1999-09-013914SENATE807901999-09-01The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Privilege80798079The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—The Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee, by letters dated 29 June and 10 August 1999, has raised with me a matter of privilege under standing order 81.The committee stated in its initial letter that there was an unauthorised disclosure of a draft report of the committee relating to its inquiry into regional employment and unemployment. The committee indicated that it undertook the preliminary steps in relation to such an unauthorised disclosure which the Privileges Committee recommended should be undertaken and which the Senate, by adopting the Privileges Committee report, endorsed. The committee came to a conclusion that its proceedings had been affected and its inquiry compromised by the unauthorised disclosure, and conducted a preliminary investigation of its own members and the committee secretariat.In its second letter the committee provides evidence suggesting that the initial disclosure of the draft report occurred by inadvertence. The committee is concerned, however, with the subsequent dealings with the draft report after that initial disclosure. The committee reiterates that its inquiry was compromised by the disclosure.The standing orders require me to determine whether a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee should have precedence. I am required to have regard to criteria essentially going to the seriousness of the matter. I am not required to consider the evidence available or findings which might be made. Past presidential rulings have indicated that a matter will be given precedence if it is capable of being held by the Senate to meet the relevant criteria. The Senate, like the committee, could well regard events after the initial disclosure of the draft report as raising serious questions.The matter therefore meets the criteria I am required to consider when determining whether a motion for a reference to the Privileges Committee should have precedence. I therefore determine that precedence be given to a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. I table the material provided by the Employment Committee. Notice of a motion may be now given to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee.Notices80798079Senator Jacinta Collins to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges:Whether there were unauthorised disclosures of, and dealings with, a draft report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee in relation to its inquiry into regional employment and unemployment, and, if so, whether any contempts were committed by those unauthorised disclosures and dealings.Business8079Motion (by Senator Heffernan, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell), agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing orders 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.Bills8079r6468079Consideration resumed from 31 August.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendments (R4) and (6) moved by Senator Forshaw be agreed to.09:34:008079Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—These amendments by the Labor Party would ensure that regional forest agreements, which, as the committee by now may be aware, are not to be vetted by this parliament under existing provisions, would be brought before both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The regional forest agreements are signed by the Prime Minister and whichever state Premier is relevant. They involve the handing across of tens of millions of dollars—$200 million all up—of taxpayers' money which goes essentially into infrastructure to boost the profits of the big woodchip corporations through building roads into more and more remote and important wild native forests so that those forests can be logged, burnt and then treated with 1080 poison—a process which is described under this legislation as ecologically sustainable logging.The forests themselves are the property of the Australian people, from the world heritage rainforests, which are currently being logged and burnt in Tasmania and piled into woodchips at Burnie to be exported to the paper mills of Japan, to the giant contentious forests of Western Australia, to the forests right up through New South Wales, to the forests of East Gippsland. The shortcoming of this amendment is that it does not include the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement or those of East Gippsland or the Central Highlands of Victoria. That is because the Labor opposition joined with the government to give Tasmania and eastern Victoria second-class treatment here. That was under the pressure of the Bacon Labor government in Tasmania, which is totally subservient to the woodchip corporations. As I have said on a number of occasions, one cannot judge the influence that is brought on the big parties by the massive donations coming out of woodchip corporations like North—the biggest woodchipper in the southern hemisphere—Boral and Bunnings, and going into the electoral coffers of the coalition and the Labor Party.That gives a clue as to why we are dealing with legislation which is going to extend for 20 years the destruction of Australia's wild forests, the wildlife in them and their ancient ecosystems, and indeed their heritage values, extending from natural heritage to the indigenous people's heritage in this country—against the wishes of 80 per cent of the Australian people, the owners of those forests. The woodchip corporations have been able to levy such untoward influence that we are dealing with legislation today which sells out the interests of the majority of voters in this country. The polls show that that is not just the majority of Green voters or Democrat voters but also Labor voters, coalition voters and, extraordinarily enough, One Nation voters, even though One Nation would like to open even national parks to logging, according to candidates in the last federal election.So the biggest woodchip domain in the country—two-thirds of export woodchips come out of the little island of Tasmania—is excluded from this Labor amendment because of the pressure of the woodchip corporations on the Bacon Labor government in Tasmania, where Labor is even worse than the Liberals. Labor wanted to send to the woodchippers some 50,000 hectares of grand forests in Tasmania which even the Liberal Party down there would have been nauseated to have seen sent to the woodchippers and decided to protect. Of course, it was at that time dependent on the votes of Christine Milne, Peg Putt and Di Hollister in the Tasmanian parliament to ensure it stayed in office. Because those three Greens were in the parliament, along with Michael Foley in Franklin, 50,000 hectares of forests were protected. But they do not have the balance of power at the moment. Peg Putt is still in the Tasmanian parliament, despite the degradation of democracy in that state when Labor and Liberal got together last year, largely over the forest issue, to change the Constitution Act to make it wellnigh impossible for some of the Greens at least to win an election under the new rules.The hand of the woodchip corporations can be seen right through this, and the power they extend into the Labor Party is at least the power they push through into the Liberal Party. That being so, we are left with an amendment now which would bring in the regional forest agreements in New South Wales and central and western Victoria. Senator Troeth, who is the spokesperson for the government here today, throughout this debate has solidly refused to give any detail about the impact of this legislation on the forests of her own neighbourhood of western Victoria, let alone the rest of the country.Importantly to the people of Western Australia, the regional forest agreement there would be brought before this chamber for assessment. That is quite proper because, as I said, hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money will flow from this legislation through the government to the woodchip corporations but only a small proportion of that will then flow back through donations to the government. It is important that parliament vets the expenditure of taxpayers' money wherever it might be, just as it is important that parliament vets what happens to this nation's heritage, not least its forest heritage, where 50 per cent of the species of plants and animal life in this country live and which is now targeted for destruction under this legislation supported by both the big parties.It is very important that this amendment gets up. I am heavy-hearted about the fact that Tasmania, East Gippsland and the Central Highlands of Victoria have been excluded by the Labor Party. Unfortunately, I do not control the numbers, as you know, Madam Chairman, and this is the best we can get out of it, so I will be supporting these amendments.09:43:008081Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I just want to say briefly that we Democrats tried earlier in the piece to ensure that all RFAs could be revisited and perhaps renegotiated and at the very least we could have the opportunity for disallowance here in the chamber. We were not successful with that, and I think that is to the detriment of the whole process. However, the amendment that we have before us will allow at the very least the opportunity now to revisit the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement, over which there has been so much emotion and tension because of the inept way both the state and federal governments have dealt with it. There is a real chance, I hope, to get some gains in terms of ensuring that, if we must have an RFA for that state, it is one that is far more environmentally appropriate and ecologically sustainable, to the extent that that can be achieved under the current dynamics of this chamber.I share with Senator Brown the regret that the Labor amendment in this instance does not open up the opportunity to revisit all the regional forest agreements, but at the very least it does allow—to the great joy, I think, of many Western Australians—the opportunity to engage again in the dialogue and try and achieve a far better outcome, most particularly in terms of environmental aspects in relation to that particular RFA. So the Democrats will be supporting this amendment, but we regret that it does not go further. The Hansard will show that as a party we tried.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown.09:45:008081Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Chair, I can do without the intonation that there is some frustration with the fact that I am giving my best to contribute to this debate. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, whether the government has legal advice as to any constitutional ramifications of states being treated differently under this clause; that is, the regional forest agreements for Tasmania and for the East Gippsland component of Victoria being denied scrutiny by the parliament, whereas regional forest agreements for elsewhere will get scrutiny. Section 99 of the Constitution says that in certain matters the Commonwealth shall not treat different states or regions of Australia differently. I wonder if the government has sought or has any legal advice on the impact of this particular amendment, if it were passed, so far as that constitutional requirement is concerned.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendments (R4) and (6) be agreed to.09:46:008081Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Is the government going to respond to that or is Senator Troeth simply going to sit on her seat, unable to give any information to this committee? This is an important matter and I think the very fact that there is no response at all—not even a yes or a no to that question—is a cavalier way of treating a very important matter that Australians are concerned about. I would expect that the government would be able to respond to such a simple question as to whether advice has been sought or not, even if the senator representing the government is not prepared to give the substance of that advice to this chamber to help it determine how it should vote.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—We have already given it and you know it. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Forshaw's ) be agreed to.09:51:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.*Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.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.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bourne, V. Alston, R. K. R.Murphy, S. M. Payne, M. A.Schacht, C. C. Campbell, I. G.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.09:54:008082Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The next amendment to be dealt with is the one I am bringing forward on behalf of the Australian Greens which would ensure that regional forest agreements that are amended after they have been vetted by parliament would then come back to parliament for viewing. But there is still some work to be done on that by other people in the committee, and I would ask that we hold over this amendment until a later time.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is it the wish of the committee that that be deferred until later? It is; therefore, Senator Greig is the next to speak.09:55:008082Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 3 on sheet 1294, as revised:(3) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 10), after paragraph (d) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (da) the agreement is expressed to expire at the end of 3 years after it was entered into;This amendment seeks to allow for a sunset clause expiry after three years for each regional forestry agreement. This is not to be confused with our later amendment to put in a sunset clause for the whole act. We Democrats believe that 20 years of native forest clearing and woodchipping is clearly too long. We think that any government policy or program could do with a review after a few years.There is much scientific evidence that the decisions made so far are problematic. Indeed, I again cite the case in Western Australia where changes were made to the RFAs within weeks of them being signed. I think it is a very reasonable request to have sunset clauses in order to review the process, and I believe a three-year period from the date of assent of this legislation is more than reasonable.09:56:008082Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will not be supporting this amendment. We believe that it injects an even greater lack of certainty into the process and certainly would not encourage investment in, and commitment to, the industry in the way we would like to see under the proposed legislation.I also point out to Senator Brown that, with regard to his previous question regarding legal advice on the previous amendment, it is not the fault of the government if he consistently does not hear or misunderstands what I do say when I speak on behalf of the government. Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman Watson, Senator Brown must realise very well that, under his previous amendments Nos 2, 3 and 7, I read out to him the legal advice given to the government, and I will reinforce this now so that there can be no mistake as to the legal advice the government has received. I do ask that Senator Brown listen particularly closely to this. The legal advice provided to the government from the Office of General Counsel on 10 August 1999, is on pages 4 to 5, paragraphs 7(b), 8 and 9. Paragraph 9 states:There is, in our view, no way consistently with section 99, that the existence of an RFA for a region can be made to depend on the RFA surviving a process of parliamentary approval or disallowance. This is the case whether all, or only some, RFAs are subjected to that process.09:58:008083Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank Senator Troeth for that catch-up. I want to support Senator Greig's amendment. Again, as with all these amendments, it gets increasingly obvious that the whole show is being run by a handful of woodchip corporations and the boards of those corporations, most of whom have never been to see the forest ecosystems they intend to destroy to make a quick profit by exporting Australia's forests out of this country for downstream processing elsewhere in the world, and, ultimately, most of them end up on the rubbish dumps of unnecessary landfills in Japan and Korea.Senator Greig's amendment says, `Let's have the RFAs reviewed in three years.' The woodchip industry says to the government, to which it gives these instructions, `No, we need 20 years to make sure that all the unprotected forests of Australia have been cut down'—they use the term `harvested'—and for the wholesale destruction of these wild forests that most Australians want protected.In the way of that destruction are things like 10,000 hectares of koala habitat in New South Wales in the catchment area of the wholly Japanese-owned Harris Daishowa mill at Eden. In Tasmania, world heritage value forests are at stake, which, according to world experts, are the tallest hardwood forests in the world. The largest temperate rainforest in Australia is the Tarkine wilderness in the north-west of the state, which Senator Calvert, a government senator from Tasmania, tried to establish yesterday did not exist. That an extraordinary intervention. The only thing that does not exist in this debate, unfortunately, is the conscience which would allow the government to do its proper job in defending these regions.As Senator Greig said, in his home state of Western Australia there has been ferment over the way in which the Court government, with Prime Minister John Howard having put his signature on a regional forest document, is moving to destroy large areas of old-growth forests, which the people of Western Australia do not want destroyed.What the woodchip corporations want is 20 years of no review of their activities in the forests. It is Bunnings in Western Australia and it is North Forest Products in Tasmania, which, the committee may be aware, is also the company that is mining for uranium at Jabiluka against the wishes of the Mirrar people. It is Boral in New South Wales, in Tasmania, and so on. They have agents like the Department of Conservation and Land Management in Western Australia and Forestry Tasmania dancing to their tune, and they simply see this as a domain where they will be able to get on with their work of destruction for a quick profit, with downstream processing overseas.All they have to do is to cut these forests down, get them to a wharf and put them through a giant woodchip mill, the biggest of which—newly established in Tasmania at Hampshire, just south of Burnie—can shred more than 1,000 tonnes of forest each year while employing just 10 people to work the computers that work the machines that shard these fantastic rainforests in a couple of days into woodchip piled on the wharves. You will have seen them in Burnie, Mr Temporary Chairman Watson.These forests, which have been growing for centuries and harbour the spectrum of magnificent wildlife—the possums, the birds, the eagles, the bats and the extraordinary array of insect life—will be suddenly destroyed, within months, if not days, and turned into chip to be exported to downstream processing, where the jobs and profitability are. There is a 1,000 per cent mark-up for the overseas buyers of these wrecked forests, and this wreckage is subsidised by this government. Money is being taken out of the taxpayers' pockets to pay for that destructive process, and the government does not want that even reviewed by parliament. Now it says, `Three years of this destructive activity is not enough. We want 20 years handed across to our donors in the woodchip corporations—the people who donate to our electoral coffers.'As I said, Hazel Henderson, an economist from the United States with whom I had dinner here last year and to whom I explained this process to, said that that is corruption. In the United States it would not be allowed, but here it is. It is not just the woodchip cycle but it is the money cycle that has to be seen if you are going to understand why not only the government but the opposition can go along with this process, despite the wishes of 80 per cent of Australians. It is eminently sensible that this process be reviewed in three years.Can the government cite an analogous case for allowing a process such as this, with such massive ramifications on the interests of this nation, not least young Australians—20-year-olds today—who will be able to do nothing about this until they are 40? Can the government cite an analogous case for removing from parliaments and governments the right for review of a national asset of this extraordinary importance for 20 years? I challenge Senator Troeth, on behalf of Wilson Tuckey and Robert Hill, who are the ministers for conservation and the environment respectively—at least they are the titles they have—to get up and give an analogous case. So far as I can remember, never has there been such subservience to such a minority of financially interested players who could not give a hoot about the jobs in the industry, the downstream profit making for this country and the balance of payments in this country, let alone the environmental ramifications. I will wait and see, but I doubt Senator Troeth will get up with any defence at all of the government's intention to vote down this amendment.10:06:008084Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will not support this amendment, moved by the Democrats. The RFA process and RFA agreements are about providing security. It is security on both sides. I use the word `sides' to this debate, but it is something we want to get away from. We want to get away from this continual concept of battle grounds or sides between the conservationists on the one hand and industry, workers and communities on the other. The process is about providing resource security for the industry and security in terms of the reserve system.These agreements have been negotiated over some time now on the basis of a 20-year period. This period is necessary to ensure security so that investment can take place in industry to promote downstream processing and value adding, so that the appropriate structural adjustments can occur and so that security of the reserve system is actually meaningful rather than something subjected to a year-by-year decision or, in this case, a three-year termination. It would be quite wrong at this stage to limit that period back to three years when people have, in good faith, negotiated and developed agreements on the basis of long-term security.I must also say that it is quite wrong to suggest that there is no review process. There is a review process. It is required that a review take place every five years. So it was quite wrong for Senator Brown to stand up and say that there is no review. I am sure, given the earnest dedication of Senator Brown to his cause and given the establishment, we hope, of a wood and paper industry council that will consider the industry issues, that there will be ongoing review. These are not agreements that will just be signed and then disappear off into some bottom drawer to be not revisited. I do not mean `revisited' in the sense of continuing to look at them for the purposes of redrafting or amendment, but rather `revisiting' in terms of ensuring on an ongoing basis that all of the objectives of the national forest policy statement are being met and are being advanced.We cannot support an amendment which seeks to limit the operation of such agreements—and, effectively, this legislation—to that cut off date of three years.10:10:008084Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I did ask some questions of the government, and I notice that, again, the parliamentary secretary stays glued to her seat and is unable to respond. That is the pattern of this debate—one of denying this committee important information for this deliberation, but doing so because there is no answer to the basic premise that this legislation has anything to do with protecting Australia's forests. It has everything to do with sending them to the woodchippers over the next 20 years.I acknowledge Senator Forshaw's position on this. I do not accept the argument, but I at least acknowledge that he is taking part in the debate on behalf of the Labor Party. Senator Forshaw said that the RFAs are about providing security. They are about providing security for the woodchip corporations to do what they want. The real security that should come out of this debate would be provided by Australia moving across to the already available plantation base—with mature plantations able to provide all of Australia's wood needs from building materials through to woodchips. I will not go over that ground, because I presented it very clearly to this committee in preceding days. That is where the win-win situation is—and, by the way, where the jobs are being created; 1,000 jobs at the proposed new mill at Tumut—even though this RFA process did not look at plantations at all. The government voted down just the other day my move that it should look at feasible and prudent alternatives—the plantation base, which would give Australia a win-win situation here. Plantations already provide, with recycling, 75 per cent of Australia's wood needs and by far the majority of jobs in the industry.Senator Forshaw spoke about security for the industry in this legislation, but there is no security for the workers in this either. Since the regional forest agreement was signed in Tasmania a couple of notable things have happened besides the continuing destruction of forests. One is the closure of the Amcor woodchip and wood pulp mill. Straight after the signing of the regional forest agreement—about which these big corporations said, `This is the way to secure jobs'—they are importing pulp from Indonesia. Two hundred jobs went west there. Where was the Labor Party in Tasmania taking decisive action against the bad faith involved in that? It did not. Over 400 jobs have gone west. People have lost their houses and their livelihoods—a breach of faith in inherent contractual arrangements with these woodchip corporations just ripping those contracts in the wake of a regional forest agreement which was said to bring security. It has brought nothing of the sort. All it has done is enhanced the profit lines of the corporations that do not even have their head offices in Tasmania, that treat Tasmania as a Third World country. What nonsense to talk about security!The previous speaker said that people have negotiated in good faith. Really? So why the secrecy? Why is it that I cannot even get information out of the government which it has? Senator Troeth has made this clear, and refuses to give to the parliament—let alone to the public—information about the way in which this industry marauds Australia's forests but does not return either jobs or profits.You hear Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, talking about the need to redress balance of payments problems in this industry. The simple fact is that the bad faith of this industry—not the good faith—means that we export twice as much wood as we import, but we pay four times as much for the imported materials. In other words, the downstream processing is occurring overseas. We are actually exporting much more wood than we import. But because we are bunnies, because government refuses to put teeth into legislation like this which would protect Australia's interests, we end up paying for the processing that goes on overseas, particularly in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and increasingly in China. We pay the value added in importing half as much as we export at four times the cost, so we end up paying double. It is a vacuous argument. Where is the good faith in that?Senator Forshaw said it is quite wrong to say that there will be no review. Let him amend Senator Greig's worthy amendment to make it five years. I am sure I could help talk Senator Greig into going to five years instead of three years. But when Senator Forshaw says there will be a review every five years, we know very well, Mr Temporary Chair man—and you have been watching this debate for some years in Tasmania—that there are no teeth in that review. Parliament is not involved, so who does the review? The woodchip corporations do, and people like CALM, Conservation and Land Management in Western Australia. Against huge public concern, they want to hand more forest, not less—and the habitats of rare and endangered species like the chuditch, the magnificent spotted tiger cat and the red-tailed black cockatoo—across in what we are expected to call a good faith process, where the review is put in the hands of the people who do that sort of thing. If the Labor Party or the government really wanted a review with teeth in it, they would be supporting this amendment. Sure, there is a five year provision for review in there which means nothing—nothing at all. If you want to put teeth into that and you are dinkum about it and there is good faith in it, you would be supporting this amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question is that the Democrats' amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10:18:008086Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Greens amendment (5):(5) Clause 3, page 3 (line 12), at the end of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , add: ;(f) the agreement provides for the conservation of all species of Australia's indigenous forest fauna and flora throughout the areas in which those species occur; (g) the agreement provides for the protection of wilderness and heritage values, cultural significance (including significance to Aboriginal people), and landscape and aesthetic attributes; (h) the agreement provides for forests to be managed so as to maintain or increase their carbon sink capacity and to minimise the emission of greenhouse gases from forest activity; (i) the comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system to protect old-growth forest and wilderness values is in place; (j) the agreement provides that prices for wood from public native forests and plantations at least cover the full cost of efficient management (including regeneration) attributable to wood production, include a fair return on capital, and provide an adequate return to the community from use of a public resource; (k) the agreement provides for the protection of water availability and quality; (l) the agreement facilitates ecologically sustainable tourism.This is a good faith amendment, so I am sure it is going to get Labor's support. This amendment says, `Let's implement the national forest policy', which both the government and the Labor Party say is the basis for this regional forest agreement legislation. Here the Greens are moving to say, `We didn't think the national forest policy was up to scratch, but let's take your own barometer and your own standards and implement them.' So I have moved that after paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), as they stand in the bill, we add further paragraphs to validate a regional forest agreement. It would have to have these things in it. Paragraph (f) states:the agreement provides for the conservation of all species of Australia's indigenous forest fauna and flora throughout the areas in which these species occur;Even the woodchippers say that that is vouchsafed, so there would be no trouble with that. Paragraph (g) states:the agreement provides for the protection of wilderness and heritage values, cultural significance (including significance to Aboriginal people), and landscape and aesthetic attributes;We are told through the national forest policy that over 90 per cent of wilderness will be protected, that heritage values are protected—we had that debate the day before yesterday, I think—that Aboriginal cultural significance is looked after, and of course landscape and aesthetic attributes will be protected. Forestry Tasmania says its activities actually enhance the aesthetic landscape values. So there will be no problem for the Labor Party or the government to support that. Paragraph (h) states:the agreement provides for forests to be managed so as to maintain or increase their carbon sink capacity and to minimise the emission of greenhouse gases from forest activity; I do not usually use the word `minimise', because it does allow people to weasel their way into doing what they indicated they would not. But we are in a giving mood to allow the government and opposition to support an amendment which comes within their very own parameters. The government is aware that some 25 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gases come out of the destruction of native vegetation. Not least, 400,000 or 500,000 hectares of native vegetation in Queensland are being destroyed each year. This looks particularly at the forest component of that greenhouse gas emission, which is disaster because this is leading rapidly to the warming of the world. We know that in the last year we had the hottest year in recorded human history, with massive economic and social dislocation potential, not to mention the environmental problems.I will be asking the parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, in a moment about the government's information on this greenhouse problem and what the greenhouse carbon storage figures are for the forests that are threatened by woodchip activities, including cutting and burning over the period of 20 years of this agreement.Paragraph (i) of the Australian Greens amendment says that regional forest agreements should have:the comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system to protect old-growth forest and wilderness values . . . in place.That is the wording of the government's own national forest policy. And (j) says:the agreement provides that prices for wood from public native forests and plantations at least cover the full cost of efficient management (including regeneration) attributable to wood production, include a fair return on capital, and provide an adequate return to the community from use of a public resource.The government could not do anything but support that. Here is a government which believes in national competition policy and does not believe that industry should be propped up by government. The Labor Party, of course, introduced that policy and is right behind it. I am simply moving to put that into the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 to make it clear to the big woodchip corpora tions which have had hundreds of millions of dollars of propping up in Australia. I remember the Field Labor government in Tasmania, in 1990, transferring a $270 million debt, accrued since woodchipping began in 1970 by Forestry Tasmania, into the public debt. Interest of tens of millions of dollars has been paid on that debt, depriving Tasmanians of hospital beds, police stations in rural areas—and Senator Troeth is concerned about rural communities—school rooms and all sorts of public amenities.For years, Labor and Liberal governments have put public money into woodchipping activities that are destroying forests. We have been expecting the public to pay to have their forest cut down and exported to woodchip mills. This puts an end to that. This says, if you are going to cut down the forests that are owned by the people, then that should be done at a profit. That is basic government philosophy. Here is core, Prime Minister John Howard philosophy at its best in this amendment from the Australian Greens. In a couple of minutes, Senator Troeth is going to get up and support this amendment. At last we are going to have some harmony and agreement in this place. Paragraph (k) says that:the agreement provides for the protection of water availability and quality.There is concern in Senator Troeth's own home area about this. For example, in Victoria we have heard that there is very keen community concern that logging in the headwaters of streams in the Otway is going to sully the water availability and quality. The government is very well aware that work by the water authorities in Victoria has shown that, as far as their catchments are concerned, the forests are of prime value; that the forests should be kept as they are and not cut down if we want to maintain the quality and quantity of water that those forests provide to over three million people in Melbourne. They are more valuable standing than they would be cut and exported to the Harris Daishowa mill in Eden. That is pure, good, economic as well as water quality sense and it is one of the reasons why people, not least in urban areas, want to have these forests kept standing. So we will have government agreement on that. Finally, paragraph (l) says that:the agreement facilitates ecologically sustainable tourism.Senator Troeth believes in ecologically sustainable logging. She says that that is what this provides. That is a non sequitur to me, but she believes in it. It is in the national forest policy, on which this is based. We say, and we have proved to this committee because there has been no countermanding it, that job creation in forests in Tasmania is in keeping the forest vertical, that 18,700 jobs are in this industry in Tasmania and more than 3,000 of those depend on forests. There are fewer than 3,000 jobs in cutting down forests in Tasmania. So you have the two things competing. Tourism is putting on jobs; logging, woodchipping is shedding jobs. So it is commonsense that you make sure you look after the industry that provides jobs, keeps the profits in the locality and ensures the aesthetic amenity that locals want. That will be something that Senator Troeth and indeed the Labor Party would agree with.Here we have put forward amendments which come out of the government's own policy. We have written them into the regional forest agreement to make sure that there is no default on them further down the line. I would expect that we are going to get wholehearted support on this from the government.10:28:008088Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Senator Brown knows very well that the government will not be supporting these amendments because they add another seven conditions to the nine which are already required by the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 for an agreement to be recognised as a regional forest agreement. I have spoken earlier in this debate about flexibility. The last thing we want to do is to be imposing prescriptive conditions on those people who are trying to work within the confines of the regional forest agreement. So firstly, these conditions are far too prescriptive.Secondly, they are duplicative of the requirements already contained in the bill's definition of an RFA. Thirdly, they attempt to introduce considerations that are not the primary focus of RFAs. I would like to again proffer some advice that was obtained from the Office of General Counsel on 10 August 1999, and I quote from page 6, paragraphs 22 and 23:A problem with a number of these conditions is that they are not limited to the region or regions covered by the RFA. The effect of this is that for an agreement to be regarded as an RFA it must, for example, provide for `the conservation of all species of Australia's indigenous forest, fauna and flora throughout the areas in which those species occur'.That is in respect of proposed paragraph (f). Proposed paragraph (g) states:The protection of wilderness and heritage values, cultural significance (including significance to Aboriginal people), and landscape and aesthetic attributes:Further, the advice reads:Neither of the requirements in proposed paragraphs (f) and (g) are limited to the regions covered by the RFA. Also, proposed paragraph (j) of the definition requires that the agreement must provide `that prices for wood from public native forests and plantations at least cover the full cost of efficient management, including regeneration attributable to wood production, include a fair return on capital and provide an adequate return to the community from use of a public resource'.We are unaware of any mechanism by which an RFA could set prices for wood. Therefore, it is difficult to see how that requirement could be met. I convey to you, Mr Temporary Chairman, that the government will oppose the amendment.10:31:008088Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate, on behalf of the opposition, that we will not be supporting this amendment. We believe that the concerns that Senator Brown has sought to address in his proposed amendment and also in his remarks are adequately dealt with in the amendments that we have moved which have already been adopted by the committee. I refer in particular to the fact that any RFA now has to be entered into having regard to the objects of the act, which was a provision that we had inserted into the bill. We were also successful, with the support of the Democrats and the Greens, in having an extensive objects clause inserted into the act. That objects clause sets out the relevant national goals that are specified in the national forest policy statement. We believe that the formula which we have introduced into the legislation is adequate and appropriate and, in our view, it is not necessary to amend the definition in the way that Senator Brown has proposed. Further, in some cases what he has done actually goes beyond the requirements of the national forest policy statement. In that way some of the proposed additional definitions would be unnecessarily restrictive. For those reasons we cannot support the amendment moved by Senator Brown.10:33:008089Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats are supportive of this amendment, largely because it deals with language and the use of language. Language is very important. It can be used, abused and manipulated. I wonder whether, 100 years from now, Australians will look back at this debate and ask, `How is it that at that point in time the parliament thought that the continued destruction of our native forests was appropriate, reasonable or necessary?' I am sure that they will focus on the use of the language that has been used throughout the debate—terms such as `Forest Protection Society', which is actually a group of people who want to tear down the forests, and `ecologically sustainable logging in native forests', which is a contradiction. I think what Senator Brown is trying to achieve with his definitions is not so much further complications, as the parliamentary secretary suggests; he is simply trying to focus on the use of language to bring home the notion that what we are talking about is the preservation of our forests. Using language to try to create an argument in support of logging is unacceptable. On that basis, we will be supporting the amendment.10:35:008089Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Forshaw, on behalf of the Labor Party, said, `This is already in the objects clause. We don't need to put it into the definition.' The basic problem with this whole process is that the government and the opposition are strong on waffle—they will put something into objectives, because they do not have to be abided by—but they are not strong at all on dinkum parliamentary rules for the woodchip corporations. When I move, on behalf of the Greens, to incorporate the objectives into the legislation to give it teeth, the big parties say no, knowing that the objectives will not be met in this legislation. You will remember, Chair, that the government did not even want the objectives to be drawn up to give protection to wildlife.In New South Wales, there are 1,000 hectares of koala breeding habitat being logged in the Murrah forests near Bermagui under the regional forest agreement which protects rare and endangered species. It is not good enough to just raise a hand to the forehead about this. It should be written into the legislation that that cannot happen. When I move to protect those koalas in that breeding colony—through an amendment which gives teeth to the national forest policy, which Prime Minister Howard says is his guiding dictum on this—the government says it will vote it down.Is that not hypocrisy? Is that not double standards? Is that not welshing on the people of this country who expect wildlife—not least koalas hanging on in forests which are the most densely populated components of our ecosystems when it comes to biodiversity—to be protected? No. It is weasel words that are used. If a Green comes in here and says, `Well, let's be dinkum about this; let's put some honesty into this process,' the government says, `Well, we can't do that.' I know, and many other people know, that is because of this system whereby the woodchip corporations and their donations into government coffers are more influential than the concerns of the majority of Australians about koalas and bird life and the other remarkable mammals that live in these forests which are facing death and destruction under this piece of legislation. The government would like to cut this debate short because it has no answers and no integrity in this shameful process, going on unreported in this parliament—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Much to your disgust.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is much to my frustration.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—You can't get one word in the newspaper.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The parliamentary secretary gives no answers here but wants to interject. The parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, who said she is concerned about regional Australia, says there is no way the government will accept Greens proposed subparagraph (j) here, which provides that these forests will not be cut down subsidised by public moneys, that they will have to return a profit to the public purse. She said there is no way that can be implemented. I will look at that further down the line.I want to challenge Senator Troeth and the government on their concerns about these amendments. In a moment I will seek leave to amend this amendment to meet the parliamentary secretary's concerns. Then we will see how honest and dinkum this government is about what it says. In a moment I will move to remove subparagraph (j) requiring the forests to be run in a profitable way for the Australian people.Senator Troeth said, regarding subparagraph (f) providing for the conservation of Australia's fauna and flora, that there is legal advice to say that my amendment would mean that you would have to do that throughout the country. I maintain that would be a good thing. But she says that this legislation should be confined to regional forest agreements. I foreshadow that I will move that, in subparagraph (f), the words `throughout to occur' be replaced with the words, `in regional forest agreement areas'. It will expedite proceedings because we are going to find the government wanting in a minute.As to subparagraph (g), which provides for the indigenous people of Australia to be heard and for their interests to be looked after, again the government says, `We've got legal advice to say that the amendment the Greens have put forward would extend outside regional forest agreement areas.' Heavens above, we do not want the government being required to protect wilderness values and indigenous cultural values outside forests! But I will accept that on this occasion, even though I think that should be a government priority, so I will be seeking to amend subparagraph (g) by adding the words `in regional forest agreement areas'. Let us confine it, as Senator Troeth wants, to make these amendments acceptable. So there you are—she has had three objections. I have met all three of them. I seek leave at this stage to amend my amendment No. 5 in the way I have indicated so that the committee can get the support of the government.