid study leave per week during normal business hours together with up to an additional 3 hours travelling time per week, where the study activities are not available outside normal office hours. Paid leave may also be granted to travel to attend and return from examinations associated with an approved course. In addition, leave may also be granted to allow an employee to follow full-time study when the study is useful and relevant to CASA. Up to a maximum of 3 consecutive years unpaid leave may be approved.Under the terms of Sub-Section 3.4 of the SPM (refer to the attachment), CASA reimburses compulsory tuition and examination fees as well as HECs fees subject to the successful completion of the studies.For short courses, which are usually up to 200 hours in length, CASA may sponsor the employee by paying related costs, excluding the cost of books, if the employee is asked/directed to attend the course. The leave to attend is automatic in these circumstances.(2) The time CASA employees are able to spend away from their workplace to undertake studies is covered in the answer to Question 1.(3) Access to CASA facilities and resources by students undertaking external studies is at the discretion of local managers. Consideration for reasonable use of such resources would be given to employees undertaking studies which they have been asked/directed to undertake or which are deemed to be useful and relevant to CASA.8076(Question No. 1198)11988076O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 July 1999:(1) Was the Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance interviewed, either formally or informally, by Mr Stephen Skehill, as part of Mr Skehill's inquiry into the regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Aquatic Air, trading as South Pacific Seaplanes; if so: (a) what was the reason for the interview or interviews; (b) on how many occasions was the Assistant Director interviewed; and (c) what was the outcome of the interview or interviews; if not, why not.(2) Has there been any contact at all between Mr Skehill and the Assistant Director since Mr Skehill was engaged to undertake the inquiry into the Aquatic Air incident.(3) Was any member of CASA's Safety committee interviewed, either formally or informally, by Mr Skehill as part of Mr Skehill's inquiry into the regulation by CASA of Aquatic Air, trading as South Pacific Seaplanes; if so: (a) who was interviewed; (b) what was the reason for the interview; (c) on how many occasions were interviews with committee members conducted; and (d) what was the outcome of those interviews; if no interviews were held, why not.8076Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Neither the Minister for Transport and Regional Services nor the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has any direct and detailed knowledge of the processes followed by Mr Skehill in the conduct of his inquiry into the regulation by the Authority of Aquatic Air Pty Ltd (trading as South Pacific Seaplanes). Accordingly the honourable Senator's questions were referred by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to Mr Skehill for his consideration. He has advised as follows:(1) The Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance was not interviewed by Mr Skehill, either formally or informally, in the course of the inquiry. Mr Skehill did not perceive any need to personally interview the present occupant of that position which was only newly created at the time of the inquiry, although some factual matters concerning that person's prior activities in his capacity as a member of the Authority's Safety Committee were clarified with him by a senior member of the team assigned to assist Mr Skehill. The former occupant of the pre-existing position of General Manager, Aviation Safety Compliance, who had been directly involved in the matters under consideration, was interviewed by Mr Skehill.(2) Mr Skehill had no personal contact with the present Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance prior to the presentation of the report of his inquiry on 29 October 1998. In more recent times he has met that Assistant Director on two occasions, on 17 and 28 June 1999, as one of a number of attendees at meetings unrelated to the inquiry.(3) No member of the Authority's Safety Committee was interviewed by Mr Skehill, either formally or informally, in the course of the inquiry. Mr Skehill did not perceive any need to interview any such person as he had access to relevant records of the proceedings of that Committee. He did however interview various officers who prepared reports for that Committee. Details of those reports and of the Committee's dealings with them, and Mr Skehill's assessment of such, are set out in his report which has been previously tabled in the Parliament.8076(Question No. 1199)11998076O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 July 1999:With reference to the answer to the question on notice No.8 (Senate Hansard 15 February 1999, p1934) in which the Minister advised that Mr Barry Diamond resigned as south east manager for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) effective from 30 June 1997 and that while the CASA Board did not formally note Mr Diamond's resignation, and was not required to, matters relating to his resignation were discussed by the Board on 23 May 1997:(1) What were the matters relating to Mr Diamond's resignation discussed by the Board on 23 May 1997.(2) Were those discussions noted in the minutes of the Board's meeting.