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I amend my amendment as follows: Paragraph (f) omit "throughout the areas in which those species occur", substitute "in regional forest areas". At end of paragraph (g), add "in regional forest areas". Omit paragraph (j).Here we have the support of the government to make these amendments. I am getting somewhat excited here about the prospect that we are now going to get the government to support these Green amendments which have been altered to meet the concerns as expressed by the parliamentary secretary. I hope she has made calls to Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, and to Senator Hill, to let them know about this breakthrough.While she is talking elsewhere, I point out that this will lead, amongst other things, to the end of breaches of Environmental Protection Authority requirements in Western Australia, where there has been overlogging of jarrah. It will lead to the protection—at least of its habitat—of the world's largest freshwater crayfish in Tasmania, something that is not happening at the moment, and of course to the protection of areas of Aboriginal significance.Let me here read a comment from Darlene Mansell of the Deloraine Aboriginal Centre saying that, up until this date—and things are about to change, I hope:Our interests have just been totally ignored. There will be no tangible outcomes to our community, whether it is employment, social, economic or whatever—even spiritual at this stage. We go to our land now and it is almost a mourning process. You go to your land and you see the destruction which has occurred. Rather than it being a cultural activity that you are going out to protect, to see, to do certain cultural things, in fact you find yourself going up to the land to basically cry—that is the truth of the matter—because of the destruction and the raping of the land which is going on in Tasmania day by day. I hope this committee can somehow take stock of what is going on behind the scenes at Kooparoona Niara.That is the Aboriginal name for the Great Western Tiers. To continue:I think if you really have the opportunity to get out to the land and see the destruction of the land, you might have a clearer understanding.That is why the Greens have moved subparagraph (g). I have taken heed of the parliamentary secretary's concern that it might lead to protection of Aboriginal cultural values outside regional forest agreement areas and I am agreeing here to confining it to the areas encompassed by a regional forest agreement. This would include Kooparoona Niara and would bring some assuredness back to the grieving people, including those of the Aboriginal community at Deloraine.10:45:008091Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will still oppose this amendment as Senator Brown has amended it. But I am pleased to see that Senator Brown is gradually coming more into line with government thinking. Certainly, some of the words that he uses in that amendment are ones to which the government subscribe in the legislation as it stands. However, there are still elements that we object to in that amendment, such as the clause dealing with carbon sinks. If Senator Brown really wanted to encompass the ideals of the RFA legislation, he should withdraw this amendment rather than amending it. The government will still be opposing it, even though it is in an amended form.10:46:008091Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—So you see the duplicity of this whole process—the absolute hypocrisy, duplicity and dishonesty that the government engages in here. It is saying one thing and it is meaning another. It is not going to have any amendment to this. When it gets up and says, `The Greens motion is out of order because it is too wide and too all-encompassing and the government has advice that it should be more restrictive,' and I say, `Okay, I will agree with the restrictive government interpretation,' as, sadly, one has come to expect in this committee, the government then welshes and says, `No; no amendments at all.' It makes a farce of debating the issue in here. But one must stand up and debate the issue, because the interests of the Australian people are being sold out by the Howard government—the government of Prime Minister Howard, who signed these documents and who has flown around the country from Perth in Tasmania to Perth in Western Australia—signing the death warrant for our forests and the death warrant for thousands of jobs while they are at it, and the profit line enhancement of a few big woodchip corporations. That is what this is all about. The whole process of the government's sincerity in this matter has just been unmasked. It will go unreported. It does not make any difference.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—You are asking for newspaper coverage, are you Bob?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The answer to that is: yes, I am.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Well, you are not getting any.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Troeth apparently is indicating there that she has some control factor on what the press gallery writes or does not write. I might ask her to get up and explain how she manages to keep the lid on the press gallery. This is interesting territory. I have been looking for the missing factor. I have been looking for why it is that people are in uproar and turning out in tens of thousands in Western Australia and yet there has been such minimal coverage of this. But Senator Troeth has just indicated that she knows what is going on. She knows why this issue is getting so little coverage. I might add that there is no difficulty in getting coverage of a lot of other issues which I think are pretty trivial. But Senator Troeth has a line to the press gallery there which I do not have. Maybe she would let us know about it.I am quite happy to put the argument here. I am very sad to see that the government cannot even stand by its own implied statement that it would support this amendment if it were restricted in the way that Senator Troeth first indicated.Amendment not agreed to.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could I have it recorded that I was the one voice in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—Yes.10:50:008092Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I move amendment No. 1 on sheet 1525:Clause 3, page 2 (after line 31), after subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (iia) non-indigenous heritage values;I would like to reflect on my earlier comments with respect to the values as they are set out in the definitions of the act. As I stated earlier on, the act itself requires, under clause 3(a)(ii), separate listing of indigenous heritage values, having previously set out all of the other values. The purpose of moving this amendment is to recognise the non-indigenous values. I reiterate my earlier comments. If it is sufficiently required to have a separate reference to the indigenous heritage values and, by way of doing that, clearly indicating that they are not covered by the previous values as set out in the act, then the non-indigenous values that I have referred to earlier in this debate are also not covered. I put it to the Senate to consider this in the light of adding balance to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , not to detract from any of the indigenous values that it sets out to protect but for it to do that also for the non-indigenous values.10:52:008092Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we do not support this amendment. I outlined our position in the earlier debate. In our view, the concept of protecting non-indigenous heritage values, if it needs to be, is already covered. We find the proposed amendment disingenuous. It is sophistry. We cannot support it.10:53:008092Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10— Similarly, the government believes that the inclusion of the words `non-indigenous heritage values' is not necessary, as we believe, Senator Harris, that the words are already covered by the provisions in the clause under national estate values, world heritage values, social values and environmental values. We see it as an unnecessary amendment and will not be supporting it.10:53:008092Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will be supporting this amendment on behalf of the Greens, because—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Hold the front page on this one.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No, I think these amendments should be regarded on their merits, not according to some previously defined political assessment. The fact that One Nation is bringing this forward makes no difference to the merit of the amendment. Senator Harris should be heard on that basis. Both the government and the opposition have argued that there is no need for it, that it is superfluous and covered in the objectives of the act. In doing so they cut the rug from under their argument that it should not be here. If it is not doing anything that is not already in the act, then why not allow it? Where is the argument against it?We heard from Senator Harris the day before yesterday that there are concerns that in the bush there is steam machinery and old tram tracks. I have seen the snigging tracks in Tasmania, which cannot be preserved in the way that would be required by this, but there is machinery out in the bush, some of it very innovative, harking back to a time when we did not have the mass destruction of forests we have had since the woodchippers arrived in 1969. I have no difficulty in giving the act some teeth as to the implications of the objectives. So I support the amendment.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that One Nation's amendment No. 1 on sheet 1525 be agreed to.11:00:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)2Brown, B. *Harris, L.50Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Greig, B. A. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Kemp, R.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Ridgeway, A. D. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the negative.11:04:008093Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 4 on sheet 1294, as revised:Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4A This Act to be subject to international obligations This Act has effect subject to Australia's obligations under international law, including obligations under any agreement between Australia and another country or countries relating to matters of environmental protection and forest management.This amendment relates to international treaty obligations and seeks to put an obligation into the regional forestry agreement legislation to ensure that it is clearly subject to international agreements between Australia and other countries that relate to matters of environ mental protection and forest management. These agreements include, for example, Ramsar wetlands, the biodiversity convention, the migratory bird agreements and so on. It is necessary for this to be explicit in this legislation as the legislation at a federal level ensures that it links the state regional forestry agreements with Commonwealth law. It is the Commonwealth which signs these agreements on behalf of the nation as a whole and, given that both the coalition and the Labor Party when in government have either signed these agreements or enacted policy on them, we look forward to their support.11:05:008093Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will be opposing this amendment. We feel that the RFAs themselves have taken world heritage into account, and there is no way an RFA can override Australia's international commitments. We will be opposing this amendment.11:05:008093Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—We will not be supporting this amendment. Firstly, as I have said in relation to a number of other matters, we have already successfully amended the bill by the inclusion of the objects clause, and that includes paragraph (2)(b), which:. . . ensures that Australia fulfils its obligations under relevant international agreements . . . Senator Greig's amendment makes reference to the act having effect subject to Australia's obligations under international law; that is a rather open-ended and undefined proposition. Clearly, the international agreements that have been entered into by Australia are ones that are readily identifiable and can be applied, but the reference to international law is one which we would see as providing complications in interpretation. Further, we will be moving amendment No. 8 on our list of amendments and that makes reference to the World Heritage List, the Ramsar convention and other relevant international obligations.Finally, as the parliamentary secretary has already noted, there is included in the definition of an RFA a requirement to have regard to world heritage values. We believe that the legislation together with the amendments that we have moved covers the issue of international obligations satisfactorily, so there is no need to complicate matters with this amendment.11:09:008094Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The argument we have just heard effectively says that if you have objectives in an act you do not need anything else. You just write out your list of objectives and say, `We are going to do this, that and something else,' and then you do not need the operative clauses. I disagree. What happens with legislation and the way parliament works is that you set out objectives in an act and then you provide the laws which will meet those objectives. Here Senator Greig moves to do just that, and the government and opposition say, `No, we won't support it.' It shows what a sham and what a toothless piece of paper this regional forest agreement legislation is and what a prescription it is for destruction. Senator Troeth on behalf of the government just said, `There is no way an RFA can override Australia's international commitments.' That is totally misleading, and I will tell you why. In Tasmania the regional forest agreement provides for the woodchipping and total destruction of forests which are of world heritage value, in defiance and in breach of the World Heritage Convention, signed by the Whitlam government in 1974 or 1975.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—That is your interpretation.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Let us not have an opinion difference on this. Let us support Senator Greig's amendment so that it is written into the legislation and people cannot weasel out of it one way or the other or say, `It is our interpretation.' Let us have it in the legislation. If you think this is open to interpretation, Mr Temporary Chairman, you could expect that Senator Troeth, who has just said that she thinks it is open to interpretation, that she disagrees with my interpretation, would want to support this amendment to eliminate such doubt.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—You are clutching at straws.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am not clutching at straws; I am clutching at the defence of forests which you are sending to the woodchippers, with their wildlife.In 1993, just six years ago, after this whole process got under way, the then executive director of the environmental strategies directorate wrote to the then minister, Ros Kelly. I want to quote from that letter, because it affects areas that are currently being logged and which the current minister, Robert Hill, has been to. He stood in the middle of a clear-felled area of world heritage significance. But the advice from his department at that time was:It is the portfolio view that the proposed roads and forest harvesting operations—read for that `logging operations'—in the Huon and Picton valleys—in Tasmania, of course—will have a significant adverse effect on the current Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.That is, it will be in breach of the World Heritage Convention. Mr Buckingham went on to say:The Huon and Picton valleys have been identified in numerous reports as contributing to the integrity of the adjacent World Heritage Area and their inclusion in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area would enhance and safeguard its integrity.Clause 32 of that letter reads:The Huon and Picton valleys have been identified as having World Heritage values which would add to those included in the existing Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, including pristine catchments, glacial and karst features—that is, cave features—important Huon pine and tall eucalypt communities and outstanding scenery. Continued forestry activities in the area, with its suite of attendant impacts, will degrade the natural values which have been identified as of World Heritage quality to an extent which may preclude any future options for adding these areas to the existing World Heritage Area.The government knows full well that the World Heritage Convention says that signatories are obliged to identify world heritage areas and protect them. This government tears up that convention. It is breaking the World Heritage Convention through this process, because not only has it not moved to include and nominate these world heritage value forests and forests which protect the existing world heritage values, including wilderness values, but it has also sent in the chainsaws, the bulldozers and the helicopters dropping firebombs to burn what is left of the forest after the woodchippers have left. I can tell you that they have then in these world heritage areas distributed 1080 poison to kill the mammals that happen to come in from remnant forests to feed on the genetically modified fast growing plantation forests that the big woodchip corporations hope will give them a profit a little further down the line. What a disgusting process this is. What a deception is going on here.If the government and the opposition stand by the world heritage convention and the Ramsar agreement that Senator Greig spoke about to protect our world heritage value wetlands and the wildlife and birdlife in them, why will they not support this amendment? I will tell you why they will not support it: they do not support those conventions and they are involved in an act of breach of the world heritage convention in particular. This is happening in Tasmania today, and the minister for the environment, Robert Hill, has been there and has stood in the middle of it. Have you ever heard of such a dereliction of ministerial duty, let alone of an obligation to an international convention?How far this has drifted from the days in which the High Court ruled that federal parliament had the authority to uphold the world heritage convention to protect the Franklin River against an aberrant state government which wanted to put a dam on that river and destroy its world heritage values. Just across the ranges to the east, today the maverick and destructive state government of Labor Premier Jim Bacon is destroying world heritage values, and this legislation, which is supposed to protect those values, is a toothless piece of paper because this government—the government of John Howard—is complicit in the destruction of world heritage forest in my home state. You cannot say that it does not know, because its own department has said so. So it is duplicitous as well as destructive. That is the reason why this government will not support this amendment and, sadly, that is the reason why the opposition will not support it either. I certainly will.11:17:008095Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I would like to relate my comments on the contents of the Democrats' proposed amendment and highlight what they are actually asking this chamber to do at this point in time. They have moved an amendment to the proposed act that will require Australia to effect its obligation under any agreements that Australia has with other countries relating to matters of environmental protection.The point I wish to put is that, if this chamber is to seriously consider this item—and I am not in any way stating that it should not—it is the responsibility of Senator Greig to have provided to this chamber a copy of those agreements. How can we be asked to debate an issue—and to commit this parliament and the Australian people to it—the ramifications of which I seriously doubt that the people in this chamber understand?Let us look at one such treaty that I am aware of, and I am sure that there are many more that I am not aware of. It is Agenda 21. If Senator Greig wanted to highlight our obligations, why hasn't he brought this particular document to the attention of the chamber? Through you, Chair, I will ask Senator Greig—if he can—to relate to this chamber what chapter 11 of that agreement actually says, because I do not believe that he will even understand or know what is in chapter 11 of Agenda 21.Let us have a look at the history of Agenda 21. Where did it come from? It came out of a biodiversity conference in Rio and it was signed by Ros Kelly. What has actually happened to that document since? It disappeared into a black hole, to the exception of those who could progress it in relation to environmental and green issues. It took me four years to get a copy of the document. When I got a copy of the document I realised why they did not want me to have it. It goes into such issues as water management that will progressively digress down to private enterprise every bit of water resource in this country. This is a document that the Labor Party has committed Australia to and, if the government of the day think that they are clear and free, I am very sad to say to them that they are not. They are equally complicit because the government of the day continue to report to the United Nations on the implementation of Agenda 21. And I would suggest that there would be very few members on the government side who could stand up here today and relate the issues within Agenda 21.We are being asked today to sign a blank cheque, because I believe that the members of this chamber do not know the contents of the agreements that are they are agreeing to allow or disagreeing on. I believe that this chamber would be far better off and would work more efficiently if senators put the work into providing to the chamber the information that other senators need to make a balanced decision on the issues that are being put before them. So through you, Chair, I will ask Senator Greig to actually relate to this chamber the contents of chapter 11 of Agenda 21.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—The question is that Democrats amendment No. 4 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Temporary Chairman Campbell, would you please note my vote in support of that amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. We now move on to Democrat amendment No. 5.11:22:008096Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In relation to the previous amendment, being a Democrats amendment, the Democrats obviously supported it. I clearly indicate that as well. On behalf of Senator Greig, he probably would have been happy to answer Senator Harris's question except he has gone to do some preparation for his first speech, so if he has some space at the end of his first speech he might fit that stuff in there. I move Democrat amendment No. 5 on sheet 1294:(5) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4A, insert:4B Minister to establish forest database The Minister must cause to be established a comprehensive and publicly available national forest database to ensure that decision-making and management of long-term timber supplies are based on the best available information.This amendment is reasonably self-explanatory. It seeks to add an extra clause into the legislation to require the minister to establish a national and publicly available forest database to ensure that decision making and management are based on the best available information.Much of the information that goes into RFAs is difficult for the public to access as it is secret or unavailable. The Democrats believe that all this information should be public and maintained for the good of the community and those with an interest in forest management and to ensure that there is maximum public confidence in the adequacy of any decision making at government level surrounding forest issues. I think one of the problems, amongst many, with the whole RFA process has been a fair degree of community scepticism—amongst a significant part of the community, anyway—about the adequacy of the decision making and dubiousness about what actual data that decision making is based on. So, to overcome that public dubiousness and cynicism about the process, the Democrats believe that this straightforward amendment would ensure greater openness and access to information for the public.11:24:008096Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will be opposing this amendment on the grounds that this information is already available. I draw to the attention of the Senate Australia's State of the Forests Report 1998 , and I would like to quote from the foreword in order to set at rest Senator Bartlett's worries that this sort of information is not publicly available. It states:The national State of the Forests Report was called for in the Ecologically Sustainable Development Strategy (1992) and the National Forest Policy Statement (1992). It is to be a report to the public, published every 5 years. The present report was compiled by the Management Team of the National Forest Inventory, which is based in the Bureau of Rural Sciences. The National Forest Inventory represents the forestry and conservation agencies of the Commonwealth Government as well as all the States and Territories. Together, these agencies have compiled the most comprehensive factual information about forests currently available, and presented it in a form that can be primarily used by the general public, but by specialists as well.So I feel sure, Senator Bartlett, that the existence of this document should set your mind at rest about this sort of information being available; therefore, we regard the amendment as unnecessary and will be opposing it.11:26:008097Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will be supporting this amendment.11:26:008097Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I also support the amendment. If the government says the information is already available, it is quite extraordinary that it will not support it as well.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—I indicate that the Australian Greens and the Democrats are both opposing clause 5. I therefore put the question that clause 5 stand as printed.11:27:008097Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Australian Greens oppose clause 5 because it removes the powers of the Commonwealth to protect the forests of Australia. It is again a central component of this hand-across of the fortunes of our forests to a handful of woodchip corporations and their agents at state government level. You will see that the clause in the bill the government is bringing forward, and which is presumably supported by the opposition, although there is an amendment coming up that we will be dealing with in a moment, says:5 Certain Commonwealth Acts not to apply in relation to RFA wood or RFA forestry operations(1) RFA wood is not prescribed goods for the purposes of the Export Control Act 1982 .So that goes west.(2) An export control law does not apply to RFA wood unless it expressly refers to RFA wood.This is one of those tortuous pieces that enter these clauses. It goes on: For this purpose, export control law means a provision of a law of the Commonwealth (other than the Export Control Act 1982 ) that prohibits or restricts exports, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting exports.In other words, remove the Commonwealth export control laws. It further states:(3) The effect of RFA forestry operations—by the woodchippers, I add in there—must be disregarded for the purposes of the following:That is, this clause says to disregard the effect of the woodchip corporations on the forests insofar as `(a) section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975', which protects forests and which lists national estate values. That gets knocked out by this bill.Subclause 3(b) relates to `approved procedures under Section 6 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974'. This centre of federal authority in protecting this nation's heritage gets depth charged by this clause. It removes any responsibility from a future minister for the environment who would want to act on behalf of the majority of Australians to protect this nation's forest heritage. We know that the current minister, Robert Hill, wants to act on behalf of the woodchip corporations, but there may be a future minister who feels that it is their duty to uphold their portfolio's requirement to advocate for the environment in cabinet. This clause says that they will be disempowered into the future.This minister for the environment wants to disempower all future ministers for the environment from doing their duties. He has decided to act against the interests of the forests of this country. He wants to make sure that no future minister can come along and return honesty to the portfolio.Under subclause 3(c) we see that section 11 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, the heartland of that legislation, has also been torpedoed. Under subclause 3(d), `section 6 of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983' gets knocked out, yet the government has just said that international treaties are looked after under this legislation. Unfortunately I have put the quote from Senator Troeth aside, but she said that the international obligations were protected by this legislation. Why are they knocking out the world heritage legislation with this clause? Because this government knows that this is a prescription for the destruction of forest environments in this country. It is riddled with dishonesty. How dare they come in here and talk about ecologically sustainable processes. It is about ecological destruction, and this clause says it all: get rid of the federal powers which would allow a responsible future government or minister to move to protect forests.We will soon be dealing with clause 7, which says that any future minister not only is disempowered but, if they were to move to protect these forests, they will have to compensate the woodchip corporations, which have paid not a cent for those forests, simply to have them protected in the interests of the Australian people. It is disgusting, derelict, culpable legislation. That is why we Greens totally oppose this clause to disempower any future federal government, parliament or minister who wanted to get back in tune with majority Australian public thinking on the future use and abuse of our forests.23:33:008098Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats also oppose clause 5. This is one of the most disconcerting, indeed appalling, aspects of this legislation. It is only a small bill—it has only eight sections, all up—but this clause is one of the worst aspects, for the reasons, among others, that Senator Brown has just outlined. It quite specifically and blatantly seeks to exempt the Commonwealth and Commonwealth environment acts from any oversight of RFA forestry operations.The Democrats believe that RFAs must be subject to all sections of federal environment legislation. There is hardly any point in having federal environment legislation if we are going to then exempt significant operations from that legislation, particularly something as vital to biodiversity, to ecosystems and to sustainability as our forests. To have a bill that exempts forestry operations—the logging of our native forests on a wide scale—from federal environment legislation is quite an abomination. The effect of RFA forestry operations under this clause will be disregarded for the purposes of the Australian Heritage Commission Act, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. To exempt forestry operations from the impact of the World Heritage Act is quite astonishing.The government and others may say that the process of developing RFAs is so comprehensive, so scientifically based, so soundly founded in good environmental practice that we do not need to have federal environment legislative protection, because the RFAs cover all that. If they do cover all that, why do we need to exempt them from these acts? If they are already operating on a sound environmental basis, they should meet all these sections of federal environment legislation in any case. It is quite astonishing that something as fundamental as forests should be seen to be able to be exempted from federal environment protection.The Senate will remember that, during the debate on the environment protection legislation in June, the Democrats moved to include RFAs and forests as a trigger in the new environment legislation that will operate from next year. Labor and the coalition combined to ensure that forests were excluded from the new environment legislation. This is another chance to make up for what the Democrats believe was a major mistake in that regard. We certainly hope that other senators will join in opposing clause 5 of this bill.11:37:008098Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I am actually glad that Senator Brown has made yet another of his repetitive speeches, because the real intent of his opposition to this clause is very clear. Not only does Senator Brown want to make it as difficult as possible for an RFA to be entered into but, when it is entered into, he still wants export controls to continue to apply and he also wants the spectre of Commonwealth intervention through environmental legislation to continue to hang over the industry in the region.Senator Brown has said to me that my concern is for the welfare, job security and interests of rural people—and it certain is. I want clause 5 to stand so that these agree ments can go on as they have been framed and give the industry security, give job development in the region security and, at last, give the Australian people a proper vehicle for a rejuvenated timber industry to go forward into the next century. That is why I want clause 5 to stand, and that is why I will be proposing that the government support the clause. What benefit would it be to a state to go through the RFA process, complying with that agreement, and continue to have the threat of capricious Commonwealth action hanging over its head? None at all. That is what the Australian Greens want—the cessation of the RFA process. There is no way that I am going to subscribe to that.The exemptions that are proposed in the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 under clause 5 are made because the RFA itself and the management prescriptions contained therein are based, as Senator Bartlett remarked, on thorough assessments, having due regard to statutory Commonwealth obligation. For example, the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and provision for ecologically sustainable forest management under each RFA ensures the ongoing protection of environmental and heritage values in the region. Thus no further assessment in relation to the effect of RFA forestry operations is required apart from state requirements that have been accredited under the RFA. Opposition to the clause would act directly against that rationale. We therefore strongly support the clause.11:39:008099Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate that the opposition will be supporting clause 5 but, in doing so—subsequent to this matter being dealt with—we will be proposing an amendment to subclause 3, paragraph (d). This is opposition amendment No. 8.We support the inclusion of the overall clause because it is absolutely fundamental to the whole RFA process. Senator Brown knows that and Senator Bartlett knows that. We know that they are opposed to the RFA process. They do not support it—they have never supported it—and what is indicated clearly here is that they will do whatever they can to try to undermine it.The agreement that was entered into, the national forest policy statement and everything that has occurred since then in developing RFAs have all been on the basis that the RFA agreements—once entered into between the state and federal governments—would operate in lieu of the provisions of various aspects of Commonwealth legislation. That was agreed to. You only have to look at the national forest policy statement itself to see that. For instance, with respect to the issue of the export of woodchips, it says at page 8:The Commonwealth will remove controls over the export of unprocessed public and private plantation wood, subject to the application of codes of practice to protect environmental values.It then goes on to say:Commonwealth-State regional agreements based on comprehensive regional assessments (see Section 4.3) or agreements between a State and the Australian Heritage Commission on the management of forests listed on the Register of the National Estate (including the application of harvesting codes of practice) will constitute the basis on which the Commonwealth will meet its legislative obligations under s. 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1974. For areas not covered by comprehensive regional assessments, existing processes and annual export approvals will apply.It has been clear all the way through that RFA agreements that are properly entered into and meet the criteria and the objectives of the national forest policy statement will operate and Commonwealth law would continue to apply in areas where an RFA is not entered into. The whole process, of course, is designed to ensure that all of the areas to be covered will be covered by an RFA by the end of this year. We still hope that we can meet that target—notwithstanding the substantial dereliction of duty by the current federal minister.But putting that to one side, to oppose this clause is to really take away the very foundations upon which the RFA process has been developed—that is, an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states to have RFAs operate in lieu of the provisions of that Commonwealth legislation. That is not walking away from the obligations at all; it is merely a transference, if you like, of the way the obligations will be met—from one form of statutory control to another form. What we have done in our amendments is strengthen this legislation in those areas where we believed it was necessary. But we continue to support this clause because it is fundamental to the whole RFA process. If it were not to be passed, the process would effectively become null and void.11:44:008100Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The government says that it needs to abolish the time-honoured powers of the Commonwealth to protect this nation's heritage so that it can uphold regional forest agreements. That says it all. This is a prescription for the destruction of millions of hectares of Australia's wild forests, the wildlife in them, and the ecosystems.The woodchip corporations essentially drew up this legislation and kept amending it, all the way to its appearance here in this parliament. Senator Troeth would not dare get up and give a guarantee that Australia's forests and their environmental values will be protected under this legislation, because if she did so she would be a liar—and that of course is something that she would not want to be seen to be in an honoured place like this.We hear that this legislation can give assurance to people because it is only going to implement logging in Western Australia, Tasmania, East Gippsland, central Victoria, right up the Great Divide, through the coastal and inland forests of New South Wales, and into south-east Queensland. It will only allow such logging subject to the protection of environmental values. I could use stronger terms, but let me say that every player in this whole tawdry scheme knows that that is bunkum. That is deception. That is falsehood. This whole legislation is based on a deceit.We hear `ecologically sustainable' used in a disgraceful fashion—you know, the use of words to mean the opposite to what they say. This government, led by the Rt Hon. John Howard, Prime Minister, put its signature to a process which leads to forests which have never had the hand of modern technology near them being destroyed by chainsaws ripping the heart out of them by the woodchippers for profit, and they call that ecologically sustainable. We all know about the honesty of that process. Well, I will not be part of it. I am indignant about that. This is a shameful process. It is disgusting. If this government wants to send those forests to the woodchippers, let it say so. Let it talk about the environmental expense of that, and the death of those forests, and the destruction of that wildlife. Then we can debate on honest terms. But this is a disgusting farrago of dishonesty, from the Prime Minister right down to the representative in this place at the moment, and they know it.No wonder the Prime Minister has still to come good on my invitation in 1996 to come and see the forests in Tasmania he was issuing a death warrant to. He is not big enough to do that. He can come down to Tasmania and sign the death warrant on those forests, but he has not got the gumption or the innards to come down and look at what that means on the ground and to see for himself why the majority of the Australian people do not want him to do that. What he is capable of doing is putting his hand out, or the hand of his party, to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from these woodchip corporations to help the next election process. I think that whole process is corrupt, and this nation loses as a result. When you destroy a forest you cannot get it back. No scientist and no engineer, and certainly not this derelict Prime Minister, can recover the nation's heritage once it is destroyed.This Prime Minister is sending in the chainsaws, this Prime Minister is sending in the firebombers, and this Prime Minister is sending in the poison which destroy those forest ecosystems. What are we to make of the honesty of him and his government when they say that is ecologically sustainable? How dare they! What an affront to the Australian people. What an affront to all future generations of this nation who will have lost to them this forest heritage. What an abrogation of the duty of this government to not only look after but enhance the fortunes of his nation's wildlife. The Prime Minister's representative might sit there and smile and talk about jobs in the bush, but let her tell this chamber how it is that a Prime Minister can give assurances that there will be jobs coming out of this—this was when he signed the death warrant of these forests in Tasmania in March last year, or before that—but then say nothing when the closure of the Burnie pulp mill led to the loss of 280 jobs. Assure the jobs: that is what this is all about. Bunkum!What about the 31 people who were sacked by North—the woodchipper and uranium miner—in May this year after the Prime Minister promised that those jobs would be secure? Where is the honesty in that? If he cannot face up to the duplicity of talking about protecting environmental values and sending in the chainsaws, where is the honesty of saying, `I'll protect jobs' and then seeing them thrown out?Senator Troeth talks about the bush. What about the families of those people who were sacked by North after the regional forest agreement was signed? There is a guarantee here for the woodchip corporations. Where is the guarantee for the workers in the bush? You know, Mr Temporary Chairman Ferguson, as well as I do, that if I bring an amendment in here to try to guarantee those workers their jobs, this government will vote against it. What about the shedding of 40 contractors' jobs in February by North, which makes a contribution to the Liberal Party's election coffers? Is there no two-way line whereby the Prime Minister can say to that corporation, `I promised these workers jobs. The regional forest agreement was the security they wanted. You cannot do this.' Of course there is no two-way line, because the whole process is bankrupt, but the Prime Minister's signature is at the bottom of it. It is duplicitous, it is disgusting and it is unpopular, but it is funded by people who, as far as the forests are concerned, are totally unethical and immoral.So we move into the next century under this prescription of getting rid of federal powers with the woodchip corporations in control of our forests. Not even the Labor Party dare stand against that. Well the Greens will. Again, I say that this process is in no way sealed for the next 20 years by this clause of this bill. You might get rid of the federal powers, but you do not get rid of the feeling of the Australian people for their forests, not least the indigenous people of this country. You might bring in the police and, as occurred last week in Launceston, see five citizens fined $10,000 dollars all up for trying to do the job that the Hon. John Howard should be doing on behalf of this nation. Those citizens were patriotic enough to get in the way of bulldozers which are ripping into world heritage value forests that you say will be protected under this legislation. You can see how disgusting this process is—and this has the government spokesperson laughing.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—They were obstructing lawful activity, and you know it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—What law? Here we are in the process of getting rid of laws to allow this process. So you get rid of laws for the woodchip corporations, but you bring in the penalties, you and your minions, Mr Temporary Chairman, for those citizens who want to stand in defence of our forests because they know that no future people can come back and undo the damage being done now.What have we got in the chamber today? There are two government members; no minister for the environment; no answers given to questions; and no defence of the indefensible. In my book, the Prime Minister is on trial in this chamber today. When a Prime Minister says, `We are protecting the environment,' on the one hand and on the other hand, in this very clause, does away with 30 years of environmental laws in this Commonwealth, you can judge for yourself the integrity of this government on this issue. Question put: That clause 5 stand as printed.12:02:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)42Bishop, T. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. *Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Ray, R. F.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Lees, M. H. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.12:06:008102Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 8:Clause 5, page 4 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (d), add", except in so far as it applies to: (i) a property included in the World Heritage List; or (ii) a wetland included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention; or (iii) forestry operations that are incidental to another action whose primary purpose does not relate to forestry.".The amendment seeks to add those words at the end of paragraph (d) of clause 5, which states:. . . section 6 of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.Let me outline our reasons for moving the amendment. One of the 11 national goals of the national forest policy statement is to ensure that Australia fulfils its obligations under relevant international agreements. Of course, we have ensured that that is reflected in the objects of this bill and that RFAs must have regard to those objects, including adherence to obligations under relevant international agreements.The two key agreements are the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage under the auspices of UNESCO and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. These are binding agreements entered into by the Commonwealth government on behalf of the Australian people. They cannot be ignored, and their implementation cannot be simply delegated to state forest agencies.Our amendment exactly mirrors the government's own environment protection and biodiversity conservation legislation, which has passed the parliament but has not been proclaimed into law. Our amendment needs to be made to this bill because the other legislation is not completely in place. Without our amendment this bill would totally exempt forestry operations in world heritage areas from Commonwealth protection pending the other bill coming into force. Given the government's performance on other world heritage matters, that is a risk that we believe should not be taken.It is important to note that our amendment is narrower in its application than the 1983 World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. That act empowers the Commonwealth to also exercise planning controls over not just listed world heritage properties but also areas that are being nominated for world heritage listing or are subject to an investigation initiated by the Commonwealth into their world heritage value.This is not to suggest that Labor believes that potential future world heritage forest areas should be overlooked; rather it is a recognition that the RFA comprehensive regional assessment process provides the appropriate mechanisms to examine whether other sections of RFA regions or areas are of world heritage value. Further possible world heritage nomination processes are explicitly addressed in some of the existing RFAs in Victoria and Tasmania.So we ask the Senate to support our amendment for the reasons I have just outlined, and we specifically point out that if the government does oppose this amendment it is really voting against its own policy position and it will, unfortunately, be giving free rein to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, whose antipathy towards world heritage properties is on the public record.12:10:008103Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats would like to indicate our preparedness to support this opposition amendment. I think in some ways the aim of it is to partly mitigate the impact of section 5, which the Democrats and Senator Brown tried to remove from the legislation—unfortunately unsuccessfully. This goes a small way towards addressing the damage that is being caused by that section remaining in the legislation and, as such, I suppose it is better than nothing, although again I think it is worth emphasising that it is very much a second or third or fourth or tenth best option. But it does ensure that the section that enables RFAs to be disregarded for the purposes of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act does not apply to properties included in the World Heritage List or Ramsar wetlands or forestry operations that are incidental to another act whose primary purpose does not relate to forestry.So it does provide some scope back into the protections provided by the world heritage act and to that extent it is worthy of support. But again I think it must be emphasised that it is very much a second best option, still leaving widespread scope for RFAs to operate outside the requirements of federal environment protection legislation—something that the Democrats believe is a fatal and fundamental flaw in this legislation. It does not remove that fatal and fundamental flaw but perhaps makes the fatality slightly less immediate and slightly less complete, so in that sense and for that purpose the Democrats are prepared to support this amendment.12:12:008103Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—As Senator Forshaw has remarked, this amendment attempts to qualify exemptions provided to RFA forestry operations under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, and it does so by incorporating qualifications contained in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.The government does not agree that this proposed amendment is necessary. The EPBC Act implements key elements of the 1997 COAG agreement by dealing with environmental assessment and approvals processes. It provides a framework for a more effective national approach to environmental management, ensuring that resources are focused on delivering better environmental outcomes at all levels of government.The RFA provisions in that act remove the application of new environmental assessment and approval requirements under that bill while an RFA is in force. Transitional and savings provisions contained in the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1999 provide for the continuation of relevant existing environmental legislation which would otherwise be replaced by the EPBC Act for the purposes of developing and finalising RFAs for specified reasons, and this is consistent with the COAG agreement in relation to forestry matters, which requires any arrangements entered into as part of an RFA to not be affected by these new environmental processes.The RFA Bill provides support for RFA forestry operations by exempting such operations from existing environmental and heritage legislation. The EPBC Act complements the RFA Bill by ensuring that environmental assessment and approval requirements relating to RFA forestry operations which are satisfied under the RFA process are not revisited under the new environmental legislation while an RFA is in force. So we will not be supporting this amendment.12:14:008103Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That is just a reiteration of the government position that this is a woodchip operation and they will not have the environment getting in the way. The parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the Prime Minister, has just said that the regional forest agreements provide support to existing forest operations. You will have heard me say this before, and it is much the same elsewhere: in my state, 80 to 90 per cent and in some cases 95 per cent of those forests are going to the woodchip mills to end up on rubbish dumps in the Northern Hemisphere. Yes, this provides support for that process and, as we have just heard from the government, they do not want environmental laws getting in the way of that. That says it all. I support the amendment.Amendment agreed to.Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.12:16:008104Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Greens amendment No. 6:(9) Clause 6, page 4 (lines 21 to 27), omit the clause, substitute:6 Termination of RFA by Commonwealth The Commonwealth is deemed to have terminated an RFA: (a) if a court finds that a State government which is a party to the RFA has breached a State law concerning forest management, forest industry practices or the conservation of environment and heritage values in forests; or (b) if it has given one month's notice of the intended termination to a State government which is a party to the RFA.We have just heard the government supporting draconian fines being placed on young people who go to the forests to try and peacefully defend them because, the parliamentary secretary said, they were breaching the laws. Let us see how consistent this standard is. The Australian Greens are here moving an amendment which says, `If the woodchip corporations breach the laws, let us have these agreements, which are therefore broken, terminated.' We will see how strong the consistency and avoidance of double standards by the government is. Paragraph (b) of the amendment says that the Commonwealth is deemed to have terminated a regional forest agreement:if it has given one month's notice of the intended termination to a State government which is a party to the RFA.In the future, somewhere in the next 20 years, it may be that a more enlightened government is going to respond to the majority of Australians who do not want forests being destroyed when there is a perfectly good plantation establishment to provide this nation's wood needs. The alternative is there. Maybe commonsense, if not national considerations of heritage, will come to the fore under a government which has got a heart—the heart that is missing from this Howard government. And in that case we should not be trammelling a future government to being tied into an agreement. It is sensible. It allows the parliament to reflect the values of the day. It does not try to disempower future governments or parliaments in the interests of a few big, heartless woodchip corporations.Already, since the signing of regional forest agreements, there was such illegal logging in Goolengook heritage river area in Victoria that the Kennett government, which had actually promoted and been the means by which illegal logging was taking place in heritage river areas, had to go back and retrospectively change the laws so it and its logging friends would escape legal action there. Double standards, you see. There are also problems in the Otways and elsewhere in Victoria and of course in Tasmania, and I will come back to those when this debate resumes later in the day.Progress reported.First Speech810410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Pursuant to an order agreed to earlier this week, I call on Senator Greig to make his first speech and I remind senators of the usual conventions.12:20:008104Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I spent my youth on the coast at Lancelin, where my parents were involved in the crayfishing industry. I recall with affection the many times I worked as a deckhand on my father's cray boat, miles out to sea, in the wee hours of the morning, surrounded by rotting cow hocks and fish heads, and crashing face first into strong headwinds. Some might say this was good preparation for a career in politics. It was there, growing up on the windswept coast north of Perth during the late 1970s and early 1980s, that I developed my love of the sea and of the coastal sands and bushlands which hug the Western Australian coastline, a region rich in the history of the early exploration by the Dutch.Growing up in Lancelin introduced me to the wonders of natural history and instilled in me a deep respect for native flora and fauna. My early years were in some ways mirrored by the life of one of my favourite authors, Gerald Durrell, who as a child grew up on the sun-drenched shores of Corfu in Greece. He later wrote with great clarity and humour about his love of wildlife and the need to protect and preserve it.In later years, as a student activist I campaigned in defence of free education and in opposition to tertiary fees. I also fought strongly for compulsory student unionism, and am proud of the role that the Democrats have played in defending this principle, once again, from attack. At one point during my student days, I could be found waist-deep in muddy swamp water trying to stop a road bypass being constructed through the Farrington wetlands at the southern edge of Murdoch campus. However, the road went through, as roads so often do, and it was a road that eventually brought me all the way to Canberra.However, I would be painting an incomplete picture if I did not detail the most profound aspect of that journey. That is the fact that, since the age of 12, I have known I am gay. This has profoundly influenced my life and given me personal insight into intolerance, prejudice and the hatred that I might not otherwise have experienced. Equally, it has made me determined to stand against this and to fight against all unjust laws by confronting law and opinion makers with the reality of their intolerance.As a young person coming to terms with my sexuality, I found it to be an alienating and lonely experience. Schools ignore their gay and lesbian students for fear of being seen to promote homosexuality. But, of course, a person's sexuality is innate. It cannot be taught and it is not contagious. As a consequence of this conspiracy of silence, gay and lesbian youth live in an environment of denial and rejection, with no support, counselling, validation, or role models. And then we wonder why it is that up to one-third of all young people who attempt suicide do so because of the anguish or uncertainty over their sexuality.Lesbian and gay youth are a normal and healthy part of the diverse human family. They need to know that and to know that they are not alone. As the author of Tales of the City, Armistead Maupin, said more succinctly:I wish someone older than me, and wiser than me, had taken me aside and said: You're all right kid. You can grow up to be a doctor or a teacher just like anyone else. You are not sick or crazy or evil. Most of all though, you can love and be loved without hating yourself for it.It came as a shock to me to learn in 1989 that I was a criminal. And in the views of the Western Australian parliament I remain a criminal, because there is no statute of limitation on this type of prosecution. Prior to 1989, all gay men in Western Australia were considered criminals and faced 14 years in prison for consenting sex in private. Little has changed and, although this law has partly been repealed, gay males in my home state under the age of 21—the highest consent age in the world—are still regarded as criminals. These laws are worse than any that exist in Western or Eastern Europe—with the exception of Romania.In WA, gay men are still being arrested, still being charged, still being fined and still being imprisoned under laws that do not apply to heterosexual people—laws similar to those which saw Oscar Wilde imprisoned in Reading Jail more than 100 years ago. While anti-gay laws also exist in New South Wales and the Northern Territory, they are most draconian in WA. Additionally, WA holds the dubious distinction of being the only state where discrimination against gay and lesbian people remains legal. We can be refused employment, accommodation and the provision of goods and services. This happens frequently and with impunity. There is no state or Commonwealth redress. Federal human rights laws exclude us.As a nation, Australia maintains appalling laws against gay and lesbian people. We live under a regime of apartheid. It is an apartheid not based on the colour of our skin, but on the colour of our sexuality. Homophobia is nothing less than sexual racism. But homosexuality is not a behaviour to be regulated. It is an identity to be respected. We are people, first and foremost. We work, we have lives, we love and have relationships. We are family. Yet, despite being citizens, voters and taxpayers, lesbian and gay Australians do not have the same rights—or in many cases have no rights—to those things in life that heterosexual people take for granted. As a gay man, I can be denied access to a hospital to visit my partner if he is sick or injured—because I am not considered next of kin. If I should die, my partner has no legal claim to my superannuation death benefit, despite the fact that I have nominated him as my beneficiary. I cannot claim my partner as a dependant or split our incomes for taxation purposes and, if we should separate, there is no legal mechanism to ensure fair and reasonable property settlement—we are denied access to the Family Court. And so it is for all same sex couples.These complications are even more pronounced for the many gay and lesbian families raising children. It may come as a surprise to the Senate that many gay men do in fact have children and that about 30 per cent of lesbian couples either have or plan to have children. Despite this, some people still promote arguments and laws in opposition to what is the reality of many people's lives. But the fact remains that, no matter how many obstacles you place in front of women trying to have children, those women who really want children will have children, as is their right. Heterosexual people do not have a monopoly on good child rearing practices. It is those people who really want children who make the best parents.The systemic denial of our relationships is evident even here in the Senate. I am required to fill out the senators' register of interests, including notation of any assets and shares belonging to my `spouse or de facto partner'. And yet as recently as May of last year, the Senate determined that these definitions must apply only to heterosexual relationships. Lesbian and gay MPs are precluded from registering their partner's interests. When I inquired as to what I should do in relation to Keith, my partner of 13 years, it was suggested to me that I may want to simply comply with the spirit of the register and to provide Keith's details anyway. As a matter of principle, I cannot.Gay and lesbian people fighting for compensation and superannuation death benefits find that the spirit of those acts cannot be applied to same sex relationships. And so it is with unfair stamp duty payments and other taxation imposts, property settlement, family payments and spousal recognition within the defence forces and Public Service. Gay and lesbian people seeking to be regarded as next of kin for hospital visits or funeral arrangements can find that the spirit of those acts cannot be applied to them, and the immigration process for same sex couples applies differently and to our disadvantage. The spirit does not apply here either. No, the spirit of Commonwealth legislation towards same sex relationships is decidedly mean spirited. We are excluded.I give notice that I will move to amend the orders of the Senate relating to spousal definitions in the register to ensure that gay and lesbian MPs will also have the same responsibilities as other members of parliament. The legal recognition of same sex relationships is a human rights priority that must be addressed by the Commonwealth. The New South Wales government has already done this. The Queensland government has indicated it is set to follow, and the Tasmanian government is looking at doing so following the sweeping changes to gay and lesbian law reform that have occurred in the island state.In his victory speech in 1998, Prime Minister Howard spoke of the need for a more caring and tolerant Australia. At their national conference in Hobart two years ago, the Australian Labor Party unanimously passed a motion recognising the need for equality and justice for gay men and lesbians. If these parties are serious about this, as the Democrats are, then now is the time for them to act. The Democrat Sexuality Discrimination Bill currently before the Senate will remove all discrimination from Commonwealth legislation as it currently applies to the sexuality of all Australians. Further, it will impose national antidiscrimination laws on the basis of sexuality or gender status, and make it unlawful to incite hatred on the same grounds. It deserves cross-party support.Discrimination against gay and lesbian people is as morally repugnant as racism or anti-Semitism. As a nation we have fallen behind comparable jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, in terms of protecting the human rights of homosexual people. For as long as governments condone this apartheid, they are creating the social and political environment that leads to harassment and violence towards gay and lesbian people. While parliaments continue to deny our relationships, deem us to be criminals, and render us to be second-class citizens without legal protections, then some people will take this as their cue to continue to treat us badly.Australian research shows that almost half of all gay and lesbian people report some form of discrimination or harassment at work, including sackings. Roughly 30 per cent of lesbian and gay people experience harassment at school. And, worst of all, 70 per cent of gay and lesbian people report being verbally abused, threatened or bashed in a public place.I wish to take a moment now to briefly tell the story of a young man called Matthew Shepherd. Matthew was a slightly built 21-year-old student in Wyoming in the United States. About a year ago he was lured from a campus bar by two men. They drove him to a remote area outside the town of Laramie, where they viciously beat him. As he lay there bleeding, begging for his life, he was bound to a fence and left in near freezing temperatures to die. He had been beaten so badly that his limp body, when found, was at first thought to be a scarecrow. His attackers had stolen his shoes and robbed his apartment. After being struck in the head 18 times with the butt of a hand gun, he remained in a coma for five days without regaining consciousness, before dying. Matthew Shepherd was murdered because he was gay.Before anyone here is tempted to think that this could only happen in America, I remind the Senate that no fewer than 30 men have been bashed to death in Sydney since 1990 simply because they were gay or presumed to be so. This violence does not occur in a vacuum, it is not spontaneous. Hatred of this kind takes years to mature within societies. It is nurtured through a culture of invisibility and fear towards gay and lesbian people and the neglect and indifference of parliaments. Each time a piece of legislation comes before the parliament and touches on human rights and human relationships but excludes gay and lesbian people and denies our relationships, it perpetuates this culture of invisibility. Each time a public figure or religious speaker denounces our existence or seeks to justify our differential treatment, it perpetuates this culture of fear. As Justice Michael Kirby said on this topic recently, `The game of shame is over.'I stand here today, on this first day of spring, and on the dawn of a new century, as a representative of the last generation of gay and lesbian people who will tolerate the injustices of the past being carried into the future. To the thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered citizens who know the pain of abuse and discrimination and to those who have been unjustly arrested and jailed, I pledge my support and the support of my party.Throughout my 10 years as a human rights activist, I was inspired by the dedication and tenacity of small groups of people fighting for change against overwhelming odds. These groups have very few resources, other than a passion for justice and a strong desire for change. At times these groups face opposition so fierce it can lead to violence, as we have seen recently in the forests of Western Australia, and it is deeply personal. Yet it is these tiny community groups which change community attitudes, which in turn change laws.I salute the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group which, through a 10-year campaign, brought about the repeal of offensive anti-gay laws in that state, a state which now leads the world in sexuality education programs, and leads the nation with antidiscrimination laws. And I offer my respects to Rodney Croome and Nick Toonan, the public faces of that movement. Their legacy is a United Nations resolution reaffirming the human rights of all gay and lesbian citizens, a resolution which has shone a light into some of the darkest corners of the world and which can now be built on. I also salute the Gay and Lesbian Equality group in my home state which, after 11 years of fighting, is on the brink of achieving change. Its legacy is the shift in community attitudes it has brought about though reasoned arguments, truth and persistence.Senator Tchen, in his first speech, spoke of the generational change taking place in parliament. Specifically, he referred to the election of himself, a Chinese born Australian, and of my colleague Senator Ridgeway, an indigenous Australian, as indicative of this generational change. I agree, but I would go further and add that the election to the Australian parliament of a gay and lesbian rights advocate is also indicative of this generational change. It is also indicative of the maturity of the Australian Democrats as a party of representation and reform. Let us hope that as a nation we enter the new millennium a society not simply of greater tolerance but of greater acceptance.Finally, I offer my sincere thanks to the many thousands of Western Australian citizens who voted for me, and in doing so have asked me to represent them and their interests in the Senate through the prism of Democrats' policy and philosophy. I accept that challenge.In closing, I want to express grateful thanks to my parents, both of whom worked hard to provide better opportunities for their children, and to my partner, Keith, who taught me that the personal is political. Keith, never short of an opinion, knows exactly what is wrong with the world and what it is that politicians need to do to fix it—but then he is a cab driver, so you have got to expect that. I also express thanks to Lucy, for her unconditional love, but then she is a kelpie, so you have got to expect that too; to John, a fellow traveller who shares this journey with me; to Sophia, for teaching me that everything changes; to June, for pushing; to Melinda, for being there; to the Democrats, for their trust; to the Western Australian gay and lesbian community for its support; and to the late Chris Carter, a gay man and founding member of the Australian Democrats, who showed the way.Matters of Public Interest8108810812:41:008108Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I plan today to continue my contribution to the policy debate on rural and regional Australia. I would like to begin by repeating what I said in the chamber last week, and that is that the big challenge in rural and regional Australia, particularly given the opening up of the Australian economy to the world, is that as we move towards deregulation and globalisation it is up to government at all levels—federal, state and local—to come up with effective strategies to assist the bush to survive in this new global environment.The debate that we face on this is really between two points of view. One is to focus on the major centres and let the smaller centres just downsize naturally, without any assistance—in other words, perhaps recognising the imperatives of a global economy and saying, `Well, the more efficient way to run things is from the bigger centres, places like Dubbo, Wagga, Tamworth and Lismore, and the smaller centres will naturally fade away.' The other view is to empower all communities, including the smaller centres, to actually leverage themselves up under local leadership to find their niche in this new marketplace. Later on in this speech today I want to go into a number of examples, a number of cameos, of small centres which in a totally economic rationalist world you would think would decline and die but have shown that they have the ability to survive and, with a little bit of government assistance and with a little bit of leadership in the local area, to find their particular niche in the world.I favour very much this second broad approach. The reality is that the larger centres, the Waggas, the Bathursts, the Tamworths and the Lismores, will survive anyway. They will survive against the Sydneys, the Melbournes and the Brisbanes because they have enough critical mass to grow. The thing that greatly concerns me, and I bring it to the attention of the Senate today, is that they are getting a lot of their growth and taking a lot of their strength from the surrounding countryside. I used to work for a number of years in Wagga in south-west New South Wales. If you look around Wagga, you see that what is happening is that the smaller centres are the ones that struggle as Wagga acts as a magnet to commerce. These are places like Junee, for example, 20 kilometres away, Cootamundra, Henty, The Rock, Mangoplah and Cookardinia—by the way, they had the greatest football team in the Riverina at the time; Mangoplah-Cookardinia United used to beat Wagga. So there is a great lot of spirit in some of these little centres. These are the ones that actually suffer as the big towns take up an increasing part of the economic framework of growth of a particular region.So let us look at what has happened in recent times with the centralisation of commerce, with modern communications and technologies, and with modern transport means—people having greater access to cars. If you are like one of our senators who lives outside Junee, if you wanted to go shopping you might go to Junee or you might bypass that and go to Wagga, 20 kilometres away. So we have to actually build incentives into the system and help local leadership develop strategies so people are going to want to stay in local areas.Certainly, they may go to big centres like Wagga to do a lot of their business. But we must give the smaller centres the opportunity to capture as much of that as possible so that not only the people who are actually in the little towns but also the people in the countryside will have a greater opportunity to stay in those centres. That will happen if we give this sort of assistance.If we were not to move on strategies that would assist the small towns to survive, we would face, in terms of the whole landscape of Australia, a fairly bleak future. We would have a greatly depopulated landscape. We would have, under the alternative scenario, very few people outside the major centres. We would have rural holdings growing in size and therefore fewer people out on the land and we would have a lot fewer people in the towns that originally used to service those. So I am suggesting that maintaining a structure in rural Australia where we have big thriving centres and also have a series of increasingly thriving towns and villages is a lifestyle in this country which is worth fighting for.I would like to emphasise the role of government in particular in the survival of these sorts of locations. I want to inform the Senate of the example of a place called Walcha. Walcha is a small area: it has a town population of 1,700 and a population in the surrounding areas of 3,500. It is up on the northern tablelands of New South Wales. It is fairly close to places like Armidale and Tamworth and it is feeling the effects of the competition of those bigger centres as people increasingly move to do their shopping and business in those larger centres. A place like Walcha, which you might think with that number of people will just wither and die, really has the opportunity to fight back and government has a role in helping the Walchas of this world survive. I will give you three examples of government initiatives in the Walcha area that will help bring that about.The first relates to the major industry surrounding Walcha, which is the timber industry. We have regional forest agreements, and we have spent a lot of time debating them in this parliament in the last two weeks. We have a balance that we still have to get right in this country between conservation and development. We have in the forests surrounding Walcha and in the traditional management practices of the timber industry the opportunity to harvest and to renew those forests in an orderly manner.But if the state government, which has prime control over the RFA in that area, gets it wrong, what will happen in Walcha will be just what will happen in the Hunter Valley and in many towns, such as Dungog and places like Stroud and Seaham. They will die because there is not enough timber to feed the mill, the mill shuts down, the timber workers do not have a job, all the support industries go out of business and the town declines. So that is a possible future facing Walcha if the state government does not get it right.Interestingly enough, the federal government has a role in Walcha as well, and it is one which we may not realise. This is why I would like to draw it to the attention of the Senate. In Walcha is a very advanced veterin ary lab. It seems a strange place for this lab to be. It is a family business which has grown over the years and it has an international market for its product. As a matter of fact, most of its market is international because we have set up a regime—this must have been a long time ago—where the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation actually has a monopoly on some of the services that these people would like to provide. Why? It is a historical overhang which we should probably do something about because, if there are small businesses in country areas that can compete with the CSIRO, why should they not do so? This is a move that this parliament should take some interest in.The other way in which the parliament has assisted Walcha relates to regional transaction centres, which we are setting up across the country. They are one of the major underpinnings of small country centres that can help them survive. We have seen over the years a wide range of government services disappear. Indeed, I am involved at the moment in a Senate committee inquiry, and its report which we are about to sign off—on unemployment and employment in regional Australia—has made it very clear that the government's role can be quite crucial. With regional transaction centres we have the opportunity now to rebuild the infrastructure that has been lost because of a range of government decisions.In the case of one town, our report actually goes through what government facilities have been lost. When I looked through the list of facilities, I saw they were all state government things which have been shut down. Railways have been shut down as well as hospitals. Withdrawal of police services, the downsizing of the teaching service and a whole range of other things have been done by the state government.What we have done federally is to come back and put in an underpinning through rural transaction centres. These are centres where people can undertake banking and a whole range of other types of activities that will help people stay in those areas. If you have to constantly drive from the farm, past the town, to the city, which might be 70 kilometres away, and come back, the pressure of living in that sort of isolated environment will drive people from the land in this country. With new technology we have seen the opportunities for that to come back.We also had a great win for the bush recently in terms of that technology, which will give people in Walcha great heart—and in many other much more remote places—when Telstra last week launched in this parliament its Big Pond advance system, which is a way of communicating in the bush via satellite. Initially terrestrial systems will be used but, where that cuts out, the system will switch to the satellite. In terms of the number of megabits per second, we were talking about normal standards of 64, but this satellite system has a standard of 200 megabits per second. The bandwidth in remote Australia under this system will jump way past what is available in the cities. So let us chalk one up for the bush there.Through government assisting the development of these sorts of new technologies, people can live in a place like Walcha and carry on their traditional business, but they can also develop, particularly via these new communication technologies, a whole range of other businesses. One of the great things that came out of the partial sale of Telstra is the fact that, under the rural communications infrastructure fund, we put aside money—initially a quarter of a billion dollars and, out of the last sale, more again—to support these sorts of developments and a whole range of little projects out in the bush that would improve communications between people who are living outside the big cities and the people who are in those big cities.We really need to provide those opportunities further because, if you are running a business that is communications based, you can live in a place like Walcha and, provided you have that link in communications, run whatever your business is out of that area. We have the opportunity in the next 100 years to actually turn around this depopulating development that has occurred right through this century. I have mentioned before A.D. Hope's comment about the parasitic nature of the big cities and the fact that then there was a low population concentration in the country; that has now become lower. With new technology we can switch this right around and help people move out of the big cities to live in these beautiful areas that have a great lifestyle, and that will improve the lifestyle in country Australia. (Time expired)811112:56:008111O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I have some matters I want to refer to and, if I have time, there are a couple of points that Senator Tierney referred to that I would like to touch upon. There was an interesting article in the English Financial Times on 12 August. The story was headed `Plan to introduce tax breaks for shipowners'. The story was about a plan by the British government to stem the rapid decline in the British merchant fleet. The size of the UK owned fleet has shrunk by two-thirds since 1980, while the numbers of British seafarers has fallen by more than 60 per cent, from 52,000 to just 20,000. The Australian shipping fleet has suffered a similar fate, but its decline has accelerated dramatically since this government came to office in March 1996. But I am afraid that the chances of seeing a story in the Australian Financial Review , with the headline `Government helps Australian shipping industry', are Buckley's and none.The shipping industry, and all those industries and workers who rely on it for their livelihood, may have been heartened by a media release from the former minister for transport, Mr Sharp, on 13 August 1996. Mr Sharp was announcing the establishment of a special shipping reform group to advise him. He said that he was committed to implementing the government's election promise to make Australia's shipping industry internationally competitive. His statements suggested that he had rightly recognised the importance of this industry to the future of the Australian economy. It appeared he was aware that this country boasts the fifth largest marine freight task in the world.Mr Sharp received a report from his special task force, which was headed by Mr Julian Manser, in March 1997. That report was released in May of the same year. He said that the report proposed a solution to the continuous decline in the merchant shipping fleet. He said there was an opportunity to restore and expand the industry. He said there was an opportunity for future growth and more jobs. He said:Our commitment is to defend Australian shipping and shipping jobs by placing the industry on a competitive footing for the future.Mr Sharp was misleading the industry and the Australian community. The government did not move to implement the plan; it only took up the easy options presented by Mr Manser. The tough issues—the establishment of a second register and the provision of fiscal support for the Australian shipping industry—were put off its agenda for another year. It set up yet another task force. It initiated yet another inquiry. It asked for yet another report. This is the second report on shipping reform, and it is now on the desk of the current transport minister, Mr Anderson. It has been there since April.In contrast to the first report, this is a secret document. Mr Anderson has refused to release it, even to the shipping industry. The reason is obvious. That report exposes the flaws in the government's policy, or lack of it. That report says that Australian shipping is a key export industry in the Australian economy. Despite the rhetoric from Mr Sharp about a future for Australian shipping and despite the successful efforts of Australian shipping to increase its efficiency and cost competitiveness—on tonnes carried per vessel basis, productivity in the Australian registered fleet has increased by 40 per cent since 1991—the government has opted to condemn the Australian merchant shipping fleet to a slow death. It has progressively increased the number of permits given to foreign vessels to enable them to operate on the Australian coast. It will not assist this industry, as other governments, such as the British government and the governments of Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Germany, have done.The do nothing approach is very much the Anderson way of public administration—do nothing and the problem will eventually go away. But in this case so will thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of financial benefits for the Australian economy. The effect of the do nothing approach is now showing through. The share of cargo carried by Australian flag vessels into Australian ports as a percentage of deadweight tonnes fell from 9.98 per cent in 1995-96 to just 3.68 per cent in 1997-98. That figure was down further, to 3.29 per cent, in 1998. Under the oversight of the Howard government, the share of cargo shipped out of Australia—that is, exports—has dropped from 2.42 per cent in 1995-96 to 1.96 per cent in 1997-98. That figure dropped further last calendar year, to 1.91 per cent.The do nothing approach has also seen the collapse of investment in Australian shipping, and the average age of the Australian shipping fleet has increased as a result. The average age of the Australian shipping fleet was stable per vessel at around eight to nine years for the decade for the 1980s and into the early 1990s. Australia could rightly claim that we had a modern, safe and efficient shipping fleet with highly skilled crews and crewing levels down to OECD average. That average has slipped now to 13 years per vessel.This government is handing the job of carrying our exports and imports to a Third World shipping fleet with an average vessel age of 18 years and will pay around $1 billion in current account losses for the privilege. Mr Anderson's plan will see our freight carried entirely by flag of convenience vessels with untrained crews, vessels on which even the most basic of safety standards appear to be optional. Over the last 18 months, some 300 of these ships have been detained in Australian ports by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. They were detained because of serious maintenance problems and equipment and crew deficiencies. On average, one of these ships is detained in Sydney alone every two weeks. The task of trying to ensure that our marine environment is protected and our port safety is maintained is currently difficult. Under the Anderson maritime plan, it will become impossible.Let me illustrate the problem AMSA faces in making the international fleet accountable. Last April a container ship called Direct Falcon was detained by AMSA because it had communication problems and defective dampers in its engine room. The vessel flew the flag of the Bahamas; it was owned by Maritime Falcon Incorporated and it was managed by Australia New Zealand Direct Line. Four weeks later, the Direct Falcon was back in Australia, but it now flew a Liberian flag, it was now owned by Fourth Nordcap Shipping and it was now managed by Colombia Ship Management. How can this industry be held accountable if the ship's front falls off or if it spills oil all along our coast? This is a regime, and these are the ships, that Mr Anderson is inviting to take over both the coastal and international shipping tasks in this country.There are two more important consequences of the decision by the Howard government to do away with the Australian merchant shipping fleet. The first relates to the entry of illegal immigrants into this country. The Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone, said recently that the great problem authorities face in locating and deporting illegal immigrants is in the major cities. It is very easy to get lost in a city of several million people. The presence of a large foreign shipping fleet operating on the Australian coast for extended periods of time will add significantly to this problem. The current limits on the length of time foreign seafarers are allowed to remain on the Australian coast will have to be abandoned. Deserters are already a problem. Between March 1996 and 30 April this year, some 263 ship deserters were reported to Customs. Only 148 of those deserters were located.The issue of illegal immigrants has rightly been the subject of some considerable debate in recent times. I asked the Minister for Justice and Customs a question without notice on implications for border controls flowing from the government's plan to end Australian shipping. Surprisingly and disturbingly, she knew nothing about the issue. This is despite the fact that the government had a report that very much went to this matter. Mr Sharp had that report in March of 1997, more than two years ago. Senator Vanstone told me in question time that she would seek advice on this matter. She did. She sought the advice and she provided a written response. In it, she said she could not comment. There has been much talk about professional people smugglers and how best we can deal with the problem, but this government, without the knowledge of the Minister for Justice and Customs, has a plan in place which will facilitate this movement of people into Australia rather than prevent it.The second consequence relates to our national security. On 25 February 1982, the government of the day established the Australian Shipping Defence Council. The council was set up to promote the partnership between the Australian Defence Organisation and the Australian maritime industry. Its job was to facilitate the provision of effective advice and support to government on maritime issues in the interests of national security. It was there to ensure that the Australian merchant fleet could be mobilised quickly and effectively in the event of an external threat to Australia. Under the Anderson plan, there will be little that council—it is now called the Maritime Defence Council—can do. The reason: there will be no Australian merchant fleet to mobilise. No matter how you look at the approach taken by this government to the management of the Australian shipping task—whether it be financial, environmental, security or effective border control—the situation is that this policy is a disaster waiting to happen.I want to say something in relation to the comments made by Senator Tierney earlier today, particularly those comments relating to Walcha in New South Wales—yes, I have heard of Walcha; I have not been there, unfortunately, but I suppose there are a great many places in Australia that I have not had the fortune to visit. He spoke about the effect on Walcha of an RFA entered into by a state government; that Walcha was at the mercy of a state government in relation to the entering into of an RFA. I say to Senator Tierney that, if he had those concerns, he would have supported Labor's amendments to the RFA legislation giving this parliament the opportunity to disallow an RFA that did not properly deal with the matter. But of course he did not do that. I invite Senator Tierney to con sider his actions in the light of his comments today in which he sought to question the role of his state and, thereby, all states in the making of RFAs, and the process that this parliament should enter into in approving the legislation now before it.Senator Tierney also talked about a veterinary laboratory which produces a product that is exported internationally. Let me say that there is nothing unusual about regional centres being engaged in important manufacturing tasks, particularly those related to the activities of rural and regional Australia. In my state of Tasmania that is not surprising at all. For instance, the opium poppy crop is processed at a place called Westbury in north-eastern Tasmania. Although Westbury would have a population smaller than Walcha, it is an important industry to the state. It is as important and, indeed, as appropriate an operation for Westbury as is the operation for Walcha, and as are a great many other important contributing operations throughout rural and regional Australia. So the opposition is not at all surprised—as Senator Tierney appeared to be—about the operations in Walcha. We think there should be more of them.811313:09:008113Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I rise today to speak on the question of the International Year of Older Persons. As I think we are all aware, the year is an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of older Australians in our community and to implement positive initiatives to enhance their quality of life. As a society, we do not value enough the participation of older persons. The International Year of Older Persons is a valuable opportunity to counter some of the negative images portrayed in the media and to promote the positive contribution older people make in a range of areas in our society.I want to raise the opposition's concern about the government letting this opportunity slip away. We are now two-thirds of the way through this International Year of Older Persons and I am receiving many complaints from constituents and aged groups about their disappointment with the progress being made and with the government's response to the year. It is those concerns that I would like to give voice to today.The disappointment older Australians are expressing is understandable, given that the preparations for the year promised so much. At the outset, I want to give credit to Senator Kay Patterson for her work last year in chairing the Conference for Older Australians. The Conference for Older Australians was established in February 1997 to advise the government on Australia's involvement in the international year. Under Senator Patterson's leadership, the conference held consultations with 350 older Australians across the country. On the basis of that consultation, the conference released its interim report in June 1998 on themes and issues that were identified by older Australians as areas of concern and as areas where positive steps could be taken to make a lasting impact on the lives of older Australians. Yet it appears that the government has simply put the report from the conference on the top shelf and ignored many of the issues and suggestions raised through that consultation with older Australians in the lead-up to the year.The government's inaction is most apparent in relation to the development of the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia. One of the former ministers for family services announced in November 1997 that the government would develop a national strategy for an ageing Australia. The Department of Family and Community Services web site contains the following statement:The National Strategy for an Ageing Australia is primarily concerned with developing a proactive response to the emerging issues related to population ageing. This is the Commonwealth Government's key policy response to the International Year for Older Persons.This is a very laudable objective and one which the opposition supports.The work of the Conference for Older Australians through 1998 provided a good basis for the development of that strategy. This was noted in an article from ARPA Over 50's Association in June this year titled `Get on with it Minister!' The article notes that on 14 July 1998, following the release of the conference report, the then Minister for Family Services, Warwick Smith, wrote to many organisations advising them on the development of the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia. A ministerial reference group was set up to consult with the Conference for Older Australians to work on the development of the strategy. Nothing much appears to have happened since.In early May 1999, the current Minister for Aged Care, having been appointed the chair of the new ministerial reference group in February 1999, circulated a background paper on the development of the strategy. The faces in the group were the same as those from the previous year, except for the new minister being made chair. That background paper, launched in May, in the minister's words:. . . sets out the key policy issues which Australia will face over the coming decades.I think people were generally disappointed with the quality of that paper but it did provide a background basis for the development of the strategy.The article by ARPA notes that the four themes identified by the Minister for Health and Aged Care in May 1999 were almost identical to the themes identified by the government in July 1998. It notes that the national strategy remains `a pipe dream' and concludes by calling on the minister to `get on with it' and develop the national strategy for an ageing Australia. That call is even more pressing now, three months on, as we see no sign of anything further being done by the minister to progress the development of the strategy. At the June round of Senate estimates, I queried the department on a timetable for the development of the strategy, and I quote the department's response:The background paper is not itself a discussion paper but a scene setting paper for the further discussion paper that will be released on a staggered basis throughout the year. At the end of June we will be releasing a paper on healthy ageing. After that we will be releasing a paper on world-class care, another paper on independence and self-provision and a fourth paper on attitudes and lifestyles in the community.As I indicated, the first paper will be released at the end of June and then monthly thereafter. I do not know whether I have missed them, but I can find no trace of any of those papers. It is now September and, unless they have been circulated to a very select group, none of those papers have been released. By the department's own account, the first three of these papers should be out in the community generating the discussion necessary for the development of the strategy. Remember, it is a strategy for the ageing of the population to mark and celebrate the International Year of Older Persons—and we are in September. These discussion papers have not even been produced, to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately, it is now clear that the strategy, which is the government's key response to the year, will not be finalised until well into the year 2000. After announcing the development of the strategy in November 1997, the government's inaction on the issue will mean that older Australians will have to wait until the year after the Year of Older Persons to see what the national strategy for an ageing Australia will look like. I can only echo the call from ARPA and ask the minister to get on with the development of the strategy.More recently, the minister sent out a letter to members and senators about the Commonwealth's recognition awards for senior Australians. That undated letter arrived in late July/early August and set out the following timetable for the award system: ASAP—form an electorate-wide selection committee; ASAP—call for nominations; mid-August—assess applications for awards; end August—members present awards; and 3 September—name of outstanding constituent forwarded to the department. This was a scheme whereby each member of the House of Representatives was to recognise 20 older Australians' contributions and to select one to be sent to Canberra to participate in a ceremony. The reality is that many members of parliament did not see this letter until the first week of August, which gave them just three weeks to administer the awards. Many members have expressed to me their concern at their inability to do the program proper justice. They are concerned that they have not been able to give the scheme the sort of attention, publicity and involvement that a serious treatment of the International Year of Older Persons deserves.Understandably, a number of older Australians have been contacting members' offices and my office to complain about the ridiculously short timetable provided to nominate for the awards, and they are concerned that the value of the awards has been downgraded by the lack of proper organisation. Mr Denys Correll, the Executive Director on the Council of Ageing, has noted the awards have been on the drawing board for some time. He is quoted as saying, `So we are a little disappointed that there is so little time.' I have a letter from the Independent Retirees Association complaining about the time given to nominate for the awards. They, like most groups, indicate that at least two months would have been a much more appropriate time frame for the awards. The ridiculously short time frame provided to administer the awards will invariably mean that older Australians are denied an opportunity to participate in this worthwhile program.I wrote to the minister three or four weeks ago, when I first became aware of the awards, to raise these concerns. I had been seeking information on them for some months through estimates, but I got my letter in late July/early August like everybody else. I wrote to the minister following receipt of that letter, but I have not received a reply, nor any explanation as to why the timetable has been so curtailed.It is even more concerning now that the government has announced another scheme—a Commonwealth government Senior Australian of the Year Award, which is a most worthwhile initiative. But again, it seems that this has been done with haste at the last minute and that an inappropriate time line has been set. From what I have seen in the press, the advertisements calling for nominations were placed in the national press only 10 days prior to the closure of nominations. Because of the time frame involved, there was not even a formal nomination form process; people had to cut out the ad in the paper and nominate on that because so little time was allowed for the process. On contacting the organisation running the award, it became quite clear that far too little time has been allowed to do the scheme proper justice. That is very disappointing, and the public deserve an explanation of why we have not got our act more together. If we are serious about recognising the contributions of older Australians, we must give them due respect, and the schemes that the government administers have to be promoted and organised in such a way as to allow the greatest possible participation.The opposition is concerned that the offer we have made of a bipartisan approach to the International Year of Older Persons does not seem to have been accepted; we do not seem to have been involved in the year in any serious way. That is disappointing, but we will continue to try to make a positive contribution. It is important that I raise these concerns today. A lot of MPs have raised them with me, and I have had a lot of contact from constituents and aged care groups raising concern about some of these matters, and we need to give voice to them. I have been hesitant about raising these concerns because I do not want to be seen to be knocking the year or curtailing the efforts of the many good people who have taken a positive attitude to getting involved in the International Year of Older Persons. I, too, and all the other Labor members of parliament want to be positively involved, but we have to make sure we do not miss the opportunity through lack of organisation or lack of commitment to the year. We think there is still a chance to make the year a very worthwhile event and that a real push by the minister to get on with the job of making the year a success can be achieved. We are happy to give support to that, but we also support the view of ARPA and others when they say to the minister, `Get on with it.' We can do better and we should do better, and the Labor Party stands prepared to contribute to making sure that the International Year of Older Persons is a success.Sitting suspended from 1.22 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice811681168116Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. I refer the minister to the report released last week by the National Audit Office, Managing Data Privacy in Centrelink . Is the minister aware that the report criticised Centrelink for breaches of privacy, including the insecurity of client's paper files; the emailing of confidential client information; the downloading of client data for possible sale; and, the photocopying of customer credit cards, with full details and expiry dates? In light of this damning report, how can the 6½ million Australians who are Centrelink customers be assured of the security of their private details?8116Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am advised that at the time of the release of the report Centrelink was already addressing the Audit Office's 11 recommendations to strengthen the framework and to continue the work. Some of the issues that were referred to in the auditor's report related to agencies transmitting to and from Centrelink, not necessarily Centrelink itself. The Audit Office also found that Centrelink had a strong framework for maintaining data privacy. When you recognise the extent of the business which Centrelink conducts each day and throughout the year, the privacy concerns have been very minimal.The Audit Office found that there is good general awareness of privacy matters by the staff of Centrelink, and that Centrelink has well-established processes to investigate breaches of data privacy. Nevertheless, Centrelink acknowledges that, although the usual practices for data transfer are via secure methods, better practices can and always will be implemented for transactions between agencies, which was largely the issue in the 11 recommendations. I must say that I think the media reports did take the Auditor-General's report out of context to some degree.8116Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister referred to Centrelink's view that better practices were required. I specifically asked the minister: what concrete steps have been taken by Centrelink, in response to the specific audit report, to ensure that the privacy of Centrelink clients is protected?8116Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have already answered the senator on that. Of the 11 recom mendations, Centrelink had already been addressing something of the order of six of them by the time the Auditor-General's report was released. They are strengthening the framework of privacy, and they will continue to do so.