(3) If the Board's discussions about Mr Diamond's resignation were not recorded in the minutes of 23 May 1997, what was the basis of answer 3(c) to question on notice No.8.8076Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided the following information:(1) The details of the Board's discussion on 23 May 1997 of Mr Diamond's resignation are not recorded in the Minutes of the meeting.(2) The fact that discussion took place is noted in the Minutes, but not the substance of the discussion.(3) See (2) above.8077(Question No. 1200)12008077O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 July 1999:(1) (a) When was the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board Safety Committee established; (b) who initiated the establishment of the committee; and (c) why was it established.(2) (a) What is the membership of the committee; and (b) has that membership varied since the committee was first established.(3) (a) Who has chaired the committee since its establishment; and (b) how many times has it met.(4) (a) Have minutes been kept of all meetings of the committee; (b) have those minutes been endorsed by the full CASA Board; and (c) were all committee minutes endorsed by the board at the first available opportunity; if not, on how many occasions was there a delay in the endorsement of the minutes by the full board.(5) Where a delay in the endorsement of the minutes occurred what was the date of each committee meeting and on what date did the Board endorse the minutes.(6) (a) Who has been responsible for the taking of minutes for the committee since it was established; (b) what procedures were followed in the drafting and clearing of the minutes; and (c) how long after each meeting were draft minutes circulated.(7) What procedures were followed by members of the committee to check and endorse the draft minutes as accurately reflecting the proceedings of each meeting.(8) Was the adoption of the minutes done out of session by way of correspondence or at the next available formal meeting of the committee; if not, how and when were minutes formally endorsed.8077Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided the following information:(1) (a) 24 October 1997; (b) the CASA Board; and (c) the Board was of the view that its resources would be more effectively used through the establishment of a committee which would monitor matters relating to civil aviation safety.(2) (a) the Committee comprises at least two independent (non ex officio) members. The Director of Aviation Safety attends all meetings; and (b) Yes. Inaugural Committee members were Mr Bruce Byron (Chairman) and Mr Laurie Foley. Mr Foley remained a member until his resignation from the Board on 19 June 1998. Mr Tony Pyne joined the Committee on 17 March 1998. Mick Ryan joined the Committee on 4 September 1998.(3) (a) Until his retirement from the Board on 30 June 1999, Mr Byron was Chairman of the Safety Committee. Mr Pyne became Chairman of the Committee on 6 July 1999; and (b) The Committee has met 19 times.(4) (a) Yes. Minutes have been kept of all meetings of the Safety Committee; (b) No. The Safety Committee's Charter does not require that its Minutes be endorsed by the Board. In accordance with its Charter, however, the Committee does report to the Board on a monthly basis. Furthermore, copies of the Minutes of Safety Committee meetings are sent to all Board members; and (c) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable. (See 4 above.)(6)(a) The Board Secretariat is responsible for the taking of Minutes.(b) Draft Minutes are initially provided by the Board Secretariat to the Chairman for comment on accuracy. Following his consideration, the draft Minutes are included in the papers for the next Committee meeting. These papers are distributed to Committee members, the Director and relevant CASA managers during the week prior to the next Safety Committee meeting. The Minutes incorporating amendments agreed by the Committee are formally ratified during that next Committee meeting.(c) Draft Minutes are circulated to Committee members in sufficient time to enable their consideration prior to the meeting. All Committee members have reasonable opportunity to ensure that the contents of the Minutes accurately reflect the proceedings of a meeting.(7) Refer to CASA's answer to Question 6.(8) No. Minutes are not endorsed out of session. Refer to CASA's answer to Question 6. 8078(Question No. 1226)12268078O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 August 1999:(1) Has the Bureau of Air Safety investigation (BASI) investigated an air safety incident between an Air Force P-3C Orion and a civilian aircraft that occurred during the search for sailors participating in the 1998 Sydney Hobart Yacht Race.(2) (a) When was BASI first advised of the incident;(b) who advised BASI; and(c) when was the investigation completed.(3) Can a copy be provided of the BASI report on the incident.8078Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The reported incident involving a Royal Australian Air Force P-3C Orion and a civilian aircraft, that occurred during the search for sailors participating in the Sydney Hobart yacht race, is a joint Directorate of Flying Safety—Australian Defence Forces (DFS-ADF)/BASI investigation.The DFS-ADF has prime carriage of the investigation with BASI support. A joint BASI/ADF report will be released on completion of the investigation.(2) (a) BASI was advised of this incident on 4 January 1999.(b) The DFS-ADF.(c) The investigation is continuing.(3) A copy of the report will be forwarded to Senator O'Brien when it is completed.