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—When they were in government they had them floating around the streets and under hedges.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I very well remember Senator Patterson bringing to the attention of the Senate—I think Senator Richardson was then the minister—that a constituent had found social security information on individuals floating around under hedges in a suburb in Melbourne. Accidents do happen, but in this case it is not a question so much of accidents but of a need to tighten procedures where Centrelink interfaces with other organisations. I understand that one of those things was the transmission of customer data over unsecured email networks. (Time expired)81178117Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—I direct my question without notice to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate of the detail of the latest national accounts data, which show continued growth in the Australian economy? Will the Assistant Treasurer also inform the Senate of how growth in the Australian economy compares with growth in the rest of the world?8117Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Chapman for that important question. Senator Chapman has always shown a great interest in the economy and in public policy issues related to the economy. I think the question is a very good one. The national accounts figures released today show that growth in the June quarter was 4.1 per cent. Our economy has grown at an annual rate in excess of four per cent for the last nine quarters. This is notwithstanding the fact that the world economy has been weak.In the May budget the government forecast a moderation of growth from the very high growth that the Australian economy has achieved over the last couple of years. The government forecast growth moderating to three per cent for the 1999-2000 year. The national accounts released today provide indications that the economy is moderating as forecast. The accounts show that the economy grew at 0.2 per cent in the June quarter, following an exceptionally strong and revised upwards growth of 1.4 per cent in the March quarter. As always, not too much should be read into the results of any single quarter, but the national accounts do indicate a moderation consistent with the economy growing at three per cent in 1999-2000. Three per cent is stronger than that being achieved in many industrialised economies.I also want to make a comment on national savings, which has been an issue of some debate in this chamber. I have previously warned members of the opposition about household savings data, on the grounds that it is calculated as a residual and is subject to substantial revision. The household savings ratio increased to 3.1 per cent in the June quarter. The March quarter figure was revised upwards from 0.6 per cent to 1.4 per cent and the December quarter from 0.4 per cent to 1.6 per cent. Labor senators who have an interest in these issues may reflect on that. The fact of the matter is that Labor devastated national savings. They adopted policies to deliberately drive up interest rates, to drive up unemployment and to bleed national savings. This government has the policies in place to keep interest rates low, to build national savings and to deliver solid growth and jobs. We are determined to keep on course and to do the job that we were elected to do by the Australian public. From 1 July 2000 the new tax system will make the economy even more competitive and will provide greater incentives to work, to save and to invest.81178117Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Given the minister's concern at the public disclosure of Centrelink files, can the minister explain how 101 confidential social security files were dumped in two wheelie bins belonging to Harry's Hubcaps—a small business in the Queensland suburb of Brendale? How does she explain such irresponsible handling of files containing personal details of clients, their home addresses, details of complaints they had lodged with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, personal correspondence outlining intimate details as well as the final recommendation of the appeals tribunal? Will the minister urgently investigate the matter and report back to the Senate on who dumped those confidential files in the wheelie bins, where the files came from and why they were not properly secured? Will she immediately institute an inquiry into this breakdown of privacy safeguards?8118Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—This question has just been asked by the opposition in the other place, and the minister responsible, Mr Anthony, has already responded. Nevertheless, for the benefit of the Senate, I would say that of course the government does not condone the exposure of private records to the public. Nevertheless, as you mentioned in your question, Senator, there were files of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal apparently in amongst these papers. Constituents who are going through or have been through the Social Security Appeals Tribunal process may well have all those records themselves and they may in fact have disposed of them.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—All 101? What, 101 all together?Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Evans has asked a question, and I am sure he is anxious to get an answer.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I heard Senator Ray being loud on this issue from the back bench over there. He, of the members opposite, would well remember when Senator Richardson was asked to explain—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We remember what you said at the time.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I did not say anything at the time because I was not shadowing social security. I was more interested in how Senator Ray performed in his portfolio at the time. If the former Department of Social Security or the now Centrelink agency has not disposed of people's private records appropriately, that is a matter of grave concern not only for the opposition but also for the gov ernment. There are a variety of ways in which this sort of information may have reached the wheelie bins, and Mr Anthony will be investigating that matter immediately.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Not your problem, eh?BE4Senator NEWMAN—It is, of course, my problem, as the senior minister in the portfolio, but Mr Anthony—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Find a scapegoat—Mr Anthony.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I would have hoped that those who have been ministers in previous governments would understand something about the administrative arrangements in shared portfolios.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You didn't understand it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, you are persistently interjecting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Ray, who persists in making a loud noise for no good effect, should have done his research and know precisely where the immediate responsibility for the service delivery agencies in this portfolio is located: namely, Centrelink, the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and the Child Support Agency are the responsibilities of the junior minister and I have overall responsibility, as you did, Senator Ray.8118Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not think the Australian community is interested in the minister buck-passing the issue; they want a serious answer to the question. Again, I ask the minister: will she undertake to report back to the Senate urgently after she has had the matter fully investigated? Will you report back or not? Will you accept your responsibilities?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your question should be asked through the chair and not directly across the chamber.8118Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have already expressed my concern, as has Mr Anthony. An inquiry will be undertaken by Mr Anthony, and when that is available, obviously, the Senate will be informed of the outcome.81198119Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Minister, under the coalition government there have been significant price reductions in long distance and international phone calls. Will the minister inform the Senate of any recent advances in competition in other sectors of the market? How will consumers, particularly those living in rural and regional Australia, further benefit? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals? What would be the impact on the telecommunications market if these were implemented?8119Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Calvert very rightly points out that there have been tremendous advances since 1 July 1997 when full and open competition was introduced in the telecommunications sector by this government. We have had 28 new carrier licences issued; so there is very significant competition out there in the marketplace. As a result, over recent years call charges for international calls have fallen in some cases by more than 75 per cent and charges for domestic long distance calls by up to 50 per cent. People can now get a single bill, which of course makes a huge difference.In many areas there is a lot happening under the competitive regime. But there is still a long way to go, particularly in the local call market. We were very pleased that the ACCC agreed to declare the local loop and fixed to mobile components and that there will be new technologies introduced, particularly the DSL family of technologies over the copper network. In the mobile area, which is ferociously competitive, we are now seeing a whole host of new offerings. In recent days, Telstra, Hutchison and AAPT have all announced plans to roll out CDMA networks and, of course, Onetel is committed to matching Vodafone and Telstra's GSM network.This is fantastic news for business and residential consumers in regional and rural Australia—a point made by Councillor Tom Pyne and the Local Government Association of Queensland this week when they said that Telstra had delivered a big win for rural and regional Queensland. It is a matter of great satisfaction for people outside the metropolitan areas to know that they have a government that is on their side.Senator Calvert also asked me: what is the alternative? The alternative is to basically slash and burn, to maintain this ferocious opposition to the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. No-one has ever disowned Senator Schacht's appallingly timed election commitment to rip $150 million out of that program, to freeze it, and presumably to hand it over to some other people's mates afterwards. What is the formal Labor approach to telecommunications in rural areas? The shadow minister, Stephen Smith, was asked recently about privatisation, `Would you be putting the profit into rebuilding services, especially those to the bush and the work force?' His answer was, `We would be absolutely serious about the USO, service levels and the customer service guarantee.' That is hardly a policy statement—`We would be serious'—but at least it is a start. They are at least addressing the issues. These are things they could have done in government but did not.We have put new service levels and a customer service guarantee in place, we have expanded the USO, and I am delighted that Labor welcome our tendering out proposals. But that is about as far as they go. They say, `Let's sensibly use the dividend and the return to government to make sure that regional and rural Australia are looked after.' Then they go on to say that $1.6 billion is a paltry sum. That is an extraordinary proposition. They have never promised to spend a cracker in the bush. All I can say is that this just demonstrates the hopeless situation that the Labor Party find themselves in. Mr Beazley had to go up to the gallery last night and tidy up a very messy job after Senator George Campbell's droppings, when he fundamentally misunderstood the briefing he was meant to give that was simply designed to say that Labor was a serious alternative. Senator Campbell went up there and made all sorts of statements that highly embarrassed Mr Beazley, who got to the point where he said today, `I think, after yesterday, we will have two caucus briefings. One will be a caucus briefing and shortly after that we will kill a chicken and expose its entrails.' This is a bloke who has lost the plot. I cannot possibly understand why Senator George Campbell would remain the briefer after that. I suppose it just confirms that he needs a change of leadership, but it certainly says that Mr Beazley has to lift his game as well.(Time expired)81208120Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Does the minister recall her statement on the 7.30 Report last week when, in waving a copy of the publication Child Care in Australia , she said, `Parents should believe me because I am from the government and I have got the departmental statistics'? If the minister does want Australian parents to believe the child-care statistics contained in this departmental publication—and after all it is subtitled `an update of key statistics relating to the Commonwealth child-care program'—why does it not contain the number of operational centre-based child-care services, as contained in similar public documents in previous years? Did the minister, or any member of her staff, intervene in any way in the choice of data to be included in the departmental publication Child Care in Australia or in the way that data was to be presented in that publication?8120Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the senator's question is no. I did not in any way intervene with that. They are the departmental statistics. When I launched the report at a child-care centre recently, I met for the first time with the statisticians in my department who presented the report. They are professionals and I think they would not take kindly to any suggestion that I tried to doctor their facts. But the senator does give me an opportunity to give him some more information.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Don't waste your breath.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The trouble is, Senator, that Senator Evans's press releases and Mr Wayne Swan's speeches on this matter seem to be wilfully misinformed. I can only imagine that either they have very poor researchers or they are not going to be bothered with the facts. This government has allocated $5.3 billion over four years to 2002-03—that is for the next few years—and there will be additional money on child-care benefit coming in on 1 July next year.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Very selective statistics.BE4Senator NEWMAN—It is not selective statistics, Senator. Your claims of fee increases of 20 per cent since 1995 are exaggerated and wickedly wilful. They are based on only the small and more expensive community sector. You continue to highlight changes in the community sector to represent the entire child-care sector. It only represents 30 per cent of children in long day care, and fees, as you know, are determined by child-care operators. They were not regulated by the previous government, they are not regulated by this government, but the rate of fee increases for centres has halved under this government, to four per cent per annum, in comparison with fee increases under Labor of 8.5 per cent per annum. So perhaps you will now admit that you were wrong in the material you put out to the public. It is not true that there have been fee increases of 20 per cent since 1995.This government makes a very substantial contribution to the child-care costs of families. For example, for low income families with two children in full-time care, the government assistance from the taxpayer covers about 75 per cent of the fees they pay. So they are receiving something like $12,400 per annum towards their child care, and for family day care it is about 80 per cent of the average fee. For a family with two children who are on an average income, the amount of money is something like $10,000-odd for long day care.So, Senator, you question the statistics. I tell you: those are briefing notes provided for me by the specialists in my department, and if you want to challenge their statistics that is up to you, but do not accuse me of doctoring them.8120Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that, according to internal data produced by her department, the number of child-care services nationwide has actually fallen from 4,170 in June 1998 to 4,120 just six months later? Doesn't this net loss of 50 centres in six months count as a key statistic? Wasn't it available to the minister at the time she launched the report? Why won't the minister allow the full story on child care to become public?8121Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, it may be of interest to Senator Evans, who has a very selective approach to this matter, to understand that the number of children using child care has increased significantly, from 460,300 in 1994-95 to 544,700 in 1996-97. The opposition has been making claims about the child-care centres which have closed. I have already said in this place that the net gain in child-care centres is something like 230. I do not intend to go over that again; it is a fact. Nevertheless, the number of children in child care has increased and the centres that have closed as part of that net gain of 230 have not disproportionately been in poor areas, as the Labor Party has been telling the public. They have been across the board in advantaged and disadvantaged areas. (Time expired)81218121Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. Yesterday, in answer to my question, the minister admitted to not being absolutely sure that he had not misled parliament on the subject of a conclusive stock assessment of orange roughy in the South Tasman rise. Now that the minister has had time to reflect on all three of his statements on this subject and to match these statements against statements by experts in the field, can the minister state for certain that he has not misled parliament?8121Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, I have reflected overnight on the subject of orange roughy and remain reasonably confident that I have not misled parliament. I can expand a little. Over the last few days I have been indicating the interest Australia is taking in protecting the fish stocks of orange roughy in the South Tasman rise. I think the Australian Democrats will recognise the diplomatic actions that we took and the fact that action was taken by the states of South Africa and Belize, perhaps in part as a result of such diplomatic actions. Certain allegations followed that the vessels concerned had returned to the fishing grounds. There was a period in which the area was covered by Australian surveillance flights. As I understand it, we have no reason to believe that what was being suggested did in fact occur.In relation to the issue of the stock assessments, I indicated to the Senate that there had been studies undertaken, in particular to do with the assessment of the stock as a straddling stock—whether or not it is in fact a straddling stock. I am told that, as well as that, there is extensive joint scientific work being done to assess the status of the STR stocks. We hope that this work will be completed next year. In the interim, the allowable catches have been determined on the basis of extrapolating results from stock assessments of orange roughy in Australian waters. Those tacks have been set at very conservative and precautionary levels until stock assessments on the South Tasman rise are completed. It has been confirmed to me again that both countries—Australia and New Zealand—have agreed to ban fishing on the South Tasman rise to March 2000, to allow work in progress on a new arrangement which will prevent issues such as this arising again. To protect the stocks in the interim, both countries have applied regulatory bans on further fishing.As a result of the three answers that I have given on the subject of orange roughy, I think the parliament is now much better informed. Probably the whole community is better informed. Certainly the bureaucrats who have prepared these briefs have benefited from the experience. As a result, I believe we can be confident that the stocks of orange roughy under the control of Australian authorities will be properly protected.8121Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister whether he believes that any stock assessments on orange roughy meet the stated sustainability criteria of the Australian Fish Management Authority.8122Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I am starting to think that the honourable senator is on a fishing expedition, but I refuse to take the bait, even if it's tossed in three times! I have said a number of times that we believe the fishery is being managed in a precautionary way based on scientific knowledge of known orange roughy fisheries and the likely sustainable level of the catch. That is based on the experience of Australian authorities in relation to regulating other orange roughy fisheries. On the basis of that, I am confident that the stock will be properly sustained.81228122West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Given the minister's statement on the 7.30 Report that she should be trusted because she has the department's statistics, can the minister guarantee there has been no shifty statistical footwork in the data on which she was relying in that public interview; that is, the publication titled Child care in Australia ? For instance, does the minister stand by the statement on page 3 of the publication that community based child-care places rose from 46,300 in June 1997 to 51,700 in June 1998, an increase of some 5,000? Hasn't this figure been artificially inflated by transferring some 4,000 non-profit places that had previously been counted in the private sector subtotal to the community-based sector column?8122Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am very happy to look at that page, but I do not carry it in my head. Nevertheless, as I said in answer to an earlier question, that report was produced by my department. I had no involvement in it. I was being accused a few minutes ago of doctoring it. It seems strange to me that the ALP is determined that parents in Australia will not know the true facts on child care. To the extent they possibly can, Senator Evans and his opposite number in the other place are determined to spread misinformation.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Evans errors and Macklin myths.BE4Senator NEWMAN—That is right; we are getting a replay. It is exactly what we had from Ms Macklin prior to the last election. Why is it that the opposition is so afraid of the facts as presented by the department responsible for the management of the program? I have said very clearly that the report was prepared by my department and I launched it on behalf of my department. It was done by professionals, and I rely on their advice.8122West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. When the minister is getting the information about the figures on page 3, can she also provide for the Senate the criteria and the method for the selection of the choice of data that was used and the way that it would be presented in the publication and who authorised it? Can she assure us that this is not just a matter of fudging the statistics with the objective of showing growth in the community based sector rather than the reality of flat numbers?8122Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As I have already said, I will be very happy to take advice on page 3. But I still reject, for myself and my departmental officials, that anybody has been engaged in fudging. I think it is a disgraceful allegation under the protection of the Senate.81228122Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. The emerging world market for magnesium presents real opportunities for Australia. I ask the minister: what is the potential for Australian technology to lead to new investment, export income and, most importantly, jobs?8122Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank my esteemed predecessor as resources minister, Senator Parer, for the question. The world magnesium market has grown significantly over the past decade and that growth is expected to continue. The current value of that world market is about $1 billion per annum—about 400,000 tonnes—and it is expected to grow by about a third over the next six years. One reason for that trend is the car industry increasingly using magnesium in its production of motor vehicles because it is a light, strong metal. This means that cars can be made much lighter and, therefore, more fuel efficient. I think this is one area where the increasing environmental trend to cleaner, more fuel efficient cars is actually having a very good spin-off for the Australian mining industry. We are poised to become a world leader in the supply of magnesium into these global markets for two reasons: firstly, we have quite significant deposits of magnesite, which is the raw material for magnesium—in fact, in virtually every state of Australia—and secondly, and even more importantly, and I think this shows the future for the mining industry, we have developed some very important technologies in Australia which will place us as a low cost, efficient supplier of magnesium to the world market.Yesterday the Australian Magnesium Corporation announced to the Stock Exchange that it has proven the viability of a low cost technology at its $120 million demonstration plant near Gladstone. Gladstone is a fantastic industrial centre, which many senators will have visited. The production of that first batch of magnesium test ingots confirms the company's technology is on track and workable. I am pleased to announce, as minister for science, that the development of that process is being done by the company—Australian Magnesium Corporation—in close collaboration with the CSIRO. The CSIRO has contributed its expertise and about $25 million over the past seven years to the development of this AMC project technology in a collaborative research joint venture. If that project succeeds, royalties will flow back to the CSIRO to fund other research efforts.The company is now going into a feasibility study and, if that proves successful, a 90,000 tonne per annum commercial plant is expected to be built in central Queensland. That will represent an investment of about $1 billion in building that commercial plant. The construction work force for the plant will be about 1,100 people and there will be 400 permanent jobs created by the development of this plant. It will—assuming it goes ahead—represent exports of some $300 million per annum to Australia and contribute about $70 million in taxes. The company already has a long-term supply contract with Ford in America for the sale of 45,000 tonnes of magnesium per annum. Ford in America invested about $US30 million into this feasibility proposal.In addition to the AMC project in Queensland, there are a number of proposals around Australia in the offing, including a significant project by SAMAG in my own state of South Australia, and of course we are looking at the potential in Tasmania. I congratulate the CSIRO and the Australian Magnesium Corporation on their significant achievements to-date and on their announcement yesterday. We very much look forward to the development of a new value-added minerals industry in Australia.81238123Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services. In the light of the previously quoted statement from the 7.30 Report asking that Senator Newman be trusted because she is from the government and she has the department's statistics, can the minister guarantee that there has been a truly objective selection of the data on which she was relying in that public interview—that is, the publication entitled Child Care in Australia ? Can the minister guarantee, for instance, that the most accurate and up-to-date data was used when setting out the number of centre based long day care places where, on page 3 of the publication, a growth is recorded of 182,900 in June 1997 to 194,600 in June 1998? Isn't it a fact that the minister's department has data available which showed that the number of centre based long day care places actually fell from 194,600 in June 1998 to 193,300 in December 1998?8123Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It seems to me that this is simply another version of questions I have already answered. Of course the material provided in that report was truly objective, and I have made it clear I have had no involvement in its production. What I would say to you is that it was based on the census that was available at that time, up to the end of June 1998. I would also say to the Senate, in relation to the focus that some of the members of the opposition have been placing on closures of child-care centres, that it is very much a complicated matter but, very importantly, it relates back to the time when Senator Crowley herself had a ministerial involvement in all this, when child-care centres were allowed to open willy-nilly all around the country so that we had an oversupply in some areas and a serious undersupply in others.We have now introduced a national planning scheme, as a result of which the advisory committees from state and Commonwealth officials in each state have advised that urban Australia has pretty well had its needs met in terms of the number of places available. What has still to be done is to rectify the years of neglect from Labor by encouraging child-care centres to open—the provision of child-care places—for rural and regional Australia. That is something that this government is now emphasising in the absence of a history of encouragement for child care in those areas. We are doing what we can to introduce innovative ways to provide child care for areas which have lower populations and which otherwise might find that they have unviable child-care providers. We do not want that to happen any more than we like to see people fail as a result of the years of mismanagement and neglect by Labor.We inherited a mess in the child-care area, apart from quality assurance, which I recognise and I would say we are continuing to implement. We are moving to implement quality assurance in long day care and in family day care. The lack of planning which led to an oversupply was cruel to centres which had been in an area and were challenged by new players in the industry. That has been a major reason for them closing in some areas. But, as I have said, there has been a net increase in the number of centres that have opened, to the extent of something like 230. So there has been an increase in places. There has also been a significant increase in centres, and there will be more child care available for rural and remote Australia than there was under the neglect of the previous government.8124Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. As a preamble to my supplementary question, talking of the need for facts, it would be very helpful if the minister actually pointed out that there was comprehensive planning for all public child care when I was the minister. That is an important point. Apart from continuing to remind people of that truth—you are touchy about the truth, Minister; we all are—I wonder whether the minister will confirm with her department that the figures on centre based long day care places were available for December 1998 at the time that Child care in Australia was presented for publication. If so, will you explain to the Senate why the earlier figures for June 1998 were used instead? It contradicts what you have just said.8124Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have said I will look into that matter, and I will come back to you, Senator, but I believe that the date of June 1998 was decided upon by the department because that was the extent of the statistics that were available.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Thirteen months to launch it?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, when Senator Evans finally does his homework he will realise that there are censuses conducted of child care on which successive governments have based statistical analysis. I am afraid that the statistics from the most recent census are not available and I presume that is why it went to that date.81248124Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is to the leader of the government representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 August 1999 by Chinese political dissident Wei Jingsheng, who is a human rights activist who, for his trouble, got 18 years and was expelled from China in 1997, and whose presence in the gallery I acknowledge? Has the minister's attention been drawn to this part of that statement, which says:The Chinese government has become skilled at putting economic and trade pressures on Western countries and Western businessmen in a bid to get them to become more cooperative. Instead of assisting the oppressed, the Western governments should be helping people in countries which deny their citizens personal freedoms. Although, in the past, Australian governments have shown a lot of concern for the human rights situation in China, in recent times not enough has been done to match your status as one of the region's most liberal democracies.What is the minister's response to these sentiments and could the minister inform the Senate what human rights issues were raised at the third annual human rights dialogue last month and what responses were received?8125Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As the honourable senator knows, the Australian government has been putting more emphasis on what might be described as the internal channels of communication in recent times, in an effort to influence human rights changes for the better in China. I appreciate that there is an ongoing debate as to the most effective way in which a liberal democracy such as ours can influence outcomes in that direction. I think it can be fairly argued that encouraging the opening up of the political society—and particularly the economic society, and the interchange that comes with that—with countries that are liberal democracies does in fact in time bring about change in the state in which we are seeking to influence those outcomes.But it is a debate, and I accept that change is coming slowly. We have in particular, as the honourable senator indicated, sought to put emphasis on the formal human rights dialogue that was established some two years ago. It has just had its third annual round in China. It was expanded this year to include the chairman of the Australian parliamentary group, the member for Aston, Mr Peter Nugent; and also the President of HREOC, Professor Alice Tay.The delegation met in China with officials from the foreign ministry and other relevant departments both in Beijing and in the regional centres of Xining. They made clear our concerns on various aspects of the human rights situation in China, including treatment of dissidents, Tibet, religious freedoms, matters relating to women and children and China's adherence to international human rights covenants. I can assure Senator Harradine that there were no no-go areas in the discussions. But they also focused on areas where progress has been made and where Australia's experience is relevant. Senators might be interested to know of a $1 million technical assistance program that was agreed, which continues productive work on legal reform, including expansion of the judicial exchange program. The program also addresses more sensitive areas like the role of civil society, protection of women's rights and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.It is appropriate for the government to reflect core Australian values in our bilateral relationship. We believe that the dialogue enables us to speak frankly about our concerns and, we think, to make a difference on the ground. We recognise that this is a long-term process, the results of which will be incremental but nevertheless real. There will be further opportunities with high level visits being made to China in the near future. The background to those visits is that we remain convinced that the best way to promote human rights in China is to engage the Chinese government in dialogue on these issues. With that background, we will take opportunities as they present. We do not see it as an either/or, whether to use internal sources or public. We will seek to get the best results from our efforts. (Time expired)8125Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Thank you, Minister. How are the outcomes to be measured? What were the results of the latest human rights dialogue? You mentioned taking opportunities as they arise. Well, as you fully appreciate, the President of the PRC will be here from 6 to 11 September. In what precise way will these human rights issues be dealt with with the President during that time?8125Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Measuring change in a quantifiable way is very difficult in these areas. Most objective observers will see in China changes that have occurred for the better but will also recognise other areas in which further change is desirable. I have said to the honourable senator that there is a range of different ways in which countries such as ours try to influence those changes. One of the ways is to bring our concerns to the attention of high level visitors. That has been an ongoing opportunity that has been taken. In relation to the forthcoming visit to which the honourable senator referred, I have no specific briefing on the Prime Minister's intentions in that regard, but I understand the tenor of Senator Harradine's supplementary question and I will draw that to the attention of the Prime Minister.81268126Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Macdonald, the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Mr Warren Entsch, meet with officers of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority over the fatal crash of a plane owned by Uzu Air between 16 January 1999, the date of the crash, and 26 March, when CASA reinstated Uzu Air's operating certificate? If so, how many meetings took place and where were they held? Which CASA personnel did he meet? Did Mr Entsch at any time during that period lobby you or the Minister for Transport and Regional Services over Uzu Air's suspended air operator's certificate on behalf of his mate Bob Fulton, the manager of Uzu?8126Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The difficulties with Uzu Air date back a number of months. No doubt Senator Faulkner's attention has been drawn to this issue again by an article that appeared in the Age this morning. The CASA position paper referred to in that article was prepared in February, so Senator Faulkner is obviously right up to date! The paper done in February is now a little outdated.CASA issued a number of show cause letters to charter operators in the Torres Strait, including Uzu Air, on 7 January this year. CASA's concerns were principally that operators were conducting unapproved regular public transport operations. Following the issue of the show cause letters, CASA sent an investigative team to Torres Strait to monitor the situation. On 16 January, an Uzu Air aircraft crashed at Coconut Island, killing three people. CASA suspended Uzu Air's air operator's certificate with effect from 19 January. Uzu Air subsequently referred CASA's suspension of its AOC to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At the request of the AAT, CASA and Uzu Air came to an arrangement whereby the suspension of Uzu Air's AOC would be lifted if Uzu Air abided by a strict set of measures imposed by CASA. Uzu Air complied with CASA's requirements and the suspension of the AOC was revoked on 26 March. Concurrently, Uzu Air has also applied for a special category air operator's certificate to enable operations in the Torres Strait. CASA approved the application following a thorough investigation.Senator Faulkner asked a series of questions about what my friend and colleague, and very able member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, may or may not have done. I certainly was not approached by Mr Entsch. I do not know whether Mr Anderson was. But this being in his electorate—an electorate which he has won from the Labor Party because the people of the Torres Strait trust Mr Entsch like they have never trusted Labor Party representatives—I would guess, and it is only a guess, and assume that any operators up there would have approached their local federal member, who happens to be Mr Entsch. Mr Entsch is a very capable member. I am only assuming that any local representative representing a particular area would have been approached by a business operating in their area. But I have no grounds for saying that; I am only making an assumption.8126Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister not to guess or assume anything. If he does not know, I would ask him to take those elements of my question on notice. I also ask him exactly why CASA reinstated Uzu Air's air operator's certificate, even though its own internal report stated that `there appeared to be a practice or culture within the company which accepts fare-paying passengers on unserviceable aircraft.' I ask again for the minister not to guess in his responses to the Senate but, if he does not know, to take the questions on notice.8126Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Faulkner displays his typical ignorance and the fact that he does not listen to answers. The matter was referred to the AAT and, at the request of the AAT, CASA and Uzu Air came to an arrangement. I do not know what that arrangement was—I am not briefed on it—but I will see if CASA will supply the answers that Senator Faulkner has requested. As many of us who travel the Torres Strait know, airline operations in that area are difficult. I do not think anyone from the Labor Party has been up there in recent years—they are not interested in areas such as the Torres Strait. But it is always difficult with air operations in those areas. There are a lot of difficulties I am aware of. (Time expired)81278127Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is it the case that the public relations firm IPR Shandwick was given $1.2 million to promote the government's Gold Medal Disability Access Strategy? Is it also the case that $80,000 was spent on the launch of this strategy? Minister, isn't this public relations exercise a gross waste of money when there is $300 million in unmet needs in disabilities?8127Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I would have thought Senator Allison would have been very pleased to think that some money was being spent on a disability access strategy, because the purpose of the strategy is to sensitise Australia's businesses to the need to give greater access to people with disabilities—for recreational and business reasons and for provision of services and goods. It was an effort to highlight to businesses that they were missing out on discretionary spending of a lot of people in Australia with disabilities who had the means to spend but often found it very difficult to access businesses that were smart enough to provide them with the access they needed. This is not a flash in the pan; it is not a one-off—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—They were presenting the medals on the pavement out the front, were they?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, that cocky on the other side just keeps yap, yap, yapping. I cannot tell whether Senator Allison can hear me at the other end of the chamber, because this noise is coming in the middle. Can you wave your hand if you can hear alright? I am glad to see that she can hear, because I know she is concerned about people with disabilities. Money spent to support people with disabilities, if it is going to achieve greater good for them as well as greater profits for Australian businesses, is a win for all concerned.The strategy is going to continue. Next year we hope to have Gold Medal Disability Access Strategy awards. We are intending to have seminars in all the capital cities of Australia to sensitise businesses in the various states as to opportunities they are missing for better business but also to highlight the needs of people with different kinds of disabilities. Often it is the visible disabilities that people do take account of; the ones they cannot see are the ones they do not think about. Somebody who has profound hearing problems, for example, can be very badly treated, very rudely treated, as being `a silly old bugger'—I beg your pardon. I would think Senator Allison would agree with me that this sort of money is spent in a very important cause. I would hope that all parties in this Senate would endorse the need to improve access for people with disabilities to goods and services in Australia. I should not allow you to forget that in this coming year we will also be having not just the Olympic Games but the Paralympic Games for which something like 5,000 people who have an involvement will be coming to Australia. The tourism potential for the future in Australia for people with disabilities is very great if we are seen to be a country that accommodates the needs of people with disabilities and that goes out of its way to provide good services and access for people in whatever area, whether it is recreational or their day-to-day living.8127Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, will you provide the Senate with a breakdown of the $1.2 million PR budget, and is it the case that your department has so far refused to do so?8127Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—If Senator Allison has asked for it—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Does the PR firm have disabled access?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Evans, Senator Allison has asked a question and she is entitled to hear the answer.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am not aware that Senator Allison has asked for the detail of that. I do not know whether she has or whether she is referring to somebody else who has asked. I do not see any reason why this should be a problem. It is certainly the sort of question that will be asked in the estimates. An investment in people with disabilities is extremely important. I do not walk away from that. I am very pleased to think of the people who have signed on to help the government at the business and community level to achieve better prominence for this strategy. I thank you, Senator Allison, for your question, because it does mean that there is more attention being given to what I think is a serious issue. Only recently there was a letter in the Sydney Daily Telegraph from somebody who was writing a travel guide to Australia for people with disabilities. That person wrote and said how difficult he had found it to get transport to the airport in Sydney. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice8128812815:00:008128Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—On Monday, 30 August, Senator Mark Bishop asked me a question on the issue of the GST and construction contracts. I seek leave to have the response incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—On Monday 30 August 1999, (Hansard page P7641) Senator MARK BISHOP asked me:i. On the commencement of the GST next year, how will taxpayers determine the capital value of an incomplete commercial property as at 30 June 2000? Will that valuation include just cost to date, or could it also include cost to date plus the discounted value of future rental returns in that valuation?ii. In regard to an incomplete commercial property development as at 30 June next year—which is proposed to be sold upon completion—how will the profit attribution factor be calculated on the pre and post-GST profit components?I now seek leave to have this response incorporated in Hansard.i. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has been consulting with the industry on the valuation requirements.The ATO will issue guidelines shortly on the valuation requirements under:- section 19 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1999 (that is, on construction contracts spanning the GST implementation date); and- Division 75 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (that is, the margin scheme for property sales post-GST implementation).The guidelines will take into account industry needs such as simplicity and certainty, while ensuring an appropriate basis for calculating GST liability.For transitional valuation of construction contracts spanning the GST implementation date:- if a business's records make clear the value of supplies incorporated on the building site at 1 July 2000, that will be a sufficient record for the purpose of estimating the value of an incomplete commercial property as at 30 June 2000;- the valuation will not include the discounted value of future rental returns in that valuation.ii. The amount of profit attributable to the pre and post-GST profit components of a commercial property development project will depend on the method used to value the property as at 1 July 2000.- The guidelines issued by the ATO will ensure that an appropriate basis for attributing the profit to pre and post-GST components is used.812815:01:008128Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman), to questions without notice asked by Senators Evans, West and Crowley today, relating to child care.What we saw today was the exposure of a very serious issue. I appreciate that the minister has at this stage denied involvement, and I will take that on face value. In July this year the Department of Family and Community Services produced a very highly misleading report entitled Child Care in Australia . The government's report purports to support the government's claims that government expenditure on child care, the number of child-care places and the number of child-care centres are all growing. It attempts to paint a very rosy picture of child care in Australia. The minister launched the report and, when the industry disputed the claims contained in it, she said on the 7.30 Report :People should believe in me because I am from the government and I have the department's statistics.She has used some of the department's statistics and left others out. She has used some of the department's old statistics but refused to use the more recent ones. She has statistics that, for the first time, move figures from one column to another to create the impression of growth. She has not produced the statistics the department has that show that her claims for child care are false. She has not allowed to be published those statistics that show child-care funding falling, child-care places falling and the number of child-care centres declining. They are not in the report.It is interesting that the report is very selective in its use of statistics. Different time lines are used—different periods of time are used as points of comparison. The report was released in July-August 1999, but the most recent figures in it from her department date back to June 1998. Those are the most recent. On occasions when it has suited them they have used even older figures. At best, the figures are 13 months old. That made us very suspicious. When we looked at the document we became even more suspicious because it is the thinnest document ever produced by the department—32 key items of data that had been in previous department child-care updates are not included. Why have those 32 key items of data been excluded on this occasion?We know that the department has figures—and I have been given copies of them—that show the impact of the government's cutbacks on child care. I know that the minister has access to those statistics. Her department has access to those statistics, but a decision was made not to use them. We want to know why. The government purports to represent what is happening in child care in Australia in this publication, when they have statistics that create a very different picture. Not only is it a claim by the opposition that a very different picture emerges; the department's own more recent statistics prove that, but they were not published. We want to know why they were not published.The number of child-care services actually fell from 4,170 in June 1998 to 4,120 in December 1998, but those figures were not included. There were no figures on the number of child-care services in this report, but there had been in all previous ones. The number of places in centre based care fell from 194,600 to 193,300 from June to December 1998, but those figures were not included. When the minister came to launch the report in August, someone chose not to include figures that had been available since December.We know that the number of community based places has not risen by 5,400, as this report would have us believe. I do not know what the real number is because it is unclear. A complete dodge has been used in the presentation of the figures for community based places that is totally unbelievable. We know that the out of school hours figure showing a growth of 60,000 places is not the result of the creation of new places but the result of a change in methodology and the way things are funded. Those figures are used to support the government's claims that they have created 100,000 more places. They have misled us and misused figures; they have used old figures and omitted more recent figures all to try to paint a picture of child care that everybody in the child-care industry and the community knows is not true. Funding, places and centres are all declining. The government has the statistics to prove that, but they refuse to publish them. Instead they have a collation of old and carefully selected statistics that attempt to prove the opposite—that child care in Australia is growing. The reality is that it is not. The minister has those figures and we want to know why they were not used. (Time expired)15:06:008129Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—This debate really does illustrate just how irrelevant the Labor Party has become in Australian politics. The fact that they can stand up here day after day, totally misrepresent reality and totally forget about their own record of sheer and utter incompetence is breathtaking. Here we have another example. Senator Evans gets up and talks about funding for child care falling and the number of centres falling, and scorns the fact that the most recent figures available are for June 1998.Senator Evans has not bothered to realise that the reporting of statistics is on the same basis as when the Labor Party was in government. Not only that, but we also had the former minister, Senator Crowley, stand up at question time today and claim to have been fantastic in this portfolio, yet she was the one who allowed the unplanned growth of child-care centres in marginal Labor seats, regardless of whether there was a need for centres in those areas. They are the ones which, unfortunately, have had to be closed now and others opened. This former minister was the same person who came along to the first estimates committee hearings after the change of government and started quizzing the public servants on issues that related to the time when she was supposedly in charge of the department. That is how much the Labor Party understands about the reality of child-care funding.In terms of the actual numbers, let us look at what has happened since July 1996. Since this government has come into office, around 570 child-care centres have opened and around 340 centres have closed, meaning a net increase of 230 new centres and around 15,000 additional places. That is the reality, and yet Senator Evans, Senator Crowley and all of the other whingers and all the other irrelevancies in the Labor Party want to continue to misrepresent those figures. That is the reality. The fact of the matter is that those centres that have closed have mainly been the community centres that cope with only 30 per cent of the total requirement for child care, and they were basically the centres that had been opened in the Labor years in politically sensitive areas for the Labor Party, as I said before, not in areas of need.The other fact that remains is that the spending of $3 billion on child care in the last three years since the coalition government has been in office just happens to represent 20 per cent more than the spending in Labor's last three years in office. Therefore, why do we have this Labor opposition constantly coming in here and totally and utterly misrepresenting the facts of the matter? It does not matter whether it is on child care, which is the debate today; it does not matter whether it is on health care; it does not matter whether it is on industrial relations; it does not matter whether it is on growth; it does not matter whether it is on unemployment—5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—The environment.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Or the environment, as Senator Ferris says. It does not matter. Every single, solitary day after question time we have a debate in this place that bears no relevance to the facts, and this one on child care is exactly the same. In out of school hours care, for example, since July 1997 around 1,400 new services have opened and around 220 services have closed. To any person who can add and subtract, that means a net increase of 1,180 services. Yet the Labor Party come in here and complain about closures. Where is their basic mathematical ability to be able to look at the statistics and translate them honestly and factually? But no, Senator Evans keeps on putting out press releases totally and utterly misrepresenting the utilisation of child-care centres, suggesting that the community centres, the ones that have basically had to increase their fees, are the ones providing the bulk of the service. They are not. They never have done. They have not under this government and they did not under the Labor government. Why, therefore, do they keep on coming here and saying the reverse?The claims of fee increases of 20 per cent since 1994 are simply wrong and are based on only the small and more expensive community sector to which I have already referred. Labor continues to highlight changes in that sector and that sector alone, saying that it represents the entire sector when it only represents that very small sector. Fees are determined by the child-care operators, not the government. (Time expired)15:11:008131Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—The reason we raise this, in case Senator Knowles is not clear on it, is because of the feedback we are getting from the community. People are very concerned. They cannot afford child care and they cannot get to child care. Centres they have known and loved have been closing all over the place. It does not help us at all when the latest data released by the minister stops in June 1998 and is not up to date. It is more than 13 months that the data is behind, and in that year we have had absolutely beyond doubt evidence that the number of places is falling, the number of centres is falling and the funding for child care is falling. At the same time the costs of child care are rising. They are very simple figures and very simple statements, and they are matters of fact.It is no help at all to people on the ground working in this area or people in the community trying to use child-care centres to have a government that hides behind census data that is out of date. This may seem to be consistent with previous statistics but, as Senator Evans has so clearly pointed out, it is not, because there are some 30 or more pieces of data that are no longer being provided from the department in this area. If you want to talk consistency, then talk consistency and talk about the statistics, but do not come to the people who are paying more for child care, who are finding it harder to find a place, and say, `But the problem is solved. We are better than we ever were before.'In case my colleagues opposite do not believe me, look at page 3 of this report, Child Care in Australia, about which the minister, Senator Newman, says, `I am from the government and I have got the statistics'—we all know what that line means, and I am glad you are smiling, Senator. It is a great line: `I am from the government.' We did not say it, the minister did. On her head be the consequences of that claim. She should have read the footnote in tiny print on page 3. It reads:Note. For June 1998, community places reflected all places delivered in community based services. Previously only places in receipt of operational subsidy were included in this category and any child care assistance only places delivered in community based services were reflected as non-profit places and included in the total private centre figure.The department's own footnote says that the way of counting community based child-care places has changed significantly, so those of us who look at these columns of figures think, `Isn't this interesting?'Since June 1991 the increase in places in the community based centres has been about a thousand a year; not quite, but of that order. Surprisingly, from June 1997 to June 1998 it has suddenly leapt by 5,000 places—at a time when the centres are closing, when the community based centres are closing, while child-care fees, as Senator Knowles just said, were rising in that sector and while the funding has been spread differently, particularly the assessment of parents for child-care assistance. There has been less money from the government, there have been increased fees and we have had the closing of places in the community based sector, and yet a document is released that shows an increase of 5,000 places. But a footnote in very small print says that this piece of statistical data cannot be compared with what went before. That is what we are upset about, and we are upset because people in the community are constantly saying to us, `It is not like it was before.'The minister said today that she absolutely refuted any suggestion that she, her staff or her office had in any way instructed the department about the data. I accept what the minister said. But what the minister does not tell us is how this data can be compared with previous data and in particular—when the places are down, the centres are down and the funding is down—why she is releasing a report that is out of date and is changing the statistical collection of data so that like is no longer able to be compared with like.Centres are closing down, particularly the community based ones—which was always the plan, despite Senator Knowles's claim to the opposite—and people in the community are hurting over child care. That is why the Labor Party will continue to raise this important issue. That is why we want the latest facts, not some preferred fiction, about what is the state of play in child care. The families of Australia want child care. They like it, they can no longer get it and they can no longer afford it. This coalition government will pay the consequences of falsifying the figures or smearing them about. (Time expired)15:16:008132Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Wow! We have just had an amazing plethora of Crowley claims that have been built on the foundations of the Evans errors that sprinkled their way through question time.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you please refer to people by their correct titles, Senator.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—Yes; thank you, Madam Deputy President.Senator Crowley interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Crowley, you were heard in silence.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—There are also the Ms Macklin myths. At the start of this contribution today, I must declare a conflict of interest. I come from an age when child care was a luxury.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—So why are you making it a luxury again?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lundy!5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—It was extremely difficult to be a working mother in the days when child care was very difficult to find and it was a very unregulated industry. I remember very well the conflicts for a mother in trying to combine work and family. Thankfully, those days have passed and I, for one, would never want to traverse them again. It is a wonderful time to have those choices and to be able to combine work and family more effectively. It is a great tragedy that Senator Lundy does not seem to want to agree with me on these new priorities for women wanting to work and have a family at the same time.What is needed today is a restatement of the coalition government's priorities for child care. Quality assurance in child-care services has always been a high priority of this government. It was part of our policy coming into government in 1996 and it remains so. Minister Newman has constantly reaffirmed that policy, and consultations have gone on since 1996 to make sure that high quality child care can be delivered.We are now reviewing the system of accreditation and quality improvement for long-term day care centres so that we strengthen and improve their efficiency. I was disappointed today to hear in question time some deliberate attempts by the opposition to put what I would call `the frights' into very vulnerable sectors of the community; that is, the old—as we heard earlier in the week—and the elderly, as we heard yesterday: `Their bean's come out of the barrel. Let's put the scares into those people. They're too vulnerable to know how to deal with them.' And today, contrasting with Senator Herron getting questions yesterday on the very old, we have had the very young; the child-care bean came out of the barrel. We listen constantly in this place to the scare campaigns that are directed at vulnerable members of the community who are unable, for one reason or another, to have a voice and speak for themselves.I was interested to hear Senator Crowley say she is having phone calls from concerned people who say, `It's not like it was before.' Senator Crowley is right: it is not like it was before. It is considerably better. It is significantly better, and let us have a look at the statistics that prove that it is significantly better. There is the spending of $3 billion on child care.Senator Lundy interjecting—5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—Madam Deputy President, I am finding it difficult to make my contribution today because of the constant apparent amusement over my speech of Senator Lundy. I am wondering if you could draw to her attention that she is being unparliamentary.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sure that Senator Lundy will remain silent as she will wish to be heard in silence, I presume.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I want to outline some of the facts of the child-care issue, which are deliberately blurred and mismanaged as an issue in the community by a number of members of the opposition in a desperate attempt to, as I said, put the frights into some people who cannot speak for themselves.The spending of $3 billion on child care in the last three years is 20 per cent more than was spent in Labor's last three years in office, so Senator Crowley is right: things are not like they were before. There is the allocation of around $5.3 billion over the four years to 2002-2003, including $600 million in additional funding over the three years from 2001 to 2003. With the introduction of a child-care benefit, expenditure is expected to reach $1.5 billion by 2002-2003. It is just remarkable to hear the opposition continuing to display an ignorance, perhaps an intended ignorance, of these statistics when this government has said, time and time again, that quality child care is a high priority. It remains a high priority and our figures show that. (Time expired)15:21:008133Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The Australian community has long woken up to the fact that it is not just a question of how much the government say something that makes it believable; it is worth while having a closer look at and analysing what they are actually saying. Despite the sanctimonious admonitions of the senators opposite, we have raised some issues in the Senate this afternoon of significant importance to the Australian community. Those issues relate to how families with children are coping with areas of child care that can be considered to be bordering on crisis. I am talking about the parents who come to the offices of members on this side of the chamber and say, `We cannot afford child care anymore. We are making decisions that affect the whole structure of our lives on the basis of the changes the coalition government have made to child care in this country.'Those changes are quite significant: a series of cuts across the three budgets delivered by the coalition government since they came to power, and the restructuring of the way child-care support is offered to parents so that there are now disincentives for families with young children to have two parents working. One of the more insidious impacts of these changes to child care is the numbers of young women and young couples who are making a decision to either delay having children or not have children at all because they cannot see a way of having a career or an opportunity to work and having children at the same time. It has taken only a short period of time—3½ years of a coalition government—for such a significant shift in attitude to occur. Once upon a time in Australia, women right around this country felt that there was value in the equal opportunity they had to participate in the work force and have families at the same time.The points raised in the chamber today are significant for two reasons. We are seeing a government pedantically trying to justify its continuing agenda with respect to child care. What we believe we see in this document, Child Care in Australia, is an exercise in how the government seeks to manipulate the public view of what it has done with child care. Today we have already heard Senator Crowley and Senator Evans articulate some of the finer points of the statistical manipulation that appears to have occurred. I note with interest that the minister has cancelled an annual department census and introduced what can only be described as an unprecedented degree of secrecy to the collation of information about child care, for the purposes of presenting a report structured in a way that selects data to best position the government in presenting its arguments. It is very clear that it has used statistics specifically from years that put its information in the best possible light. This is what we have challenged the government with today, and I noted with interest Senator Newman's acquiescence to take on notice one of the more serious aspects of what we have raised, to pursue that information and convey it back to the Senate. I will follow with interest her reporting back of this matter.The other point I would make about the impact of the changes to child care is that it does not matter what the government continues to say in this place about what it claims is a glorious state of affairs in child care. We know—because we are seeing it in the long day care centres and the child-care centres—that it is only by virtue of the incredible commitment of the child-care sector workers and of the parents who continue to contribute actively as volunteers in the management committees of community based family day care that our child-care sector can still hold its head high and manage itself with the dignity and the quality of service that so many Australian parents have come to value and that is so much a part of our everyday lives.I do not believe the government will ever convince this community that what they have done to child care is, in fact, a good thing and is representative of progress in servicing the needs of families. In fact, it is the opposite. Attempts by the government to manipulate statistical data in the way that they have done with child care in Australia will only serve to emphasise the depths of deception that they are prepared to go to in presenting their specific agenda. (Time expired)15:26:008134Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—Here we go again with more scare campaigns. On Monday it was the economy, yesterday it was aged care, and today it is child care. Every day there are more scare campaigns, but the real problem is that the facts do not back up what the opposition would like to believe. Here we are again today with a similar finding. Senator Crowley read from this document, which is the department's statistical analysis. I will just read some key findings from it:- Government expenditure on child care continues to increase.- The proportion of families in long day care receiving the maximum rate of Childcare Assistance continues to increase.- Overall the number of places has increased, but with growth slowing in recent years.- The number of children using Commonwealth funded child care services continues to increase, however at a slower rate than in previous years.The coalition has allocated more funding to child care than Labor did: $5.3 billion over four years to 2002-2003 to fund 70,000 additional places in each of the coalition's first three budgets. From July 1996 to March 1999, there was an increase of 272 child-care places across Australia. Labor failed the child-care sector while in government and is now playing politics. Unfortunately, it is not seeking solutions. Once again we have a scare campaign—yesterday with old people and today with young people. Labor supported the child-care legislation and then ran a scare campaign in relation to those changes, and that continues. Labor has backflipped on its support for operational subsidies for community based long day care centres.The coalition has provided greater levels of assistance to families in most need and has delivered greater access to child care for more families. Let me outline the coalition's achievements in child care since it came to office. It has provided funding for new child-care places in communities with a high need for child care. It has ensured that child-care funding is based on the circumstances of the family rather than on the centre that they use, whether it be private or community based.Similarly, the coalition has commenced a review of quality improvement and accreditation systems for long day care centres and developed quality assurance systems for family day care and outside school hours care. Importantly, we have initiated a new funding program to support children with high additional needs in child care, particularly children with disabilities. Finally, there is a simplification of child care payments for the creation of a single child-care benefit.Labor's record was unchecked and was unsustainable. There was no formal planning system for child-care centres, resulting in some areas having an oversupply of child-care places and others having none. Operational subsidy—and Senator Lundy pointed this out—was focused on community based centres, which supply only 28 per cent of centre based child-care places, resulting in 1,700,000 families, many on low to middle incomes, failing to benefit from this additional assistance.The theme of the last few days has been one of a scare campaign. On Monday it was on the economy. This country has one of the strongest economies in the world, and yet the opposition is running a scare campaign. Yesterday we had a scare campaign relating to older people, which was unsustainable. Today we have seen, with respect to young children, another scare campaign which has also failed. The opposition has no policies. It has failed.This government has a very proud record in all these three areas, and I am proud to be part of such a government. The government has always treated this very seriously. Senator Newman addressed all the concerns today. She has taken one question on notice, and I have no doubt that that will alleviate the opposition's concerns.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations813515:32:008135Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek leave to make a personal explanation.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Mr Reith has just stated in the House of Representatives that the government has asked the opposition on two or three occasions this week for our agreement to bring the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 on for debate. I want to make absolutely clear to the Senate that I have received no such request from Mr Reith or anyone else in the government. The Opposition Whip has received no such request from Mr Reith or anyone else in the government. Likewise, the Manager of Opposition Business has received no such request from Mr Reith or the government. I can also assure the Senate that the opposition's parliamentary secretary for industrial relations, Senator Collins, who has responsibility for the carriage of this legislation in the Senate, has received no such request either.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Let alone anyone else!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I note the interjection from Senator Harradine, who confirms it is the case, I assume, in relation to himself. What on earth is Mr Reith talking about? The picture that Mr Reith is trying to portray, both in his doorstop this morning and in question time in the House of Representatives today, could not be further from the truth. As far as the opposition are concerned, we could not have been more cooperative in facilitating the government's legislation program this week. Just for the record, let me make it clear that we agreed to change the normal program of business in order to deal with the Oakdale miners legislation last Thursday.In no way at all have we been responsible for the delay that has occurred in relation to the RFA legislation that is being debated in the Senate this week. In relation to that legislation, I want to say this: we did receive an informal approach from the government, as I understand the Australian Democrats received an informal approach, in relation to a guillotine on the RFA legislation.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Under the standing orders, Senator Faulkner has to say where he has been misrepresented. He is not doing so. He should be asked to direct his remarks to making a case as to where he has been misrepresented. Where was he misrepresented, by whom, and when? He clearly has not. I would say that Senator Faulkner has been misled.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner is making a personal explanation by leave.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I am not surprised that the government does not want to hear the truth of this particular matter that is being laid on the table here in the Senate, but I intend to make clear what is in fact—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 190, Senator Faulkner may seek leave of the Senate to:. . . explain matters of a personal nature, although there is no question before the Senate, but such matters may not be debated.What personal matter is Senator Faulkner referring to?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—He sought leave to make a statement. He is making a statement. 5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—The truth of the matter is that I took the initiative, as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and rang Senator Hill and indicated to him that, while the opposition could not support a proposal that had been informally floated by the government to apply a guillotine to the RFA legislation because we would not accept the precedent involved because we know that this government misuses precedents like that, I felt that the debate on the RFA legislation certainly should be completed this week and that I did not think that there was an argument for it go on. As a result, I made clear to Senator Hill, on behalf of the opposition, that I was willing to forgo general business on Thursday and that I was willing to have the Senate negate the adjournment on Thursday evening to allow that committee stage to be completed.I do not normally retail private conversations I have with members of the government or members of other political parties in this place, but let me place clearly on the record—and I am sure Senator Hill would not mind—that, in my phone call to Senator Hill, he described my offer to him on behalf of the opposition as a very generous offer indeed. At a later stage, he came back to me and he accepted on behalf of the government the offer I had made. I want to make clear not only that but also that I did contact the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees, and indicated to her that I had put this proposal. I also contacted Senator Brown and Senator Harradine and indicated to them that I put that proposal to the government. So there can be no misunderstanding around the chamber in relation to the serious way in which the opposition is accepting its responsibilities in terms of management of the legislation program before this chamber.And what do you get for your trouble? What we have today is Mr Reith, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, going into the House of Representatives and saying that the opposition in the Senate has been asked on two or three occasions to bring the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 on and it will not cooperate with the government. That is a fabrication. That is not true. Even Mr Reith ought to know that it is the government's job to determine what legislation it brings before the Senate for debate. Everybody in this place, even Mr Reith, ought to know that it is the government's responsibility to set a legislation program.The truth is that the reason we have not had the youth employment bill brought on is that the government has determined not to make it a legislative priority this week. The government has determined to make the priority the RFA bill, which is something that had engendered a lot of debate in this chamber. Yes, the opposition has made a contribution, but no-one could accuse us of delaying the committee stage on that debate. No reasonable or objective person could make that accusation, and I think all senators in the chamber—anyone who understands the politics of the RFA bill—would acknowledge that. So we have had Mr Reith not only misleading the Australian public but also grievously misleading the House of Representatives on this important point.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I would urge you not to reflect—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—It is in the gift of the government to list whatever legislation it cares to list for debate in this chamber. It is in the gift of the government, if it so desires, to adjourn a debate on a bill and bring another bill on for debate in this chamber. In relation to the youth employment bill, it has determined not to do so. It has determined to continue a debate on the RFA legislation, and on that bill it was the opposition that took the initiative to ensure that the debate was curtailed.I suppose it is Mr Reith who has failed to persuade his Senate colleagues about the urgency of this bill, because it is the government's responsibility to determine the legislation in this chamber. The government has the capacity to order the priorities on a legislation program, and we all know it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—This is getting to be a long explanation, Senator.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Mr Reith is being deliberately dishonest about where the blame lies for the Senate's failure to debate the youth employment bill this week.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, you are reflecting upon a member in the other place. Please withdraw that and cease to do so.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Madam Deputy President, if that is a reflection on a member in another house, I will withdraw it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What Mr Reith has said in the House of Representatives is a total fabrication. The blame lies with Mr Reith. It does not lie with the opposition. Mr Reith has misled the House of Representatives. He should withdraw the outrageous comments he made during question time and he should apologise to the Australian parliament and the Australian people.Notices81378137Senator Harris to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that the Parliament House Security Annual Fun Run for Cancer takes place on 7 September 1999 to raise money for the Australian Capital Territory Cancer Society;(b) recognises that cancer inflicts enormous pain and suffering on our community, and that money is needed to fund research and treatments;(c) notes that the run raised $4 500 in 1998 for the Society and that the target in 1999 is at least $9 000; and(d) notes that the run is a relay of 120 kilometres in length, and asks each senator to sponsor a relay team at $1 per kilometre resulting in each team raising $120 per sponsor for this most worthy charity.Senator Quirke to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy be extended to the first sitting Wednesday in 2000.Senator Gibson to move, on the next day of sitting:That, pursuant to the provisions of standing order 25(2)(b), the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to meet during the sitting of the Senate on 2 September 1999, from 3.30 pm, to allow officers of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to provide a briefing on three matters relating to the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio.Senator Gibson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 be extended to 29 September 1999.Senator Mark Bishop and Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the range of recent criticism and developments surrounding the Government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 (the Act);(b) recognises that: (i) the Act will not achieve the Government's stated objectives, (ii) the Act will impact adversely on the emergent Australian e-commerce and Internet industries, which are strong employers of young Australians, (iii) the Act will discourage investment in information technology projects in Australia and will force Australian business offshore, and (iv) the most appropriate arrangement for the regulation of Internet content is the education of users, including parents and teachers, about appropriate use of the Internet, the empowerment of end-users, and the application of appropriate end-user filtering devices where required; and(c) calls on the Government: (i) to immediately address the concerns raised by industry and the community about the unworkability of the Government's approach, and the Act in general, (ii) to urgently revisit aspects of the Act, prior to its commencement on 1 January 2000, and (iii) to table a report on the effectiveness and consequences of the Act in the Senate at 6-month intervals from the date of implementation of the regulatory regime.Notice amended by Madam President pursuant to standing order 76.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That on Thursday, 2 September 1999:(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;(b) the routine of business from no later than 3.45 pm shall be the remaining stages of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998;(c) divisions may take place after 6 pm; and(d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after the question for the third reading of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 has been determined.Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate views, with deep disquiet, the growing world trend for people smugglers to take advantage of inadequate government responses to migration rackets; the targeting of Australia by people smugglers being of particular concern.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the resolution of the Senate of 12 August 1999 on nuclear weapons and year 2000 (Y2K) computer problems;(b) welcomes the recent decision by the Government of the United Kingdom to move the `notice to fire' for its submarine fleet from minutes to days;(c) calls on the Government to adopt as policy that nuclear weapons be taken off hair-trigger alert, in accordance with the recommendations of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons (1996) and subsequent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly; and(d) urges the governments of the United States and Russia to take their weapons off hair-trigger alert before the Y2K roll-over period.81388138Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—On behalf of Senator Stott Despoja, I seek to withdraw general business notice of motion No. 272 standing in her name for today.Committees81388138813815:46:008138Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the 14th report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I also seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 14 OF 19991. The Committee met on 31 August 1999.2. The committee resolved to recommend-That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999. Constitution Alteration (Proportional Representation in the Senate) 1999. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999. Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2].The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 20 April 1999). Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 25 May 1999). ACIS Administration Bill 1999. ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 22 June 1999). Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 29 June 1999). Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 . Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999. Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition Bill 1999. Tradex Scheme Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 10 August 1999). A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999. Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Electronic Transactions Bill 1999. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1999. Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999. General Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999. Superannuation Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999(deferred from meeting of 24 August 1999). Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999(deferred from meeting of 31 August 1999). Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Border Interception) Bill 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair1 September 1999Notices81398139Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 284 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to Internet censorship legislation, postponed till 2 September 1999. General business notice of motion no. 288 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to current gene technology regulations, postponed till 2 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 289 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to genetically-modified foods, postponed till 2 September 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to the disallowance of Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 8), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 132, postponed till 2 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 291 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to compensation for the stolen generation, postponed till 21 September 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till 2 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 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 20 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 2 September 1999.Miscellaneous8139Motion (by Senator Cook)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that the former Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand (the Hon. Mike Moore) will take up the position of Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 1 September 1999;(b) acknowledges Mr Moore's excellent credentials for the post and his deep knowledge of Australia, its trade objectives and policy;(c) notes that: (i) Mr Moore is the first New Zealander to be Director-General of the WTO and to lead a United Nations agency or economic body, and (ii) the future of the WTO is of great importance to Australia; and(d) expresses its confidence that Mr Moore brings to the job the right combination of intelligence and tenacity to initiate a successful round of world trade negotiations and wishes him well over the next 3 years.Committees814081408140Motion (by Senator Brown, at the request of Senators Crossin and Greig) agreed to: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.81408140Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous8140Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Vanstone) agreed to: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.Committees814081408140Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Cooney) agreed to: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 1999.81408140Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Cooney) agreed to: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.8140814015:51:008140Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I present the 78th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Possible improper use of proceedings of Community Affairs References Committee , together with a volume of documents.Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I move:That the Senate endorse the findings contained in paragraph 34 of the 78th report of the Committee of Privileges.On 27 May 1999, the Senate referred the following matter to the Committee of Privileges:Having regard to the documents provided by the Community Affairs References Committee in relation to the compilation and distribution of the Allars report:(a) whether witnesses who gave evidence before the committee were injured in consequence of their evidence;(b) whether the proceedings of the committee were misused to inflict harm upon witnesses before the committee;(c) whether the proceedings of the committee were misrepresented; and(d) whether there was an unauthorised publication of a document compiled for submission to the committee and submitted to the committee,and whether any contempt of the Senate was committed in relation to these matters.These questions were derived from a letter by the present Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, Senator Crowley, to the President of the Senate. That committee was concerned about possible injury caused to witnesses before it and possible abuse of Senate proceedings, following the government's acceptance of one of the recommendations, contained in its report on the CJD settlement offer, that a review be undertaken of scientific evidence given to the committee.When the review was completed and the resultant report delivered, the Department of Health and Aged Care published it widely within the CJD community. Certain persons, who had given evidence to the Community Affairs References Committee, were concerned about the review report's comments on their evidence, and sought that it be withdrawn. The department responded that the review report had been prepared specifically for the purpose of being presented to the community affairs committee, and was therefore covered by parliamentary privilege. The community affairs committee's primary con cern was that, in claiming the protection of privilege, the department may have misrepresented the proceedings by attempting to give protection to the review report.The Committee of Privileges sought an explanation from the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, as to the circumstances surrounding the publication of the review report. His response, which is quoted extensively in the report I have just tabled, has enabled the committee to make the following findings in relation to the terms of reference: (a) and (b) that no adjudication on these terms of reference is required; (c) no contempt of the Senate is involved; and (d) unauthorised publication of the review report occurred, but no contempt should be found. The committee's reasons for making these findings are given in detail in the report.I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.8141814115:54:008141O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 13th report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 13 of 1999 dated 1 September 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.8141814115:55:008141Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—In the absence of Senator Murphy, I present the report of the Economics References Committee on whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian reactor at Lucas Heights on that site or on some other site in Australia, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I move:That the Senate take note of the report. This report is long-awaited. In October 1997 the Senate referred the matter of the proposed new reactor to the Senate Economics References Committee for inquiry. During that time we have seen a number of events occur which impacted upon the finalisation of the report. Firstly, shortly after the committee started taking evidence, an EIS process was commenced into the proposed construction of the reactor. The committee felt that it was appropriate to await the outcome of that EIS process. Subsequently, the election occurred in October last year and the Senate committee had to be reconstituted. Earlier this year, the final EIS was handed down. Following that, the committee took further evidence from interested groups and individuals in relation to the findings of that EIS, which has now lead to the committee issuing its report.The committee has found that the government's decision to construct a new reactor was both premature and ill-considered. The appropriate starting point for considering this issue is to go back to the 1993 Research Reactor Review, often referred to as the McKinnon review, which was conducted by the previous Labor government. That committee looked at the issue of whether or not Australia would need a new reactor when the HIFAR reactor reached the end of its life and would need to be decommissioned in approximately the year 2003. The Research Reactor Review looked at a range of issues and found that it was not necessary to make a decision at that stage but that the issue should be revisited again in five years time. That brings us through to the present day. The Research Reactor Review committee at that time said:If, at the end of a further period of about five years,. a high level waste site has been firmly identified and work started on proving its suitability. there is no evidence that spallation technology can economically offer as much as or more than a new reactor;. there has been no practical initiation of a cyclotron anywhere worldwide to produce technetium-99m. there is good evidence of strong and diverse applications of neutron scattering capability in Australian science, including many young scientists, and a complex of industrial uses . the national interest remains a high priorityit would be appropriate to make a positive decision on a new reactor. The most suitable site would need to be identified.I emphasise that last comment: `The most suitable site would need to be identified.' In particular, the review found:If any of these onerous requirements is not met, either a negative decision, or a decision to delay further, would be indicated.Further, in respect of logistics and siting, the review stated:If a decision were to be made to construct a new reactor, it would not necessarily best be placed at Lucas Heights. An appropriate site would best be decided after exhaustive search, taking into account community views.The decision made by the government was a political one. On the same day that it announced it would no longer proceed with its proposal to build an airport at Holsworthy, it announced that it would build a new reactor at Lucas Heights. Remembering the words of the Liberal Mayor of Sutherland Shire Council, Kevin Schreiber, he said he went to bed that night knowing that he would not have an airport in his shire but he would wake up with a new reactor. That was clearly a political decision.In making that decision the government has ignored just about every one of the recommendations of the Research Reactor Review. Firstly, there has been no comprehensive examination of whether or not alternative technology, such as cyclotrons and spallation sources, and the importation of radioisotopes would be a better medium-term and long-term approach to adopt than spending some $300 million-plus on a single nuclear reactor. There simply has not been a proper exhaustive analysis of that. The committee took evidence on those issues and, whilst the committee is somewhat apprehensive that those technologies have advanced sufficiently, we believe that it would be appropriate for a proper independent public inquiry to be held to look at all of those issues and make a decision independent of government, and particularly independent of ANSTO and the nuclear industry which have a vested interest in having this facility built.More importantly, the recommendation of the reactor review in 1993 was that no steps be taken for a new reactor to be built until a permanent site had been determined for storage of the high level waste currently stored at Lucas Heights and that work had commenced on that proposal. That has not occurred either. Whilst there is a proposal for the storage of low level wastes that are generally produced in a range of industrial arenas, as well as in hospitals and so on, and that material may well end up being stored at a proposed site in South Australia, there has been no decision by this government on where the waste from Lucas Heights should eventually be stored.The minister is on record as saying that, because the material will be sent overseas to be reprocessed and brought back to Australia some years down the track, we do not need to make a decision on this just yet. That is not good enough. It is not good enough for the hundreds of thousands of people who now live in the Sutherland Shire and who face the prospect of another reactor—making three reactors on that site—operating for the next 40 years and producing more waste. Lucas Heights will continue to be the de facto nuclear waste dump in this country. In a country as modern as Australia, with all of the natural advantages that it has, it is ludicrous to suggest that a site that is within a couple of kilometres of thousands of people should continue to be a nuclear waste dump site. No decision has been made on that and, therefore, the McKinnon recommendation has been ignored.Similarly, the government has ignored the recommendation that there be an exhaustive assessment of alternative sites. We know the reason. The reason for the government saying that the reactor should go to Lucas Heights is based upon cost. We acknowledge that it would be cheaper to put it at Lucas Heights. After all, that is where the existing infrastructure is. But that of itself should not be the be-all and end-all of this process of determining where—if we have a nuclear reactor—it should be located.The McKinnon review recommended that alternative sites should be looked at. When we questioned the government and ANSTO about that they said, `Yes, we have looked at alternative sites, but we can't tell you where they are because that is cabinet-in-confidence information.' Again, that is treating the people of the Sutherland Shire with contempt. I reject the argument that is advanced—that simply because the reactor was present at Lucas Heights when it was a remote site 40 or 50 years ago, the new reactor should go there now and it is just bad luck for all those people who moved into that region afterwards and they have to cop the new reactor. I regard that as a crude, arrogant view to adopt. It is not the view that would be adopted, I would suggest, in regard to many other assessments of projects and their impact on the community. There is much more that I could say about this matter. We have recommended that, in accordance with what was recommended by Professor McKinnon, a full public inquiry should be conducted. (Time expired)16:06:008143Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise to speak to the report of the Economics References Committee on the new reactor at Lucas Heights. The Australian Democrats support the findings and the recommendations of the majority report to which Senator Forshaw has referred. However, we have provided supplementary remarks which we believe go further; that is, we do not believe the recommendations contained in the report go far enough. Therefore, in our remarks we have added some suggestions.At the outset, I state very clearly for the record the Australian Democrats' clear and unequivocal opposition to the construction of a new nuclear reactor in this country. We do not believe that a new reactor has been justified on any of the grounds provided to the committee. We are quite outraged that the onus has been placed on the opponents of a new nuclear reactor to argue against its construction. What we should be doing instead is listening and waiting for the government to justify the extraordinary costs of all kinds that are associated with this proposed new reactor. Both the government, we believe, and the opposition have signed off on this new nuclear reactor, albeit acknowledging the opposition's concerns.The government have made it clear that they are going to force this new reactor through—it is not a replacement reactor; it is a new reactor—contrary to broad community opposition, world opinion and the evidence that has been provided to the committee. The opposition is apparently concerned with the processes adopted by the government, but believes that a new reactor can be justified. The Australian Democrats do not believe that a new nuclear reactor in Australia can be justified. Even with the benefit of post Cold War hindsight, we must ask why our country is so heavily involved in the nuclear cycle and why this government seems to insist on some kind of expanding nuclear agenda for our country.I will leave that debate and discussion for another time but I do want to draw attention to the history, because it seems that both the government and the opposition have failed to learn their lessons on this one. Around the world nuclear weapons stockpiles continue to grow. Nuclear waste is overflowing and problems of radioactivity have become a nightmare. For the residents of Lucas Heights and for the people of the Billa Kalina region in my home state of South Australia, and of course for the Australian population, I want to remind you that Australia already operates a high level nuclear waste dump in a suburb of our largest city. This government is now promoting the removal of this nuclear waste to a proposed dump on the land of the Arabunna people in my home state of South Australia. At this stage, I wish to pay special tribute to the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta Women's Group for their continued fight against a radioactive waste dump in their country.In storage at Lucas Heights there are around 1,600 spent fuel rods, used in the HIFAR and the smaller MOATA reactors during the last 55 years. Various attempts to ship out these problems to various overseas places have, understandably, failed. We are still waiting for a solution to the actual waste problem. And here we are talking about yet another nuclear site in our nation. So it should come as no surprise to this parliament that Australians do not want nuclear waste stored in their backyards. Extending our waste problem with the construction of a new nuclear reactor is both outrageous and incredibly irresponsible.In recommending against a new nuclear reactor we have paid particular attention to the justifications provided to the committee by the government, by DFAT and by ANSTO. The most insidious of the justifications advanced is that the construction of a new nuclear reactor is necessary to maintain Australia's national interest. The national interest argument begins with the assumption that Australia will actually lose its seat on the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency—that is, if we are not engaged in some kind of nuclear program, which, of course, includes the operation of a nuclear reactor. We are asked to believe that Australia's position on the board of governors is being used to promote the interests of nonproliferation. I am not quite sure where to start in addressing the absurdity of that statement.Firstly, it is doubtful that the International Atomic Energy Agency can be regarded as an appropriate forum in which to pursue nonproliferation and nuclear safeguards. The agency remains a promoter of nuclear technologies through dual-use projects such as nuclear reactors and through continuing involvement in the trade of nuclear materials. Secondly, it appears that Australia originally earned a seat on the board of governors of the agency through enormous involvement in the supply of raw nuclear materials to both the United Kingdom and the United States during the 1950s. In another brief history lesson, I remind Australians that much of this material returned to Australia in the form of nuclear weapons, tested in my home state of South Australia, with little understanding of the consequences at that time and necessitating expensive and dangerous cleanup operations.Thirdly, Australia continues to promote nuclear technologies internationally through the export of uranium and, more insidiously, by supporting the United States' timetable and strategies in nonproliferation negotiations. Another thread of the national interest argu ment maintains that an Australian nuclear reactor provides us with the expertise in managing the nuclear fuel cycle. According to some witnesses before the committee, operation of a nuclear reactor provides Australia with technical expertise and credibility, which enhance our export trade in uranium. The Australian Democrats' position in relation to uranium mining is clear; we oppose the export of uranium outright and so this argument is quite offensive. It is inconceivable that the continued export of uranium can be reconciled with the interests of nonproliferation.One witness before the committee asked a short but perceptive question which I believe cuts to the heart of this issue: `Is the new reactor and the work it supports part of the solution or part of the problem?' I await with great interest an answer to that question. I am certainly not holding my breath but I look forward to a response from government on that particular topic.Nuclear medicine has been advanced as another justification for the new nuclear reactor. I am concerned that this justification is being used because nuclear medicine is being promoted as the acceptable face of nuclear science. Witnesses before the committee indicated that the production of radioisotopes for medical use was only a small part of the use of the existing reactor, although from some reports you would think it was much more than that.Having considered the evidence, I agree with the suggestion of some witnesses that equivalent sums spent in other medical areas would bring about significantly greater benefits. These other areas include both diagnosis and treatment procedures. In fact, there is no requirement for radioisotopes to be produced in Australia for use in nuclear medicine. According to ANSTO, the existing HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights is actually shut down for around three months each year, and there seems to be no crisis in our health system as a consequence of that shutdown. During these periods radioisotopes are imported from commercial producers in other parts of the world. These have been produced at reasonable prices and apparently with excellent reliability. The Australian Democrats have not been swayed by the limited evidence of either industrial use or environmental use of radioisotopes. Industrial use does not seem to be economically viable if the true costs of isotope production are to be met, and it is hard to imagine that the so-called environmental benefits of a new reactor could ever outweigh the environmental costs.Although nuclear science research would certainly be more difficult without a new reactor, the opportunity costs involved in constructing the reactor are significant. It remains unbelievable that this government is promoting a new reactor at the cost of at least $300 million at a time when many other parts of our research sector, specifically scientific research communities, are starved of resources. It is also difficult to understand how a new nuclear reactor can be justified, even within the nuclear science community, when alternative nuclear technologies are showing promise and the construction of research reactors around the world has ceased.The Australian Democrats do not support the construction of a new nuclear reactor. It cannot be justified on the grounds put forward to the committee in the form of evidence. The Australian Democrats will continue to oppose any further involvement by this country, and by this government in particular, in the nuclear fuel cycle.16:15:008145Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In the main, I support the comments of both the previous speakers, who have put forward a cogent argument to give the government cause to question its whole trajectory in regard to replacing the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, which is decrepit, with a new nuclear reactor which brings a great deal of concern not just to the local residents but to Australians as a whole. The answer to the question of where to dump the high level nuclear radioactive wastes has not been solved because there is no resolution to that. Senator Stott Despoja was just talking about the science at the Lucas Heights reactor establishment, which we might think is for the benefit of this country, but the one experiment that I know of that is going on there is an experiment to move towards laser enrichment of uranium for the purpose of making it cheaper to run nuclear reactors. And, incidentally, in the hands of anybody this technology would make it cheaper to make nuclear bombs.Why on earth is that science getting priority from this government? Is there no more constructive endeavour as far as the facility at Lucas Heights is concerned? I cannot see the responsibility in that. If it was aimed at pure medical research, then there would be a different attitude and I suspect the Australian public would have a different attitude to it. But it is not. By the way, that research is under licence to the United States. It is ultimately being eyed as a profit maker for those people around the world who are involved in a nuclear power industry, with spin-offs for nuclear weaponry, a matter which worries the whole world. We should not be involved in it. So I do not have faith in the simple assumption that we need this reactor, amongst other things, to promote science. There is good science and there is bad science and, from what I can see of it, there is at least a big measure of bad science going on at Lucas Heights.The government needs to get that facility in order before it tries to convince the Australian Greens, at least, that we need this new reactor. As Senator Forshaw pointed out to the chamber just a while ago, the government is moving in a direction which fails the deliberations of parliamentarians and the public who have made submissions over the years to chart a different course. With that, I put the Australian Greens' position that nor are we in favour of the renewal of this reactor. We stand very solidly with the people of the Sutherland region, who have worked very hard to try to remove this insidious and invidious industry from their locality, and the people elsewhere—including in Senator Stott Despoja's home state, as she has said—who are concerned that they are going to be used as an outlet for a government that has no answer for the storage of nuclear waste.I finally add: we have two nuclear waste ships approaching Australia's shores right now. They are going to sail south of Australia. They will come closest to Tasmania, then up the Tasman Sea between us and New Zealand on their way to Japan, with high level nuclear wastes, including plutonium. Despite all the assurances, I have been unable to get an answer from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, that there is any indemnity or insurance if the unthinkable happens and one of these ships runs into trouble and contaminates our region. With the Tasmanian economy at stake—and that of Australia in general—the government will not even say where those ships are, though it knows.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I hope it doesn't end up in Sydney Harbour.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Exactly. Sydney Harbour is not beyond the reach of radioactivity released from anywhere in the vicinity. These ships will be coming past Sydney in the first fortnight of this month. In other words, they are in our region already. South Africa protested. Indonesia will not have them going through between Indonesia and Malaysia; nor will Malaysia. New Zealand does not want them in the region. This Senate has passed a motion of concern which was put forward by the Labor Party. But the Howard government, the same people who want to build this reactor, could not care less. In fact, they are in favour of those waste ships coming past because they want to feed into the same cycle. Call that acting in the national interest, if you will.I do not go along with this proposal. The Howard government have a lot of answering to do; they have a lot of homework to do. Australians would in the main feel much better if Australia joined New Zealand in taking a much more positive attitude towards the threat of nuclear weapons and helped the world move more rapidly towards getting rid of not only nuclear weapons but the nuclear cycle itself, which has been such a threat to life on this planet in this century.16:21:008146Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—With the majority report that has been tabled today the Labor Party has shown that it is playing politics, or it has demonstrated its absolute weakness and its unfitness to govern because of its inability to make a decision. It is indeed playing politics with what is a very important issue for Australia and a very significant national facility. This whole inquiry into the replacement reactor for Lucas Heights was initiated in the lead-up to the last federal election by the opposition and by Senator Forshaw in particular as a purely political exercise. This was a blatant attempt by the opposition to scaremonger in the lead-up to the last federal election. In particular, it was an attempt to fabricate an issue in the electorate of Danna Vale in a vain attempt to bring about her defeat at the last election. Of course that strategy failed absolutely, because Danna Vale was returned in that electorate handsomely and with flying colours, so this strategy fell flat on its face. Now we see through this majority report that the Labor Party wants to attempt to keep this issue going for another three years in yet another vain attempt to crank it up as an issue in Danna Vale's electorate. So, as a political exercise, this has failed dismally for the Labor Party.Through this majority report we see that the Labor Party has again failed to make a decision on this issue. It failed to make a decision on a replacement reactor for Lucas Heights when it was in government, and now in opposition it is squibbing on making a decision on the replacement reactor. What the opposition wants to do is have yet another inquiry into the replacement reactor at Lucas Heights on top of all the inquiries that have already been conducted. We have had this Senate inquiry—the report of which we are tabling today. We have had the RRR inquiry and we have had other assessments made by the government. It simply demonstrates the incapacity of the Labor Party to actually look at evidence, look at the need for this facility and make a decision. It wants to put it off, put it off and put it off again, as it did in government, by seeking more and more inquiries. As I say, that is partly a demonstration of its weakness as a party but it is also a demonstration of it playing politics on this issue—wanting to fabricate the issue and keep it running as long as it can.We also heard from Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Brown on this report. They simply raised red herrings on the issue and perhaps an even greater level of scaremongering than Senator Forshaw. Senator Stott Despoja raised the issue of nuclear weapon stockpiles. Those stockpiles have absolutely nothing to do with the Lucas Heights reactor. The Lucas Heights reactor has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It is a facility for scientific and medical research and nothing more, so that is simply a red herring and scaremongering on the part of Senator Stott Despoja. It shows how little attention she paid to the actual conduct of the inquiry and to the evidence presented to the committee. Senator Brown raised the issue of nuclear waste ships passing by Australia—again, absolutely nothing to do with a replacement reactor at Lucas Heights. It has no relevance to this issue whatsoever.That is why Senator Gibson and I, as the government members of this committee, reject absolutely the majority report and indeed have produced a minority report which supports the decision made by the government to proceed with the construction of a replacement reactor for the now antiquated HIFAR reactor located at Lucas Heights. We believe that the case for constructing a replacement reactor without further delay is absolutely clear-cut. Unlike the opposition—which I have already said are calling for a further inquiry on this issue—we believe that the government has made the correct decision and ought to get on with construction of the facility without further delay. No useful purpose will be served by a further inquiry. No further information on this matter will be elicited by a further inquiry. Apart from the delay it would cause in constructing this much needed facility it would also be an absolute waste of taxpayers' money.Lucas Heights is the only logical place to build a replacement reactor. It has been well established that the presence of the existing HIFAR reactor for 40 years has had absolutely no detrimental or adverse effect on the local community. The existing reactor has operated very safely, and of course the important thing to note is that the new replacement reactor, using the most up-to-date technology, will be an even safer facility than the reactor that is being replaced. So com munity safety will be improved. The old reactor has operated very safely and the replacement reactor will have improved safety margins over that. Independent studies have clearly shown that, even if there is an incident at the reactor, it is highly unlikely there would be any danger to the local community from such an incident. Indeed, driving on the roads in the shire of Sutherland poses a far greater risk—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You can't drive on the roads.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Especially when Senator Forshaw is on the roads, I would hasten to add. But, generally, driving on the roads in the Sutherland shire poses a much greater risk than will ever be posed by a replacement reactor at Lucas Heights.I draw to your attention the fact that even in this majority report the Labor Party are prepared to acknowledge the very considerable benefits associated with nuclear science in Australia—benefits for the whole community. Therefore, their position is completely illogical. They acknowledge the benefits of nuclear science and they acknowledge the benefits that a replacement reactor will bring but they still say, `Oh, no, let's have another inquiry. Let's delay the construction of this reactor even further.' In chapter 2 of their majority report there is a comprehensive examination of the significant benefits to medicine, industry and scientific research from the replacement reactor. These benefits are beyond reasonable dispute. Senator Gibson and I were persuaded, for example, by the evidence that virtually every Australian will receive some form of medical treatment during their lifetime involving reactor produced pharmaceuticals. If we delay further the construction of this much-needed facility, then Australia and Australians will be disadvantaged.We acknowledge there is some community concern about the presence of nuclear waste at Lucas Heights, and in the debate earlier the issue of nuclear fuel rods was raised. But, again, we must recognise that the government has taken positive action to address this issue by the establishment of firm contracts to have spent fuel rods removed and reprocessed overseas and by the decision to establish a national waste repository in a remote part of South Australia, my state, which I support and which will take low- and intermediate-level waste only. Therefore, again, that waste repository poses absolutely no threat and no danger to those isolated communities in that remote part of South Australia.In terms of the waste from Lucas Heights, we have firm contracts in place to deal with the spent fuel rods coming from that facility. So there is absolutely no argument in terms of the need for this facility. Alternative forms of technology simply do not measure up in what they can offer, both in their state of development and in their capacity to produce the requirements economically. The nuclear reactor will be able to do that. It will be of great benefit to science and to medicine in Australia and, through that, to the whole Australian community. There is no argument for further delay. This matter has been examined repeatedly and often enough. The evidence is there in favour of the establishment of the replacement reactor, and the government should get on and put it in place so that the facility is available for the benefit of all Australians.Question resolved in the affirmative.8148814816:31:008148Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I present the 14th report of the committee, entitled Examination of annual reports for 1997-98 in fulfilment of the committee's duties pursuant to section 206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993 , together with the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.This report examines the 1997-98 annual reports of the National Native Title Tribunal, the land fund and the Indigenous Land Corpo ration. The committee has now reported on the tribunal's first five annual reports and on the ILC's first four annual reports, because the ILC did not commence its work until 1 June 1995. The history of the committee's reporting on the annual reports is significant. With one exception, the committee has held public hearings each year to consider the annual reports, which it has a duty to examine.At the outset, I wish to acknowledge the assistance that the tribunal and the ILC have given the committee through the public hearings. Although the committee would claim to have contributed to the understanding of the parliament and others through its examination of the annual reports transmitted by the tribunal and the ILC, the committee itself has been considerably informed by the advice received from the reporting authorities. In this regard, I would like to make particular mention of senior officers of each of those organisations who have been responsible for facilitating the committee's examination not only of the annual reports but also of their organisations' wider activities.Justice Robert French was the tribunal's president from 2 May 1994 until 31 December 1998. Honourable senators will be aware of the contribution made by Justice French during that period of time. As only the second president of the tribunal, he was responsible for much of the work to establish its operations, and Justice French also made a significant impact on the provision of public information about the nature of the native title process, something which was very much needed in the wider community. In all of this Justice French was supported by the tribunal's second registrar, Ms Patricia Lane, who retired on 31 December 1997. The tribunal will have continued access to Ms Lane's expertise because she has been appointed as a part-time member of the tribunal for the next three years.Two senior members of the ILC have also completed their terms: Mr David Ross, who was the inaugural chairperson, began his four-year term when the ILC commenced its business in June 1995; similarly, Mr Peter Yu has been the ILC's deputy chairperson in a part-time capacity. He was appointed until May 1999, when Mr Ross also retired. Both Mr Ross and Mr Yu have provided a good deal of evidence to the committee about the ILC's activities and, during Mr Ross's term of office, the ILC quite importantly approved the purchase of about 200 properties and divested about 30 of these to indigenous corporations. The committee has already officially wished these two men well for the future.Turning to the committee's 14th report, I would like to mention the most significant matters to which attention has been given. With regard to the tribunal itself, the committee commented on the issues of impartiality, workload, amendments to the act and public information on the work of the tribunal. In its 13th report the committee noted that a tribunal member, Mr Sean Flood, had stood down from the tribunal following controversial remarks he made about government native title policy in a speech at the University of New South Wales. Mr Flood subsequently resigned from the tribunal in October 1997. At its public hearing on 30 March this year, the committee was reassured to hear the new president, Mr Graeme Neate, say that tribunal members must act in an impartial manner for as long as they hold office. The committee will continue to monitor the tribunal's impartiality.The tribunal's workload has, similarly, been a matter of continuing concern to the committee. At the end of the 1997-98 reporting period, there was a total of 804 claimant applications lodged. `Future act' activity was also intense, with almost 4,000 notifications. This significant workload confronted the tribunal at a time when there had been a reduction in the number of tribunal members through retirement and resignation. The committee has expressed the view that the tribunal should not retain consultants to manage this workload but should provide advice to government so that an adequate complement of members can be made available.With regard to amendments to the act, the committee was pleased to learn that, in the tribunal president's opinion, amendments passed in the Native Title Amendment Bill 1998 have provided new tools for more flexible and expeditious resolution of native title claims. For example, before the amendments were made to the act, the tribunal had relatively few statutory processes to deal with extra- and intra-indigenous disputes. As well, the committee has commended the tribunal for its efforts in disseminating information about native title in public education programs. The committee will continue to consult with those who may be affected by the lack of information to ensure that adequate and accurate information is available from authoritative sources.The committee's 14th report similarly referred to substantive matters in regard to the ILC's 1997-98 annual report, and these include land management and operational challenges facing the ILC. In its 13th report the committee had expressed concern that its recommendation to the ILC to provide a comprehensive account of land under management had not been followed. It is pleasing to note that in the current annual report this suggestion has been adopted. In fact, appendix 4 of the ILC report details land management expenditure during 1997-98 on land held by the ILC as well as assistance provided to indigenous land holders. In addition, the committee has been able to confirm that the ILC was involved in the actual management of land purchased by the ILC in the 1996-97 period of time. We on the committee will continue to monitor these land management activities. Can I say that the ILC should be commended regarding its annual report for the way in which it described the operational challenges it faces.I have heard it said that land prices have been artificially raised as a consequence of the ILC's apparent willingness to pay above the going market rate in its property purchases. Can I respond to these comments by quoting from the evidence given by Mr Murray Chapman, General Manager of the ILC, at our hearing on 25 March, when he said:. . . because of the nature of the property market . . . it would be hard to get a handle on precisely who is getting the best of whom. Mr Chapman went on to say that:. . . anecdotal evidence suggests that the ILC is increasingly getting a reputation for not being easy to fool in property negotiations.If there is firm evidence to support the claims of above value prices being paid, the committee would be very pleased to receive it.I have also raised with Mr Ross the issue of the purchase of property to enable dispossessed urban Aboriginal families to also benefit from the funds of the ILC. Twice now, in indigenous roundtables that I have had with Aboriginal women in South Australia, this has been a consistent issue of concern as they face the prospect of life in rented accommodation because they are dispossessed and in the cities. This is to me a matter of great importance. I have spoken of it before in the chamber and I will be raising it with the new chair of the ILC, Ms Sharon Firebrace.Another significant issue that the ILC has reported concerns obstacles confronting the purchase of grazing homestead freeholdings and grazing homestead perpetual leases in the state of Queensland, because under Queensland legislation these forms of tenure must be held by individuals and operated in effect as family farms. The ILC has been prevented from acquiring this land as a result of this constraint and, as such, those leases cannot be transferred to corporate ownership.Before concluding, can I just note that the Australian National Audit Office has advised the committee that it has commenced a preliminary study to recommend to the Auditor-General that the ILC undergo a performance audit. If it proceeds the audit is expected to be completed for tabling in the parliament in June 2000. I expect that the report that I am tabling today will be of assistance in this process not only to the audit office but also to the tribunal and to all of those parties concerned with native title and the land fund. I commend the committee's 14th annual report to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8151r8568151Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Heffernan) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.815116:43:008151Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Senators may recall that a small number of amendments were passed last year to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. These emerged as recommendations from a Review of Offshore Petroleum Legislation that commenced some time ago and was brought to finalisation in early 1998. At the time, the then Minister for Resources and Energy indicated further proposals emanating from the review might be presented to Parliament at a later date. The bill now before the Senate incorporates these proposals.Over the years it has become evident that a number of provisions in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act are no longer appropriate while others place unnecessary burdens on companies and government by way of reporting requirements and approvals. Seen against the backdrop of technological change in the petroleum industry and developments such as the opening up and growth of liquefied natural gas markets, there is a need to ensure that the act promotes the Government's objectives as set out in the 1998 Resources Policy Statement. The Government's vision is one of a competitive, innovative and growing petroleum sector operating in a streamlined legislative framework that offers high levels of certainty to stakeholders and contributes to rising national prosperity.With this in mind, the proposed amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act aim to improve government administration and the efficiency of exploration for, and production of, petroleum resources. This is to be achieved without compromis ing operating, safety and environmental standards. The States, Northern Territory and the petroleum industry have been intensively involved in the Review and in drafting the amendments.As there are no fundamental changes to the legislation, none of the changes could be called major, but I will now give some details about the more substantive ones.I would mention four new provisions that the bill would insert in the act.At the pre-exploration stage, where companies make competitive bids for exploration permits, an option is to be introduced whereby supplementary bids may be called as a tie-breaker for bids that are ranked equal. This will also create an incentive for each company to commit itself to more exploration work and expenditure.Secondly, a new class of title known as an infrastructure licence is to be introduced to cater for at-sea operations that do not fall strictly within the ambit of current production or pipeline licences. One example is the licensing of offshore facilities for processing natural gas into products such as liquefied natural gas and methanol. Companies are reluctant to invest in processing plant unless they have security of title over the area in which it is to be located. Other examples are petroleum storage or offloading facilities, particularly where the facilities are not part of the production plant within a relevant production licence area.The new infrastructure licence will also enable a company to remotely control some operations for the recovery of petroleum in an area when the petroleum is located in an adjacent production licence area. Thus, for example, companies will be able to connect subsea completions from the infrastructure licence area into the adjacent production licence area. Importantly, the existing requirements relating to good oilfield practices, including health, safety and environment protection, will equally apply to infrastructure licensees.In addition, the infrastructure licence arrangements will enable continued use of facilities after petroleum production ceases from the production licence area in which the facilities are situated. For example, aged platforms could serve as a gathering and initial processing point for oil and gas produced from smaller adjacent facilities before being pipelined to an onshore processing plant.Another new provision relates to information that companies are required to submit to the government and its protection so that trade secrets are not betrayed and the submitter's competitive position is not undermined. The existing safeguards involve gazettal of a notice to advise affected parties before any information that is deemed to be an interpretation of basic geological data can be released to third parties. The bill now introduces a streamlined system under which companies submitting information to the government will be able to declare at the time that they classify the information to be confidential or derivative. Unless the Designated Authority challenges this declaration within 30 days, the classification will stand and the information will be protected from release, permanently if it is confidential or for 5 years if it is derivative.I would also mention the creation of a new offence, namely deliberately interfering with offshore petroleum installations or operations. This will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, which will be equal to the strongest penalty provision in the act.Turning to the provisions that will be repealed by the amendments, one of the most notable is the repeal of the Joint Authority's discretion to fix the number of blocks for renewals of exploration permits at 16.The objective of the exploration permit system is to facilitate an optimal level of investment in petroleum exploration in offshore areas under the Commonwealth's jurisdiction. One of the mechanisms employed in the legislation to achieve this is a requirement that a permittee relinquish half the blocks covered by the permit at renewal, so that these relinquished areas may be released again for exploration by other companies. However, currently, at the Joint Authority's discretion, holders of exploration permits may retain up to 16 blocks where the halving process would otherwise result in fewer blocks being included in the renewed permit. This has become the norm and resulted in large areas being retained by companies for extended periods with a consequent reduction in areas becoming available for competitive bidding.Accordingly, the discretionary minimum of 16 blocks for new permits is removed in the bill and the discretion for existing permits is to be removed after they have been renewed for the next permit term. Once a permit area has reduced to the point where the halving formula allows renewal over only 4 blocks, the permit will be renewable twice over those 4 blocks, instead of a 4 block renewal followed by a 2 block renewal. A one block permit will not be able to be renewed.Another provision repealed is one relating to fragmentation constraints on areas covered by permits being renewed. At present, each exploration permit area must consist of aggregates of at least 16 blocks except where the total holding is less than 16 blocks. Moreover, each discrete area is to consist of blocks having a side in common with at least one other block. This concept is considered outdated because modern exploration techniques enable explorers to more accurately pin-point targets. Repeal of these constraints would enhance the attractiveness of permits as, at the permit renewal stage, the company could hold on to more targets it considered prospective.The Government has also agreed to repeal the 21 year term of pipeline licences. The term is to be indefinite, but the pipeline licence will be able to be terminated if there has been no work on or use of the pipeline for a period of at least 5 years, subject to force majeure. This conforms with the change made last year to the term of production licences and will enhance security of tenure and thereby encourage investment in pipelines.More generally, evolving technology is a factor behind a number of technical provisions being repealed with a view to incorporating them in regulations. The more technically prescriptive provisions are, the more quickly they tend to become outdated. There is therefore good sense in bringing such provisions into regulations, where they can more readily be amended than provisions of the act itself. The logistics of this require the provisions in question to be repealed only when the regulations are ready to come into effect. This is the reason why a subset of the amendments is to come into effect on a date to be fixed by proclamation rather than at Royal Assent.Additionally, a number of minor machinery amendments are made to update the act to current legal and administrative practices. This is specifically in areas such as the removal of the need for companies to use approved forms, converting pecuniary penalties in the act to penalty units and deleting provisions relating to offences that are fully dealt with in the Crimes Act 1914.There will be no net impact on the Commonwealth budget as a result of these changes. Annual licence fees payable to the Commonwealth will apply to pipeline licences and infrastructure licences with indefinite terms of effect as much as they would if the terms were limited. To this end, a consequential amendment is made to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Fees Act 1994 to ensure that the State and Territory costs of administering infrastructure licences are recovered from these fees in the same way as the costs of administering other titles. The overall effect of the amendments is likely to be reduced administrative costs for both government and industry.I commend the bill to honourable senators.Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) adjourned.Bills8152r6468152Consideration resumed.(Quorum formed)10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The committee is considering the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 as amended. The question is that amendment No. 9 on sheet 1265 moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.16:46:008153Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This amendment would mean that regional forest agreements would be terminated by illegal actions by state governments or their minions. If a court found that a state government which had signed off on a regional forest agreement had breached the state laws concerning forest management, forest industry practices or the conservation of the environment and heritage values in forests—remembering that if they do that you cannot get the forest heritage back—then the regional forest agreement would be deemed to have been terminated.Earlier in the day, Senator Troeth, by interjection on behalf of the government, disclaimed patriotic citizens who go into the forests peacefully to protect them and who are hauled before the courts because they are in breach of laws set up by state governments under the push by the woodchip corporations to prevent them from protesting. I challenge the government to support this amendment, because in upholding the laws we cannot have double standards—at least one government senator agrees with me on that. Involved in this is a penalty if state laws are breached, the penalty being that the regional forest agreement would be terminated. Secondly, if the Commonwealth has given a month's notice of an intended termination to a state government then termination would follow. That is a power the Commonwealth needs to retain, seeing it is removing all its other powers under this legislation to protect Australia's forest heritage.I mentioned the Goolengook heritage river area where illegal logging took place and hundreds of hectares of prime heritage forest in Victoria's East Gippsland were cut down under the direction of the authorities. If you follow the chain of command up you come to the Minister for Conservation and Land Management, Ms Marie Tehan, in Victoria. If you go further you come to the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett. Under those circumstances of a massive breach of Victoria's own laws—found to be so, I might add, by the Supreme Court of Victoria—what happened? Instead of there being any penalty for the woodchippers who carted those heritage forests off to Harris Daishowa's mill at Eden to be sent off to Japan, or any positive response to that from the Kennett government, they simply brought in retrospective laws to validate their illegal actions. Isn't it time we made a stand against that? Is that what we are going to continue to allow? This government will, because this government is not going to support these Greens amendments.In the Otways in Victoria, very close to Senator Troeth's own base, there has been illegal logging in catchments and road reserves. In Victorian forest management areas there is evidence of logging levels exceeding legislated sustainable yields—that would be illegal—and of logs being downgraded for sale—and that would be illegal. What has the government got to say about that? These are regional forest agreements which were to bring peace, security and order to the forests, but since they have been signed there have been gross illegal acts by the woodchip corporations—and, at least in Victoria's case, by the government itself—in places like East Gippsland and in my home state of Tasmania, which have led to the destruction of national estate and heritage river forests. As you know, Mr Temporary Chairman, once that happens, Australia has lost them forever—them and their wildlife—and they do not come back. Does Mr Howard, who, as Prime Minister, signed off on those regional forest agreements, care a twig? What is his action to ensure that these illegal acts by woodchip corporations under the said control of Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, in the case I have just outlined, stop?Far from stopping it, the Howard government encourages it. Under this regional forest agreement this government says, `We have the example in Victoria and Tasmania'—and no doubt in Western Australia and in New South Wales—`of illegal logging under the states' own laws. What is our reaction to that? We will hand the powers that we have to prevent that across to the same state governments.'What an extraordinary thing to do, unless you understand that this government and Prime Minister Howard, through their actions, have shown that they do not care that the majority of Australians want that stopped. They do not care about the wildlife and forests of this country. I expect that they are not going to support this Greens amendment, which would give them the power to ensure that, if state governments continue to commit or allow illegal acts in the forests, the RFAs will be terminated.If the government does not support this, let me never hear another government representative, including Senator Troeth, get up and criticise those Australians, not least the thousands of young Australians, who have gone out into the forests to protest about what is happening there. Let us have an end to this high-minded condemnation from on high of those young Australians. By opposing this motion, in effect the government is saying, `We know that the woodchip corporations and even state government instrumentalities can act illegally, and grossly so, involving millions of dollars worth of forests and their heritage, and we are actually going to abet that by giving more powers to the very people who do that.' I will remember this moment and this vote, and every time the government or anybody there wants to criticise citizens who want to protest in the forests as being law-breakers, I will remind them that they are in this process giving their tick to illegal acts in the forests of this country by the woodchip corporations and by state government instrumentalities.16:55:008154Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—It will come as no surprise to Senator Brown that the government is opposing this amendment. I will remember this moment and this vote as yet another piece of evidence of the fact that Senator Brown will say and do anything to inject more uncertainty into this RFA legislation. This amendment is designed to create as much uncertainty as possible once an RFA is signed, and for that reason we are strenuously opposing it.The RFAs themselves provide the grounds on which RFAs may be terminated, and RFAs also provide a process to enable disputes to be resolved without recourse to termination. It is the overriding intention of the Commonwealth to comply with the terms of RFAs. However, this proposed amendment could lead to RFAs being terminated due to a minor technical breach of the RFA even though steps may have subsequently been taken to deal with that breach. As the amendment says, it allows the Commonwealth to terminate an RFA for any reason on just one month's notice. In relation to this point, again I will quote from the Office of General Counsel advice given on 10 August 1999, page 6, paragraph 24, which says:The problem is that the deemed termination is expressed to take effect upon the giving of notice. In that case, what purpose does the notice serve and can it be regarded as notice of intended termination when the termination is already deemed to have occurred?I would also like to take issue with Senator Brown on his calling upon thousands of young people going out into the forests to express their disapproval of this or any other government legislation. I would like to say to him that there are equally as many thousands of young people who depend on the timber industry for their jobs and for their parents' jobs, and they want to see this legislation go through.In the past few days I received a media release from a community awareness campaign which is being organised in my home territory of western Victoria to highlight the economic, social and environmental benefits of an RFA and the need for a positive outcome for the timber industry. This was at Creswick in western Victoria and there were some 150 forestry workers there. Senator Brown may be interested in the fact that the timber industry injects $99 million into the Victorian economy and it employs almost 4,000 people across the western region. I am very proud to be associated with an industry which provides employment at regional levels at those levels of employment. Both as a person and as a Victorian senator, I do not see any reason why the timber industry should not be given that amount of direction and facilitation through a piece of Commonwealth legislation which will enable it to carry on its industry peacefully and with such good economic outcomes.Why shouldn't that timber industry be able to employ the number of people that it does, and why shouldn't that timber industry be allowed to carry on a perfectly legitimate business without interference from people like Senator Brown? The only encouragement that Senator Brown has ever given the timber industry in Tasmania and in other places is to organise disruptive demonstrations, to throw himself at cars in an effort to impede the cause of progress and, through his activities and those of allied political parties like his, literally scare investment away from Tasmania. Senator Brown has quoted again and again falling levels of investment in Tasmania. All I can say is that, as far as the timber industry or any allied industry looking to put investment money into Tasmania is concerned, the sorts of activities that Senator Brown has indulged in for the last 10 to 15 years make Tasmania the last place in which timber industries or allied groups would put investment money.The fact that some industries have continued to try to develop timber and allied industries in Tasmania speaks volumes for the sort of courage that they have. Senator Brown should be the last person to talk about being worried about jobs or about industry development because it is exactly this sort of amendment which shows that he holds totally the opposite view. He is determined to destroy the RFA legislation, which in the government's view provides exactly the sort of underpinning which the timber industry needs to develop in the future.17:00:008155Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—If Senator Brown and Senator Troeth are both going to remember this day, I am going to remember this week and last week and—at the rate we are going—we will be remembering a few weeks in the future as well. One thing that I hope I do not have to remember and that I hope people will forget is the contents of a press release that Senator Brown has put out today, which he has entitled, `Forest industry chaos looms as Senate disallowance hangs over RFAs'. He says chaos in the logging industry and in federal parliament is looming `following the Senate's amendment of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill in Canberra today'. He goes on to refer to the fact that the disallowance provisions had been carried. I want to assure this chamber, the timber industry, all the state governments, the communities involved and indeed all the people of Australia that Senator Brown's claims are totally spurious. Furthermore, they demonstrate what his real agenda is.As I have indicated previously, we have moved to put in provisions which are designed to enable public and parliamentary scrutiny of regional forest agreements for the purpose of ensuring that there is not chaos and for the purpose of ensuring that RFAs reflect the goals of the national forest policy statement. The national forest policy statement—as I have said before and as I will say again—and what has occurred since then in developing RFAs has been a process about trying to take this industry out of the chaos that has existed over the years and to bring some stability and order into it. That is what we support, that is what this legislation supports and that is what our amendments do, in improving this legislation, to ensure that stability exists.We are confident that, providing the state governments do their job, the federal government does its job and particularly if we can get a new minister for forestry, there will be in the future regional forest agreements that will bring stability and improvements to the industry. I reject the rubbish that Senator Brown has put out, but it does demonstrate his agenda.His agenda is further demonstrated, of course, by the amendment that we are now dealing with, which the opposition will oppose. The amendment states:(1) The Commonwealth is deemed to have terminated an RFA: (a) if a court finds that a State government which is a party to the RFA has breached a State law concerning forest management, forest industry practices or the conservation of environment and heritage values in forests; or (b) if it has given one month's notice of the intended termination to a State government which is a party to the RFA.The first proposition, that an RFA is deemed to be terminated by the Commonwealth on the basis that there is a finding of a court in respect to what could well be a totally unrelated matter—that is, a breach of state law concerning forest management—is an absolute over-the-top proposition. It is a matter for the courts to deal with such breaches and, if necessary, impose penalties. There is no valid reason to make it a condition that any such finding that occurs automatically terminates an RFA. It is a nonsense proposition.Secondly, the proposal that the mere giving of one month's notice of termination is sufficient to terminate an RFA is also an over-the-top proposition. It removes the very stability that the whole process is built upon—that is, agreements being entered into after a lengthy and thorough process between state governments and the federal government. To then have a provision in Commonwealth legislation which says, `All the federal government has to do is give one month's notice and that's it,' is a preposterous proposition to put.We are talking about agreements that are negotiated to provide security of the resource and of the native forest estate for the next 20 years and, it is intended, beyond those 20 years. Take the proposition that you can develop a regional forest agreement to deal with all of that, set programs in place, declare areas reserved, declare that areas are able to be logged, promote industry development and try and promote investment. Then you have to turn around and say, `Oh, yes, but the Commonwealth can decide, just on a whim and without any reasons being given whatsoever, that with one month's notice that agreement can be terminated.'Frankly, that is just a nonsense. I would have thought that, by putting that proposition forward, any person holding themselves out to be a legislator or a member of a legislative body, as this parliament is, not only would not be doing their job but would be deliberately and wilfully trying to undermine the legislative processes of this parliament and of this country. We will not support the amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.17:07:008156Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will not go back to the response by Senator Troeth except to say that, although she cries crocodile tears about jobs in the industry, she said nothing when 400-plus jobs were lost out of the industry after the regional forest agreement was signed in Tasmania, and she will not say anything about the same thing happening in Victoria. It is the woodchip corporations not the workers that the government stands for. That is why they have no section in this legislation to make sure that workers are compensated rather than woodchip corporations. On behalf of the Australian Greens, I seek leave to move amendments 10 and 12 together.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I move:(10) Clause 6, page 4 (line 22), omit "The", substitute "Subject to this section, the".(12) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add: (2) An agreement between the Commonwealth and a State that is: (a) in force at the time of commencement of this Act; and (b) expressed to be a Regional Forest Agreement; is deemed to include a provision deeming the Commonwealth to have given notice of the termination of the agreement in the circumstances covered by section 4B. (3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is the intention of the Parliament that all RFAs that are in existence at the time of commencement of this Act be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with section 4B.These clauses provide that there would be termination of existing regional forest agreements so that parliamentary scrutiny can take place, as it should, before they are signed.Progress reported.Bills8157r8658157Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.17:10:008157Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The government has called on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 at very short notice. This demonstrates the point made by Senator Faulkner a short time ago about how quickly the agenda of this chamber can change at the direction of the government. Despite the outrageous claims made by the minister for industrial relations in the other chamber this afternoon and this morning, in terms of his public comments, it is the government that, at all times, has to take responsibility for the legislative program.This matter has been brought on at the direction of the government and we are ready to deal with it posthaste. However, we note that there are a number of matters still outstanding in terms of advice to Senator Collins, which she has sought from a department, and I trust it will be available. We also note that there is no running sheet available for the consideration of amendments and that no Democrat amendments are being made available. This demonstrates the inadequacy of the government's planning and how totally unorganised it is. I trust that these matters will be attended to. I am confident that Senator Collins will carry forward the Labor Party's position on this, in the highly competent manner in which she always does.17:11:008157Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—At the commencement of the second reading debate, I welcome Ian Senator Campbell, who appears to be representing the government in the debate on this legislation. Can he clarify that that is the case?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That is the case at the moment.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Might it change? H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am looking forward to your second reading contribution.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—In the spirit of cooperation, Senator Campbell, I heard from the Nursing Mothers' Association just a couple of days ago that Minister Reith had a mother-friendly workplace. I hope this trend improves in relation to how we deal with various industrial matters into the future because certainly running around this place is not conducive to my pregnancy! But, to the main points of the matter. Unfortunately—and this message is to Senator Hill—the way in which the minister and Senator Hill proceeded today in the House of Representatives and the Senate is possibly going to protract this debate rather than speed it up.I am quite ready to stand here for 20 minutes and speak to the second reading motion. However, some of the matters which would have been more clearly refined with more adequate notice will now have to be dealt with in the committee stage. Again, in the spirit of cooperation, I am prepared to do that but, as Senator Carr mentioned, I am waiting for some advice to come back from the department before I am in a position to do so. Equally, I hope the Democrats are ready to deal with their position on this matter.The history of this youth wages debate—or, more recently, debacle—is one that goes back quite some time. For those who have a genuine interest in the debate, it is a debate about wages and community standards. It is a debate about whether junior rates are fair in their full application in the workplace. Unfortunately, Minister Reith, as has been pointed out in the House of Representatives today, has used this issue as a political football for almost the whole time of this government, to the detriment of young workers. The opposition has not been prepared to take this stance and, to some extent, the recent reactions on this issue reflect that. The opposition has, at all times, been concerned about young workers.Let me also express in my introductory remarks some disquiet at some of the more recent positionings on this issue by the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats do not seem to be clear on what their strategy is on this matter. We initially had from the Australian Democrats last week an indication that they would seek to refer this matter to a Senate committee. Had that progressed, we would not be standing here today, because it would be with the Senate committee, on which I represent the opposition. But, no. Other Democrats saw light over the period of a week, and it has not been referred to a committee. At the time, we again indicated—and this was highlighted in the House of Representatives today—that we had no desire for this matter to go to committee. The reason we had no desire was that we had joined with the Australian Democrats some time back—some years back—in the view that the commission should determine these matters, and the commission has done so.Senator Stott Despoja's question last week showed that she did not seem to comprehend this. Senator Stott Despoja asked Senator Alston whether there would be a process. Senator Stott Despoja, the legislation was in the House of Representatives at that point. There is a process provided in the bill—which Labor forced the government to amend—which I hope this debate will either highlight or show will be adequate to deal with the issue of age discrimination for young workers. If I do not get the opportunity to cover this point in this second reading contribution, I will do it in the committee stage of this debate. If that protracts the committee stage of the debate, so be it, because the Labor Party has taken a view which supports the future of young Australian workers. We will demonstrate that view through the Senate debate.Let me say also, in relation to Senator Stott Despoja's actions on this matter—and I am disappointed that the Democrats are now participating in this cheap politicking—that yesterday's urgency debate was another example. Senator Stott Despoja moved a motion yesterday that the Senate urgently consider the issue of youth wages—in fact, I was pulled out of our caucus to deal with that one—and then, shortly afterwards, it was withdrawn. Either the Democrats are serious about this issue or they are not. Either you want it to go to committee, or you do not. Either you understand it, or you do not—but you do not seem to. There seems to be very little evidence that the likes of Senator Stott Despoja have actually read the commission's report. This is the commission report that you guys commissioned, and yet, from the press releases I have seen, there is so very little evidence that it has been read.Unfortunately, a sign of that little evidence was Senator Murray's press release today. Senator Murray's press release today accused Labor of doing a backflip on junior rates. Senator Murray was the one who overrode Senator Stott Despoja in the first wave of Reith reforms back in 1996 and instigated the commission process. Senator Murray is the one who is responsible for that commission process. Senator Murray is attempting to be practical, rational and credible by saying that decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis in the commission but, at the same time, he is saying that Labor is doing a backflip by supporting that very proposition. I am sorry, but the Australian Democrats cannot have it both ways.Let me move on to Senator Carr's comments in relation to Minister Reith. What on earth motivated Minister Reith's abysmal performance in the House of Representatives in question time today? I am sorry, but that was one of the most incredible performances I have ever seen. That is the best challenge I have ever seen for the standing orders in this place, which are interpreted to mean that you cannot accuse another member or senator of being a liar. That was the best challenge to those provisions I have seen in four years in this Senate.In one sense I am happy today that I am able to follow my leader and deal with the issue of personal explanation, because, as far as I can ascertain, no-one was asked to bring this matter on—not Senator Harradine, not Senator Brown, not Senator Murray or anyone else from the Australian Democrats, and no-one from the Labor Party. So perhaps Senator Campbell might like to give his own personal explanation, because it appears as if Minister Reith is accusing him of being the liar. That is what it appears to be.Back to Minister Reith's motives. Why is he doing this? I suspect Senator Murray thinks that Minister Reith is doing this as some really smart political ploy to ensure that the Labor Party does not back down. Minister Reith knew that the Labor Party was not going to move away from its commitments in this area. On this occasion, Minister Reith is pulling a cheap political stunt—true to form. He is pulling a cheap political stunt to simply take the opportunity to kick the Labor Party.There is nothing new in that for Minister Reith. The thing that has astounded me throughout my career in this place is the extent to which commentators do not understand this. He does not have a good track record. I have looked at the first wave of industrial relations reform and how his office—and he himself—behaved through that process, and, let me tell you, he would have to be one of the most disreputable ministers I have come across in this place.I will now go to the detail of my second reading contribution and I will seek the Senate's forbearance by asking for leave to incorporate any points that I am not able to cover. Before I do that, perhaps I should also outline to the Senate the matters in the commission's report on which I am waiting for further material before the opposition can complete what would normally be a full second reading contribution on matters such as this.The debate in the House of Representatives and some of the recent press releases from the Australian Democrats have caused me to go back to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's report and highlight various issues. There are two issues that I will be seeking to highlight both in this second reading debate and in the committee stage of this bill. But, again, I need to point out that we do not have a running sheet for the committee stage and we do not have any amendments from the Australian Democrats, even though they have told the world that they are meant to surface.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We're not in the committee stage. This is the second reading debate. You don't have running sheets for second reading debates.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I did not ask for a running sheet for the second reading debate; I said that we have no indication of what the running sheet will be for the committee stage. If the government is so keen for us to move quickly on this matter, I presumed you would try to do it tonight. Is that not the case, Senator Ian Campbell?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We don't sit tonight.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—This afternoon? Is it the case that you wish to proceed to the committee stage on this matter this afternoon?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—As soon as possible. Preferably, as soon as you sit down.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Then I would like to see a running sheet. As the Clerk has indicated, there are no amendments yet from the Democrats.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You don't need a running sheet if there are no amendments. We'll put the question for the second reading right now and get on with the committee stage and your problems will be over. I'll thank you for your cooperation.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—No, the committee stage will not be that quick.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator Collins, address your comments through the chair, please.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am glad to do that through the chair because Senator Ian Campbell, of course, is feeling particularly vulnerable on this matter because he knows the status of his own position. It is an absolutely ludicrous situation that we are dealing with this bill in this environment with no running sheet to go to when the whole world knows that the Democrats had forecasted that they would have amendments to this bill.But, again, we are actually cooperating in this matter. I am indicating that I am prepared on behalf of the opposition to incorporate much of what I or other members of the opposition would seek to cover. I am absolutely astounded at this further episode of complete mismanagement by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. But, again, that is his problem. It is his reputation. We will deal with the issues from our end at very short notice.I will go once again to the issues that are still lacking proper delineation in the commission's report. I will highlight these matters for the benefit of the Australian Democrats. Near the conclusion of chapter 3 of the commission's report is an indication of a model that the commission is calling the commission's own `motion proposal' based on points raised by the state of New South Wales. This is their preferred position in relation to resolving the issue of age discrimination and junior rates. At point (a) on the bottom of page 124 of their report they say:For the purposes of an award by award examination procedure, there ought to be a rebuttal presumption that junior rates are not per se discriminatory (using the statutory technical meaning of discrimination as distinct from the simpliciter sense of meaning to treat differently).At point (c) they say in terms of the process:If the presumption is in fact rebutted, the next step would be the removal, the merger, or part retention of junior rates through a work value assessment of the work carried out, if any, by juniors and by other relevant classifications covered by the award. The aim of this step would be to ensure the development of a classification structure with differentiations based objectively on: the skills required for each respective position; the work and responsibility undertaken by those employees; and the conditions under which the work is performed by each grouping.I was absolutely sure that whoever was going to be representing the government in this debate would not be able to deal with sensible questions on this issue, so I pre-empted the matter and went directly to the Assistant Secretary to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. He has undertaken to come back to me with additional information on this matter. I can see that he is not currently here. In fact, I query whether the department is actually represented at the moment. It appears as if they are not—again, uncharacteristic for a debate on a bill. I am still waiting, for the benefit of this debate, for the government to be able to highlight to the Senate precisely their understanding of the meaning of those phrases and how they believe the bill, as amended in the House of Representatives, adequately deals with those issues.Many have raised the concern that the amendments do not adequately allow the commission to deal with the issue of age discrimination. I want to refer to a brief excerpt from the commission's report at page 135 which highlights an extreme example of some of the principles that need to be dealt with in a case by case consideration. It says half way through the top paragraph of the page:Reversion to bare age related junior rate after a significant period of performance of duty at managerial level appears to be inconsistent with equal remuneration being given for work of equal value in the sense that the expression is used in Australian industrial principle. The value of work to be assessed under that principle may be affected or modified by the notion of maturation factors. But those factors are not contradictory to the principle itself.What I understand that paragraph to really mean is that the commission still needs to be in a situation to assess a broad range of factors—and I think the amended bill allows for that—and those factors include such things as maturation factors. The extreme example in the report of a young person who has been working at managerial level who goes back to a position highlights that the principles underlying the issues here are equal remuneration being given for work of equal value. It is the work value principle. That is the benchmark that can be used to assess discrimination. That is essentially the point that the commission highlights on page 129 of its report, where it says:The desirability of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives is implicit in the Act.Let me repeat that for Senator Stott Despoja:The desirability of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives is implicit in the Act.And the government's amendments do not change that fact of life. It is based on work value principles. It is based on the principles I referred to a moment ago about equal remuneration being given for work of equal value. That is what it is about.Now let me at least commence my written notes for my speech on the second reading so that the rest of it can be incorporated. I mentioned the history of the debate and the sadness I have at the way in which both the Democrats and the government have used it as a political football to the detriment of young people. Labor welcomes the proposed amendments to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 . This bill, in its original form, was rejected in March of this year because the Labor Party could not possibly support the blind insertion of junior rates across the board into awards and agreements that do not presently have such provisions.I wonder why, after the Australian Industrial Relations Commission handed down its report, the government introduced this bill into the House as it was—practically no change—with no consideration of the commission's report. I wonder how the government could listen to what the commission had to say and believe that it was justified in doing so. This has gone on long enough. This has been a political football for long enough, to the detriment of young people.We listened to the commission's report. We had to be honest in our reception of the commission's report. We could not ignore it and we could not be blind to the evidence. We could have ignored the harsh reality and made platitudes about junior rates being equivalent to age discrimination, but we have not. We have listened to the commission and we have made the hard decisions as a consequence. (Time expired)17:32:008161Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak as one of the Democrats speakers on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 , an amended version having passed through the House of Representatives recently and, as is widely known, as a result of an agreement between the coalition and the ALP. Obviously I do not have a problem, and the Democrats do not have a problem, with anybody in this place seeking to reach agreement with other members or other parties in this place. Getting a constructive outcome is part of what the parliamentary process is about. What is more of a problem is when you reach agreements that produce a bad outcome, and that is what the ALP have done.We have seen in recent days Kim Beazley desperately talking about the need to find some relevance for the Labor Party. Now with the newly liberated state that they have found themselves in, as part of trying to find a purpose for themselves, they are trying to find something to do a deal with. That is fine; the trouble is that they have done a terrible deal. Senator Collins continually goes on about how terrible it is that this issue has been a political football between the parties for so many years. I guess their solution is to blow the full-time whistle and ensure that it is locked in for all time that young people will be discriminated against and that they will be worse off. And the ALP, for whatever reason, now feel that they have not been able to find a constructive and positive outcome to the issues that have been raised so many times: the need to ensure a fair go for younger people and the need to ensure that young people are not the football of employers, that they are not kicked around from one spot to the next and that they are not treated as second rate citizens purely on the basis of their age. That is what being treated like a political football is all about, and that treatment will now be locked in for all time as a result of the agreement that the ALP have reached with the coalition on this particular issue.The coalition never made any secret of their desire to ensure that this unfair treatment was locked in—that younger people are treated as second-class citizens in a way almost unparalleled in the world in the extent of discrimination that they face and in the extent of the disadvantage that they face in doing the same job as other people and yet getting a lower rate of pay. The Labor Party have decided that they will back the coalition's agenda, an agenda which they have to concede, in deference to the coalition, has been an open agenda for many years. They have now decided to back that agenda because they have been unable to find any other way to make themselves politically relevant. It is a pity that their political relevance has had to come at the expense of young people whom they made so much noise about trying to protect for so long.Throughout this debate, in the second reading stage and in the committee stage when we get to it, my colleagues and I will be able to draw on, in great detail, the supposedly principled words of Labor senators in this place in 1996, including Senator Collins, when they highlighted their supposed commitment to ending this discrimination, to ensuring that this unfairness was not entrenched and to finding a way of helping young people and ensuring that that second-rate status was not maintained. Yet now, when the crunch actually comes, some desperate need for political relevance or some strange sense of liberation has driven them into the arms of Peter Reith's agenda, not only locking in the certainty of continuing discrimination in the workplace for young people on the basis of age but also providing a mechanism for it to be extended. And that I find quite breathtaking.Senator Collins—and, I am sure, any other ALP speakers who try to defend the indefensible on this issue—will spend a lot of time, for some reason, attacking the Democrats. Senator Collins spent a lot of her speech doing that, and the farcicality and cheapness of the comments in which she seemed to be trying to suggest that the Democrats had not read the commission's report hardly need emphasising.It is clear from Senator Collins's comments that she may have read the report, but it was certainly a very selective reading and clearly not getting at the basis of the issues that the whole report was meant to try to address. Similarly, obviously she has not read or was not listening to Senator Stott Despoja's question last week to Senator Alston in relation to junior rates of pay. Somehow or other she seemed to think it was about process rather than the basic issue of why Australia will now, as a result of this agreement with the ALP, continue to share with the Netherlands the distinction of being virtually the only industrialised country to regard 19-, 20- and 21-year-old workers as juniors when it comes to pay rates, even though they are considered full adults for the purposes of most other legislation. That is what the question was about. Where she gets this idea of process and such from I do not know. Obviously she was not able to read the Hansard from last week, let alone the commission report.It is worth looking at the defence that Senator Alston used in response to that question. It is the nub of what this debate is about. I am surprised in a way that the ALP did not use that defence as well. They haven't to date, perhaps because it is so farcical that even they cannot bring themselves to raise it. It was simply on the basis that somehow or other this protects young people's jobs, protects the jobs of 21-year-olds if they get paid less than someone who is 24 and does the same work with the same degree of skill and experience. Why should that apply in particular for 21-year-olds? You may as well say the same for 50-year-olds.A lot of older workers are having trouble maintaining their jobs. Why don't we argue that their pay rates be dropped because that would help their job to be preserved? The idea that somehow or other, because someone's age is 21, their job is preserved if they get paid less than everyone else makes no sense unless you try to suggest that it applies to everybody else. Of course, the agenda of driving down workers' wages across the board is something that I am sure some members of the coalition, including the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, would be quite keen to do, but again it is quite astonishing that the ALP would be willing to associate itself—as the party of the workers, the party of the unions—with any move that would ensure lower wages and worse conditions.The degree of outrage from significant sectors of the trade union movement is not surprising because they know this is not about protecting jobs; they know it is about driving wages down. That is what this legislation will do. It will ensure that significant numbers of younger people's wages will remain lower and it will actually put pressure on wages across the board. Again, it is quite astonishing that this is the solution after all these years and that, after all the fine words of three years ago when the workplace relations legislation went through in October 1996, this is the best solution that the ALP could come up with.Senator Collins seems to focus on some sort of suggestion that the Democrats have not been sure which way to go with this. It seems the best she can do, rather than trying to actually defend the indefensible with what the ALP has done, is to say bizarre things like, `We haven't got a running sheet yet,' even though we are just starting the second reading debate. It is quite astonishing.It is worth pointing out to the chamber that the Democrats' amendments had been circulated even though we are just at the second speaker in the second reading stage of this debate. Somehow or other she thought that withdrawing an urgency motion was some indication of not knowing what we were about. Senator Collins may not have noticed—I am sure other senators did—that there was a very important debate in this chamber yesterday afternoon on native title regulations and a disallowance on native title. That was the last day that that regulation could be disallowed, that that disallowance could be debated. If there had not been a vote on that disallowance motion by the end of business yesterday, then the instruments would have taken effect by default. That is a highly inappropriate way, I am sure all senators would agree, for a matter, particularly of that importance, to be determined.In trying to facilitate the opportunity for as many senators as possible to have the opportunity to comment on that important matter, we withdrew the urgency motion because it would have taken up an hour that the Senate did not have because of the need to dispense with the native title regulations on that particular day. I suppose that is the sort of thing you have to expect from a party that really has no ability to defend what it has done in this area. Even quite normal attempts to facilitate the progress of business in this chamber get used as some feeble form of political attack.A similar attitude was taken to the Democrats referring a matter to the committee for examination. It is quite clear that neither of the other parties in this place wanted it referred to a committee. The one piece of legislation on which the ALP quite clearly had a view as to whether or not to refer it to a committee was this particular one. That is simply because they did not want examination in any detail of the very shabby and poor deal they have done. As I said at the start, I do not have a problem with deals; I do have a problem with bad deals, appalling legislation and entrenched discrimination. Clearly, the ALP did not want the opportunity for a committee to examine in detail how hollow and how feeble this agreement is between the ALP and the coalition. They did not want to have significant numbers of trade unions coming in and highlighting to them how atrocious this agreement is.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—You are a de facto partner.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Senator George Campbell is saying that Democrats are in a de facto coalition with the Liberals. You may have noticed that you guys are voting with the coalition on this one. It might not have caught your attention yet. Maybe you are still back in 1996 and think you have the right approach on this legislation, but I should inform you that the rest of your party have actually sold out on this legislation from where they were three years ago and you guys are going to vote with the coalition on this. The Liberals and Labor are voting together on this legislation. How that makes the Democrats some de facto member of the coalition is beyond me, but again that is the extent of the defence of the ALP. They are throwing irrelevant lines like that around the place in some sort of defence of the indefensible.As I said at the start and have said again since, I will happily reach agreement on any legislation with the Liberals or with the ALP if I think it is a positive legislative outcome. Obviously what we have here is an appalling legislative outcome; that is what I am criticising. You vote together all you want. I will vote with you if it is something that is good. This is appalling and you cannot expect us to support something so hopeless.When we look at the explanatory memorandum and at the aims contained within it, we see that the legislation seeks to permanently exempt junior rates of pay and certain types of trainee wage provisions from the operational provisions intended to prevent and eliminate age discrimination in awards and agreements. It locks it in permanently. That is what this legislation seeks to do—and with the support of the ALP as it has been amended. It would be almost too easy to quote all the remarks from the ALP which were made three years ago. I think I will leave it to my colleagues to do that because there are so many. If I do so we will be here all week at least. I refer to all those supposed `high principle' words which were made not just three years ago but many times since then. I quote:Similarly, when employers say that they will sack young workers if they are forced to pay them competency based wages instead of discriminatory youth wages, we need to expose their hypocrisy.That is a direct quote from Christian Zahra in the lower house on 23 November 1998. He continued:We need to stand against this unjust age discrimination and fight on behalf of young workers who are clearly being exploited.Obviously the ALP has given up the fight. Obviously the need to be relevant, to be liberated from its previous role in life, has led it to fall away from what were quite good and strong-sounding words. Something as normal, I would have thought, as another party in this chamber reaching some agreement with the government on legislation has meant it having to backflip on a fundamental issue. It is certainly fundamental to the Democrats. It is something that we have highlighted as being important to the party time and again over the years.I would have thought that, if anything was fundamental to the purpose and the reason for being of the ALP, it would have been something as basic as working conditions for younger people and the impact on wage rates for all workers. Maybe this is another example and another sign of the ALP not knowing what its reason for being is anymore. It does not know what its role is in the political spectrum anymore and this is what it has come to. It is a great shame in many ways that that is the case, but obviously it is a much greater shame for the young people who are now going to be permanently discriminated against as a result of this legislation—in a way that young workers do not have to experience almost anywhere in the world. It is quite breathtaking.Senator Collins's great interest in seeing the Democrats' amendments, I hope, is a sign that when we reach the committee stage of the legislation the ALP will consider them seriously, take them on board and perhaps look at trying to improve the legislation. That is what the Democrats are trying to do, and will continue to do, during the committee stage. I urge opposition members, and government members for that matter, to examine the Democrats' amendments. I imagine we will reach the committee stage some time tomorrow if we continue on with this legislation, so there will be plenty of time to examine the amendments.As Senator Collins has said, this issue has been around a long time. It has been to the Industrial Relations Commission for significant examination and many of the Democrat amendments are based on the findings of that report, but they are also based on the fundamental principles that the Democrats have outlined time and again—going back many years—about the need to ensure that employers are not able to permanently exploit workers purely on the basis of age. To suggest that somehow or other that protects jobs is almost laughable. It is the sort of remark we get from Minister Alston in question time because he has to fill up the space somehow or other. It is sad to hear others in this place putting forward arguments such as that.There is one other furphy that I would like to nail in relation to this issue. It is often put about in the general community that somehow, if this bill did not go through, if the exemption for junior wages did run out next year and the discrimination ended, it would lead overnight to 16-year-olds being paid full adult wages. Clearly that is not the case and it would not happen. It is a widespread misunderstanding amongst the public that the position the Democrats are taking, and have taken consistently over many years, would mean 15- and 16-year-olds automatically getting paid full wages. That is another fatuous falsehood put about by many people. What it would ensure is that workers get paid on the basis of the job they perform—the same as workers in the same workplace who are 30 or 40. That would extend to all workers.There is nothing magical about turning 21 or 22 in the workplace that means that you are necessarily deserving of more pay or doing a better or more difficult job. Similarly, there is nothing magical about turning 25, 30 or 35. The attempt to maintain the fiction that that is a reasonable basis for determining wage rates is the nub of this whole debate. There is a lot of heat and light around and a lot of feeble insults are being thrown to try to hide that fact, but that is the simple and fundamental fact; that is the foundation of this legislation. Unfortunately, as a result of this legislation, unless the ALP does give serious consideration to the Democrat amendments and to the very significant and legitimate community concern about this issue, we will be faced with that farcical principle being entrenched in legislation on a permanent basis.17:51:008165Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, as I foreshadowed in my speech at the second reading stage, I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my speech in Hansard.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Is leave granted?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I was just commencing chamber duty when this matter came up. Senator Campbell said to me that, if leave were granted, it would be appropriate for me to say that the usual courtesy should be extended by my being able to see it. If I can look at the end of the speech, I will grant leave. I will withhold granting leave until I have seen it.17:52:008165Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise to speak in this debate principally to put on the record some of the myths that exist in respect of junior rates of pay. As has been indicated, the ALP is supporting the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 . The original proposals put by Minister Reith would have been the worst possible outcome for young people in this country. The bill was completely inadequate, as was the government's response to the report of the inquiry into junior rates of pay by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.The ALP position inserts into the bill the provisions for (1) providing discretion to the AIRC to look at each case on its merits, (2) placing the onus of proof on the applicant party through any change and (3) ensuring that the law does not force the extension or removal of junior rates of pay in a blanket fashion but rather provides a framework for case by case determination. This legislation guarantees the independent role of the AIRC in these matters while ensuring that the commission considers the promotion of youth skills, youth employment and community standards in making decisions.Junior rates of pay were developed at the beginning of this century and are clearly no longer appropriate as we move into the next century. They are a flawed concept and there is no logical or practical reason for their existence. There are many reasons to remove them, and no reason to keep them in place. Since they were first developed, junior rates of pay have not undergone any significant reform. The nature of the junior rates system contained in awards is incoherent, inconsistent and outdated.Adult rates from 1986 were subjected to award restructuring to fix this exact problem. There were large discrepancies between wage rates across industries and even in workplaces. The restructuring process moved to modernise awards and eliminate discriminatory differences between them. Junior rates of pay have never been subjected to this process. For example, a 15-year-old employed in the printing industry is entitled to a minimum rate of only $3.08 per hour while the minimum rate of pay for a 15-year-old shop assistant in Victoria is $5.69 per hour. Neither the nature of the work done nor the skills used account for the substantial difference. Another example is where a 15-year-old factory hand under the metals award is paid $3.79 per hour. Employed as a shop assistant in New South Wales the same person would get $4.55 per hour. The shop assistant minimum wage is 20 per cent higher than that of the factory hand. Joe de Bruyn, secretary of the SDA, said:Workers in fast food outlets and supermarkets are doing exactly the same work as their counterparts aged 21 years and over.That union has something like 75 per cent of unionised teenage workers as its members. The only argument being used for junior rates of pay is one that we have heard many times before, and Minister Reith uses it again in his second reading speech:In summary, the commission's report finds that junior rates are important for getting young people into jobs, that none of the alternatives put to the inquiry are feasible replacements for junior rates, that any move to abolish junior rates would cost young people jobs, and that the introduction of adult wages at 18 would have significant disemploying effects.The rhetoric is that if we keep the wages of young people down, if their wages are less than we pay to adults, they will suddenly be employed because new jobs will be created. Absolute bunkum.Junior rates of pay for young workers in OECD countries are quite common, but their absence is more pronounced. Junior rates of pay have been a part of the Australian workplace for the last 100 years and for the last 100 years there has been no correlation between junior wages and the employment levels of young people. The report of the AIRC inquiry into junior rates of pay, released on 24 June, gave a number of examples of the utilisation of junior rates by employers over this period. However, it also gave examples and summaries of work where, over many years, junior rates have been ignored as the job performed by the younger workers was equal to, if not better than, that performed by those over the age of 21.For example, as far back as 1913 the non-trades builder's labourer or construction hand in the building and construction industry appears from the outset to have been conceived as a kind of able-bodied trades assistant paid at full rate. No junior rate was provided by the awards. Lads, or junior workers, would be among those employed under the flat rate for all of one shilling and 4½ pence per hour, determined for the labourer's classification.To similar effect, in 1937, the Public Service Arbitrator, Westhoven, said about state railway construction work for juniors:The youth of 19 or 20 strong enough to be, and who is, employed on ordinary construction work is usually paid as an adult.The OECD Employment outlook of June 1999 discusses the issue of youth and minimum wages and the transition from school to work for young people. While it is argued by some that high minimum wages destroy jobs and have a limited impact on poverty, Card and Krueger have argued that minimum wage increases can, in some circumstances, result in net jobs gained rather than the losses predicted by conventional wisdom. Card and Krueger's research deals specifically with young workers. When examining the effect of rises in minimum wages on youth unemployment, they discovered that there is a negligible impact. In France, for example, the teenage employment to population ratio declined by over 18 per cent between 1975 and 1996 but the rise in minimum wages relative to average wages accounts for less than half a percentage point of this decline. In Australia the largest single industry employing young people in our economy is the retail sector. The retail sector also has consistently higher minimum rates of pay than any other sector for young people.In a speech to the Senate on 8 March this year, I argued that the reality is that junior rates of pay are not the problem in terms of unemployment of young people. If they were, then the problem would be easily resolvable. I will give you an example in my own state. In the 12 months to December 1998, the average full-time youth unemployment rate in the Illawarra statistical district was 27.9 per cent. In the Richmond/Tweed/Mid North Coast statistical district, the rate was even higher at 35.8 per cent. In comparison, adult unemployment for the month of December 1998 was 10.9 per cent in the Illawarra and 12.9 per cent in the Richmond/Tweed/Mid North Coast district.The AIRC reports that full-time labour force participation among young people has collapsed over the last 30 or so years. In 1966, teenagers comprised 14.1 per cent of the entire full-time work force with some 615,000 employed, when junior rates of pay were in full bloom in awards in this country. By March 1999, only 220,700 teenagers were employed full time, although in the meantime the entire work force had in fact grown 1½ times larger. The proportion of teenage to full-time workers had plummeted to 3.4 per cent.This decline has been partly offset by a growth in the level of part-time employment. Wooden shows that the part-time share of employment of 15-year-old to 19-year-old males grew from 5.2 per cent in 1966 to 49.3 per cent in 1995. For all males, the corresponding growth was from 3.7 per cent to 11.1 per cent. Part-time employment of 15-year-old to 19-year-old females grew from 6 per cent in 1966 to 72.3 per cent in 1995. For all females, the corresponding growth was from 24 per cent to 42.7 per cent.The reason there are fewer entry-level jobs for young people is that, as a result of structural changes in the economy over the past decade or so, these jobs have disappeared out of our economy. The number of apprenticeships and traineeships has fallen. Job opportunities in the banking industry and the finance sector—which was a major employer of young people—have gone. Technological change, privatisation and corporatisation and a contraction of the public sector have displaced them. Through structural change we have abolished thousands and thousands of what were essentially job opportunities for young people. They have not been replaced within our economy. The only way in which we will get those young people back into jobs is by putting resources into skills and training for them that match the gaps in the labour market. If you want to create jobs for young people in this economy, that is the way to do it, not by forcing down the level of their wages, which will not in itself create one job.Junior rates extend in almost all cases to young workers up to the age of 21. In our society you are considered an adult at 18 years of age. At 18 you carry out all of the responsibilities of an adult. You can legally enter into binding contracts. You can be jailed. At 18 years old you get all adult rights except one: you can vote, you can make independent decisions and you can get married, but still you can be paid less than someone over 21.The junior rates system is discriminatory and has to be developed. I believe that people should be paid in a system based upon competency and skill. Regardless of age, if someone has the skills and can do the job they should be paid the full wage. Young people, if they are not as skilled or competent as someone older, will be paid less but must be paid according to their ability and must be given an opportunity to gain skills and to progress.Doug Cameron, the National Secretary of my own union, the AMWU, said:The AMWU has always said that the apprenticeship system was a model that combined quality training, career path opportunities and wages set at a level that recognise mutual benefits to apprentices and employers . . . junior wages does not fit this model and means increased discrimination, inequality and an inevitable reduction of apprenticeship and quality training opportunities.In its report, the AIRC was constrained by government imposed limits. Due to this, it was not able to consider alternatives to the system of junior rates of pay. In fact, it said in its report:We do not close off the possibilities that there are feasible alternatives. We explored the possibility of developing our own proposal but did not persevere. We are already persuaded that in the design and replacement of junior rate classifications no one size fits all . . . The Industrial parties and other interested parties would need to be involved and that procedure fell outside the statutory limits of our inquiry.Why was this not referred back to the AIRC? Why were fresh terms of reference not issued to the commission to come up with some solutions? At the end of the day, much more needs to be done in this process. We need to define the term `junior' so that it accurately reflects the definition in our society. A junior is someone who is not yet an adult. In our society, someone that is under 18 years of age is a junior. To have junior rates of pay extend to age 21 is both outdated and in direct contravention of society's values.If you look very carefully at the home page of the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, under the `Youth Life Force' topic heading, you will see the youth wage position paper, the submission to the AIRC inquiry into junior rates by the Premier's own Youth Council. One of the key recommendations of the council, as submitted to the inquiry, was a proposal that the age structure for junior rates be altered. While progressions in wages would still be in place for young people between the ages of 16 and 18, the Youth Council proposed that the full adult wage be payable at 19 years of age in recognition that by this age a person has the responsibility of an adult and can perform with the productivity and maturity of older workers. The Victorian Premier's Youth Council clearly has more of an idea about the issues in this debate than does the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. It recognises that the skills, maturity and contribution that young people can make do not magically appear upon attaining 21 years of age. They can and do contribute at this higher level for many years before this and should be recompensed accordingly.This legislation is not a solution to the lack of employment opportunities for young people. All it does is defer the inevitable. In the face of a fierce ideological push by this government to entrench junior rates of pay, this bill, as amended by the ALP, gives young workers at least some hope. At the end of the day it is not a solution. The only solution is to develop a system based on skill and competency that delivers training opportunities for young people from the moment they leave school to enter the work force. Yet all we have seen under the Howard government are cuts to assistance mechanisms for young people. The Skills Development Council has been slashed. Apprenticeships need to be given a greater importance. And the Work for the Dole scheme for our unemployed young people offers no skilling or training when employers are desperately seeking skilled workers. We have seen recent announcements by Telstra, for example, of the need to look to developing something like 30,000 skilled workers in the IT industry. There is a push to have workers brought in from overseas to meet those skill deficiencies in that industry when there are real opportunities to put effort into skilling and training young people in this country to fill those job vacancies.The AIRC report into junior rates highlights that the employment provided to teenagers is seldom accompanied by formal training. The number of 15- to 19-year-old employees who received in-house training more than halved between 1989 and 1993, falling from 147,000 to 65,000. This puts an even greater onus on the government of the day to provide training and education for our young people so they can successfully make the transition from school to work.The OECD employment outlook June 1999 analysis of the transition from school to work suggests that collective bargaining structures are better contexts for new school leavers to get into employment, as are well-developed apprenticeship systems. There is a variety of mechanisms that can be applied to deal with the questions of wages, wage rates and wage relativities of young people in employment. They go to the question of skills and training and the type of policy settings that were adopted by the Labor Party when it was in government in terms of the youth trainee wages, which is one element of the process.If there is to be a junior wage, it should be a training wage. Paying all young workers less, simply because of their age, will not create significant employment opportunities, which is the fundamental challenge that faces this parliament. It is a fundamental challenge that is not being addressed by the approach that is being taken with respect to this legislation. While the ALP has to make amendments to it that will take some of the pressure, burden and onus off young people, the reality is that the focus has to be upon developing an integrated skills and training process that will equip young people for the jobs that are now available in the labour market of 1999 and 2000 and not what existed in the labour market of the 1950s.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Before I call you, Senator Allison, I have a matter already before the chair, and that is the incorporation of part of the speech of Senator Collins on the second reading debate. Leave was sought for that to be incorporated. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.The speech read as follows—It is unfortunate that the Democrats feel the youth have been betrayed by these amendments. We certainly do not. We listened to the AIRC and we considered their findings and then we faced the facts. We were able to get the government to bend in their stance on this issue. The government wanted blanket insertion of junior rates into every industry and award. They wanted to remove power from the AIRC and their ability to consider the merits of doing this.These amendments now reflect Labor's policy position, that is to give power to the AIRC to decide the merits of retaining, inserting or abolishing junior rates on a case by case basis. The Government, through this bill in its original form, sought to tie the AIRC's hands. Had it been passed it would have ensured that all junior rates provisions would have been enshrined with limited scope for the Commission to make an independent decision. I would have thought that an independent industrial arbiter was critical to our democratic future. At a time when it is under threat from a conservative government, one might expect the Democrats to stand up and fight for its independence. But not so.If the original bill had been passed, joint consideration of the competitiveness of young workers and equality of treatment of those workers would have been effectively removed from the hands of the industrial umpire. The competitiveness of young people in the labour market is as much determined by their skills as it is by their wages.In looking at the youth wages issue, and its relationship with youth employment and fairness, we have been honest about what the evidence has thrown up. If there is one message that we have repeated in the two months since the commission's report, it is that we must seriously challenge ourselves as to whether we are doing the best we can for young people.While we acknowledge the importance of youth employment, there are genuine differences of opinion on the relationship between wages and employment. We continue to reject the government's simplistic characterisation of what is a complex issue.Labor has consistently argued that there is more to the labour market than wages. We are asking the AIRC to take into account a range of factors—and we are making that requirement explicit. Skills are critical. So we inserted words requiring the AIRC to consider skills. Fairness is critical, so we inserted words requiring the AIRC to consider communi ty standards. We said that, above all, we must be prepared to challenge ourselves, we must have an open mind. So we inserted the capacity for the AIRC to consider new proposals on a case-by-case basis. These amendments rule nothing in or out. What they do is give parties an opportunity to argue their case. But they do so in a clearly articulated context.In his press release of 24 June—a press release that has mysteriously disappeared from their website and from the Parliamentary Library—Senator Murray supported the case-by-case approach. That was not the position of Senator Stott-Despoja that same day, but that is what his press release says.The Commission has not closed off the possibility that there are feasible alternatives, and neither has Labor. That is why we have established the capacity of the commission to consider alternatives on a case-by-case basis. And we have outlined the context in which that must occur- with reference to employment, skills and community standards. The onus is now clearly, in this balanced context, on the proponents of change.Community StandardsI am surprised that the Democrats don't consider community standards to be an issue in this debate. In fact, they gave it so little consideration that it was not even included in the terms of reference for the AIRC's inquiry. An 18 year old is, in the eyes of the community and the economic structure of this country, an adult for all intents and purposes. At age 18, people are entitled to be regarded as adults. We believe that is what the community expects—we believe that to be a fair thing.There have been some suggestions that further consideration of junior rates for 15, 16 or 17 year olds needs to be had. But at 18 years of age you are an adult, you lead the life of an adult. The community expects this. But does the community also expect you to do that on a lower wage than other adults? The commission must still resolve this matter.EmploymentLabor starts from the presumption that youth unemployment is a multi-faceted problem, which must be tackled on a number of fronts.The youth labour market is vulnerable. It has been subjected to a number of major changes over the past two decades. Of these, the most significant include:. A major shift away from full-time employment and towards part-time employment.. Employers have increasingly utilised part-time employment to achieve greater flexibility in managing staff resources in response to increased competition. The strong growth in service industries, and their increased emphasis on more flexible service delivery (particularly trading hours), has also contributed to the growth in part-time employment.Because of its vulnerability, Labor has every intention of getting it right. Because of its vulnerability, we believe the community would want us to err on the side of caution in removing age-based discrimination.An example that has been raised is through gradual phasing out of junior rates and a gradual phasing in of competency based pay, to minimise any impact on the labour market.While we are aware that many people won't see the Minister's backdown as a victory for Labor, I hope that in the time ahead of us, they come to see it as a sign that Labor is serious about getting youth employment right. Because despite the government's rhetoric, Labor in our last term made greater inroads into youth unemployment reducing it by 31,000—than the 23,500 the coalition has reduced it by in three and a half years.SkillsThe issue of youth wages is a complex one precisely because it involves potential trade-offs between youth employment and fairness for young people. To complicate things, it also has implications for the incentives for young people to invest in skills acquisition.Why would an 18 year old undertake extra training for their job, when, on completion of that training they see no reward. Their skill level is the same as a 23 year old who undertook the same training, but their pay is 30% less. This 18 year old is treated as a junior, even though they would be doing the same volume of work, the same range of tasks and working under the same conditions. When they get on the bus to go home, they are also expected to pay adult fares—I will take that argument further in just a moment.First I want to say that it is because of this complexity that Labor has achieved a situation in which these matters can be considered in a framework that seeks to balance these factors.That framework makes it clear that we will not look at wages independent of skills. For instance the work value principle has become an accepted standard, both industrially and socially. It is clearly intended that this principle is captured within the terms "skills" and "community standards".ConclusionLabor argued vigorously against the insertion of youth wages into areas where they do not presently exist. We will continue to do so. The government has finally accepted Labor's position on this matter- a position that we have reiterated consistently since the AIRC report. We said we would await the AIRC report. I seem to recall the Democrats also did at the time, and I await with interest to hear the Democrats rationale for why we should go beyond the Commission's decision and introduce by legislation an age of majority at 18, 19, or 20 years.Some Democrats have expressed outrage on behalf of young people. I ask them to have a look at what the AIRC report actually says. The AIRC had a substantial body of evidence before it. you set up the inquiry—although I must admit that I find it surprising that in your terms of reference there was no recognition of community standards, no requirement of fairness—now you must examine the findings. You said that you accept the approach for justifying junior rates or skill-based alternatives on an industry or award basis. You said you could live with that.Labor can live with that too. Understand that Labor has not done a backflip on our position. We want what is best for young people, so we had to consider the findings of an independent body. Although we believe there could be a better solution, we could not blindly pursue our ideals in the light of these findings. The amendments before the Senate provide certainty. Thankfully, the government has given its word that it will not be introducing legislation to give effect to its preferred position in the life of this parliament. We take them on their word on that.18:12:008170Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—First of all, I briefly commend Senator George Campbell on his remarks. There is more there, I think, that the Democrats would say they agree with very strongly than disagree with. In fact, we most definitely agree that there is a need to define what is junior. We agree too that under 18 is very preferable to 22, which is what the ALP will agree to in their amendments. Senator George Campbell is right too that this legislation is not the solution. For that reason, I would have thought the ALP should vote it down but, instead, we have an amendment which really does nothing to improve the work opportunities or the discrimination against young people that are inherent in this bill.Tonight I want to talk about leadership, about liberation from policy and perhaps principles, about consistency, and about Mr Beazley and the Labor Party. Like many Australians, including 100,000 members of the shoppies union aged under 21, I am trying to work out why Mr Beazley and Labor have backflipped so spectacularly on the issue of youth wages. I am sure that Senator Collins, Senator Bishop and Senator Hogg—all former officials of the SDA—are in the same quandary, and I look forward to hearing their views on the issue later in this debate.But today I want to go back in history a little. In December 1993 the Labor government, through then Senator Bob McMullan in the Senate and Mr Laurie Brereton in the House, accepted a Democrat amendment to outlaw discrimination on the basis of age, sex, sexual preference and physical disability—the award review process would eliminate such provisions from awards. Kim Beazley was then employment minister and, as far as I can remember, raised no objections. In May 1994, the Working Nation white paper, of which Mr Beazley's current deputy, Mr Simon Crean, was a major author, again committed the government to abolishing age based discrimination, but over a three-year transitional period for abolishing junior rates. The paper says, on page 34:The Government supports the transition, over time, to competency based arrangements from the current system of age based wages for young people.The Democrats agreed to the three-year transition period to 1997, and the Labor government started working with the ACTU on the junior rates test case.In October 1996, the ALP, now led by Mr Beazley, stridently opposed the amendments to the workplace relations bill moved by the Democrats to extend that date by three years and to institute a junior rates review by the AIRC because of the failure of the test case to come up with a viable alternative model. Labor's Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Sherry, a former Miscellaneous Workers Union official, said—84PHUTCHINSSenator Hutchins—That's the wrong union.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Perhaps you should listen to this, Senator. He said:Junior rates should be abolished next year because they permit discrimination between two workers simply on the basis of age, even though they are doing the same work and have the same experience . . . He described the issue as:. . . a very critical area. Three former SDA officials and now ALP senators, Senators Hogg, Collins and Bishop, all opposed the amendments to defer the abolition of junior rates, with Senator Hogg telling the Senate that all junior rates did was supply employers with `cheap fodder'. We could not agree more.In December 1998, when Mr Peter Reith started his push to repeal the provisions he had agreed to two years before, Mr Beazley challenged him in the parliament. Mr Beazley endorsed the view of shoppies union head, Joe De Bruyn, who said:The real issue being that, with junior rates, you have got discrimination and that is simply not acceptable in society today . . . as `a sensible position'. Again, Senator Campbell has echoed those words. On 10 February 1999, shadow employment spokesperson and former ACTU President Martin Ferguson was urging the House to:. . . examine and read in detail the submission from the Shop Assistants Union to the junior rates inquiry.Mr Ferguson said:Whilst acknowledging that in some cases there is a need potentially for junior rates of pay—but not across industry in general—it argues that equal work for equal pay is an important principle. If two people are standing side by side doing work of equal value, why should they be paid differently just because one is 18 and the other 28 or 38? That is the real issue before the chair today.Mr Ferguson went on to say:I am not prepared to stand by and allow employers to discriminate against young people . . . One person who obviously read the shoppies' submission was his boss, Mr Beazley. This is because a key point made in the shoppies' submission is that an adult rate should be paid from 18 years of age onwards, recognising the cost of living of most 18- to 21-year-olds living away from home and their work value.On 11 March 1999, Mr Beazley thundered in the House about the inequity of over 18-year-olds being treated like kids, accusing the government of wanting to:. . . turn young adults into juniors.I might quote at length from Mr Beazley because he put it so eloquently:Do you kid yourselves that 19- and 20-year-olds in our community do not have family responsibilities, because there are plenty that do. There is no suggestion that, if they have a couple of kids, there would be any exemption from the processes that the government is putting in place. If you are a young truck driver aged about 19 and with family responsibilities, you are likely to be deprived of $80 a week in your wages if you are then subject to an extension of junior awards or junior rates into the 18- to 21-year-old categories. Those aged 18 to 21 years vote, they marry, they have children, they enter into contracts, they have legal obligations and they are entitled to be worthy of their hire.My colleagues and I agree wholeheartedly with the Leader of the Australian Labor Party. A young person aged 18 years is an adult, and should be treated like an adult for the purposes of wages, as they are in all but a mere handful of OECD countries. Mr De Bruyn must have been very pleased to see Mr Beazley endorsing his union's view on junior rates.On 24 June this year, three months later, with the release of the AIRC submission on junior rates, Mr Beazley argued that the AIRC should be allowed to review junior rates, award by award, free from any presumption about junior rates. He said:What will you give the young people of this country if you want to impose on the commission a presumption—not allowing the commission to conduct its affairs on a case-by-case basis but telling the commission that they will produce a junior wages level if a young person is employed in an area, with no obligation on the employer to argue why that should be so.Mr Beazley slammed Mr Peter Reith and his bill as `reneging on that agreement with the Democrats'. He said:. . . this whole thing before us is a massive piece of slipperiness on his part.He also said that Mr Reith's was a `completely and utterly untrustworthy government'. Again, Mr De Bruyn from the shoppies had nothing to worry about in Mr Beazley's remarks.Let us come forward another three months to last week. Suddenly all that has changed. Gone is Mr Beazley's strong view that 18- to 21-year-olds were `worthy of their hire', gone is his argument that the government would `impose a presumption on the commission to produce junior rates', gone even is Mr Beazley's concern with slippery deals and reneging on promises. Gone is Mr Beazley's and Labor's six years of history of seeking to rid Australia of junior rates and bring us back into line with the rest of the OECD.Mr De Bruyn was absolutely furious, and with good reason. Around 100,000 of his 230,000 members are under the age of 21. For a year, his union's submission had been quoted with approval by Mr Beazley and Labor as a sensible outcome for junior rates—a case-by-case analysis below 18 years, a commitment to reduce discrimination, and adult rates at 18 years. Suddenly, after assurances from Mr Beazley, the night before the bill is slammed through the House of Representatives, the SDA gets a late night call from Labor saying, `We're sorry, we've changed our mind.' They did not even have the excuse that it was a tough negotiation. Arch Bevis let the cat out of the bag when he boasted that the government had picked up every one of the ALP's amendments. Well, where was the amendment about an adult at age 18 getting an adult wage?ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—What did you get for selling the taxpayers out: 20 Rothmans?1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—If you have a look at the Democrats amendment, Senator Quirke, you will actually find that it is there, so I look forward to your supporting this. Where was the amendment clearly establishing Labor's preference for skill based rather than age based awards, as put so well by Senator George Campbell? Where was the amendment removing the presumption in the bill in favour of junior rates so that the commission could make a genuine case-by-case assessment? The government did not have to agree to these amendments, which were all part of the ALP's position only a few months ago, because the ALP did not insist on them. They were so desperate for a deal, any deal, that, according to the Sydney Morning Herald on August 26:Labor had advanced so far in its preparedness to do a compromise with Reith that it had drafted full blown amendments opening the way to extend age based pay rates indefinitely. Joe De Bruyn was beside himself with disbelief, and you would be. He said:Well, that's not good enough because of everybody else that's in on it. You had Reith over a barrel—he was looking for a deal to get himself off the hook and instead of trying to find material improvements for youth workers who were doing the same work as adults, you've let the opportunity slip . . . you didn't even try.How true. The ACTU executive was furious. The Metal Workers Union, the Miscellaneous Workers Union, the National Union of Students and Young Labor have all slammed Labor's betrayal, because that is what it is. Labor's youth wages policy was developed in 1993-94 by the combination of employment ministers Kim Beazley and Simon Crean, industrial relations ministers Laurie Brereton and Bob McMullan and the then ACTU President Martin Ferguson. All of them are still there in shadow cabinet, and all of them have been involved in this desperate dirty deal that didn't need to be done.Mr Beazley has, in our view, failed a fundamental test of leadership—that of consistency of principle. He has been exposed by this deal as a man without principles, who will say one thing one month and do completely the opposite a few months later. To that extent, he is the perfect dancing partner for Peter Reith. On behalf of the workers of Australia, I live in fear of what new nasty ideas this duo will now cook up. Will it be denial of unfair dismissals for employees of small business? That is also a populist notion; about as populist as junior wage rates. Labor opposed it last year, but what does this mean for next month? The workers of Australia now know that Labor under Kim Beazley simply cannot be taken at its word.18:26:008173Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I rise to speak on what is one of the most pernicious bills to come before this place. The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 will have the effect of consigning hundreds of thousands of young Australian workers to unequal pay for equal work under a discriminatory scheme which has no justification. What makes this piece of legislation even worse is that the only reason we are debating it at all is because the Labor Party has col luded with the government to sell out young Australians dirt cheap in a dirty deal. Under the terms of this deal, the Australian Labor Party will flout a tenet it has long held as inviolate: that work of equal value should be paid equally. In the context of yesterday's call for a return to basics by the Labor opposition, this betrayal of the principle of fairness for workers is even more shameful.Not surprisingly, the announcement by the ALP last week that it would turn its back on five years of opposition to youth wages and discrimination against young workers and vote with the government was met with horror and anger by union and youth representatives, who had thought that they could at least rely on the ALP to hold firm on this issue. Up until last week, this faith was well placed. Hansard is full of grand speeches from the members of the opposition detailing their strident opposition to youth wages. How quickly they have recanted on five years of what has amounted to little more than empty rhetoric, and what a pity it is that so few have come forward to explain themselves this evening.The opposition to youth wages is well founded, and workers and young people have every right to be livid with the opposition. The opposition of the Australian Democrats is similarly well founded, and I would like to set out the reasons this evening, although the objections to the government's youth wages proposals have been on record for years now. Our opposition is concentrated in three areas: the effects of the retention and extension of youth wages on young people, the current state of the labour market, and the possibility of viable alternatives to age based discriminatory wage levels.At the outset, two points must be emphasised and understood. Firstly, the alternatives that were proposed to youth wages do not involve the abolition of differential rates of pay but rather their replacement with competency based rates, and consequently many of the arguments being advanced for their retention are irrelevant. Secondly, the government proposed not only the retention of youth wages in existing awards but also their extension to awards where they do not currently exist. Make no mistake: the government is not about retaining the status quo but is about reducing the income levels of thousands of young people. Now the ALP is labouring under the illusion that the deal they have brokered with the government prevents this extension from happening. It does no such thing. In fact, it leaves the way clear for extensions to take place on application to the AIRC. Furthermore, these applications will take place within the context of the de facto approval by the parliament of youth wages as an employment generating measure—a contention which has never been proven.It cannot be denied that youth wages are discriminatory and grossly unfair to young workers. They fundamentally contravene the equal pay for equal work principle, enshrined in the international labour and human rights conventions to which Australia is a signatory. On this basis alone, the Democrats have significant concerns with the government's attempts to flout its promise to examine non-discriminatory alternatives.Young workers do not have access to junior rates of rent, food or clothing and only full-time students qualify for travel concessions. Young people incur the same costs of living as adult workers, yet many receive heavily discounted incomes. Those aged over 18 are deemed to be adults by our society: old enough to vote, to drive, to drink, to be tried as adults, to undertake financial obligations and so on. Yet this government believes they are not mature enough to be paid an equal rate for equal work with their older counterparts.Over the past 20 years in Australia, real wages have declined markedly for young people, despite a significant increase in adult wages over the same time. Real wages for young males have fallen by 18 per cent from $395 in 1976 to $322 in 1996. Real wages for young women have fallen by 12 per cent from $361 in 1976 to $316 in 1996. Over the same period, real wages for adult males have increased by seven per cent and by 12 per cent for adult females.Furthermore, youth wages undermine the value of youth labour by determining the worth of a young worker according to her or his age, rather than skill. This perpetuates the view that youth labour is of less worth than adult labour, a view often based on intangibles such as maturity when in many cases, particularly in the sectors which tend to employ young people, the work of differently aged workers may not differ in any material way. This raises the potential for young labour to be exploited: most young workers do not belong to a union and many work in insecure, casual or part-time jobs with cut-rate pay.Youth wages are profoundly inequitable and should be resisted for that reason alone. The Australian Democrats are aware of the need to examine means of creating job opportunities for young people but do not believe that wage reductions are the way to achieve this. Those who seek the retention and extension of youth wages claim the alternatives would be worse. However, this argument ignores the real nature of the type of work most young people do. The majority of young people are employed in the retail and service sectors. The type of work they undertake shares a number of common requirements: flexibility, projection of a particular image or marketing strategy, adaptability to new sales processes and technologies, and physical stamina.The growth in the consumer market, particularly the youth consumer market, has increased the demand for highly productive, easily trained and flexible employees who reflect the image and marketing of particular retailers or service providers. These are clear incentives other than cost to hire young people and should not be discounted in the debate over the effect on employment opportunities for young people of replacing youth wages with competency based rates. Both Mitsubishi and Holden have recently abolished youth wages, recognising the value of their younger employees and understanding that workers should be paid according to skill and productivity, rather than according to an inflexible model which offers them no incentive as workers to improve their competency or productivity.The nature of youth work has also changed markedly. Youth wages grew out of the apprenticeship tradition, which involved a clear, training/wage level trade-off between employer and employees, long-term job security and a basis in pay increments according to skill acquisition. The past decades have seen a massive reduction in the number of apprenticeships and traineeships, in favour of institutionalised training, usually at the student's own expense. Most work undertaken by young people is low skilled, involving minimal training which generally takes place in the first months of employment, with all employees retained on the basis of their acquisition of a particular level of competency, regardless of their age.The justification posed for the retention of youth wages is that they have a positive effect on youth unemployment levels. This argument is put in the absence of any supporting evidence. Youth unemployment levels have continued to rise since the introduction of youth wages. In fact, the youth unemployment rate has undergone a more rapid rate of increase since 1968 than that of any other group in our community. The unemployment rate of 15- to 19-year-old males was 2.9 per cent in 1968, compared with the current rate of 25.3 per cent. For females it was 3.9 per cent in 1968, compared with today's rate of 27.9 per cent.Young people have been severely impacted by the effect of recessions on the pool of available employment. The entry level positions which used to be available for young people no longer exist. The state and federal governments have greatly contributed to this through the substantial reduction in Commonwealth and state public service positions. Today there are next to no under-20-year-olds working in the public sector, yet the government continues to place the blame for youth unemployment on young people.Under current federal employment policies, which have halved funding to employment assistance, most young people are no longer eligible for intensive work search assistance. One of the most dangerous effects of this legislation is that it will serve as a proxy for the real action that needs to be taken to create jobs for young people. Minister Reith's employment agenda is all about wage and condition reductions to try to spread available work more thinly, extending the growing numbers of the working poor in our society. Now the opposition will also be able to enjoy the protection of this proxy, thanks to its complicity in the perpetuation of the myth that all that is needed to address youth unemployment is to keep youth wages below subsistence levels.The Democrats do not accept this agenda and will resist the government's attempts to shirk its responsibility for job creation. This is a government which last November reneged on its commitment to invest in job creation through industry support and instead prefers to pursue a regressive approach which will reduce the income levels of hundreds of thousands of Australians. This legislation breaks faith with young people. Is it any wonder that young people are becoming increasingly cynical and disenfranchised with the political process? It is based on little evidence that it will lead to job creation and, as presented, is deeply flawed.The minister is fond of quoting employer surveys in his favour, conveniently failing to mention that they are based on selective sampling, misleading questions and that, even so, the results show employers citing other reasons than merely the cost of hiring young people. International evidence is similarly inconclusive and cannot support such an inequitable policy. Past Australian experience shows that the reduction of wage levels has little effect on unemployment levels. For example, between 1981 and 1983, youth wages declined relative to adult wages but youth unemployment rose by a 64 per cent. In 1992, the Reserve Bank of Australia stated:The recent deterioration of the youth labour market does not seem to be due to any change in relative wage levels, which have been declining steadily since the mid-1970s.The same arguments being advanced now for youth wages were put in favour of retaining gender based differential rates of pay. Yet the disastrous effects that were predicted to result from paying women the same rates as men for work of equal value never eventuated.In our submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission inquiry, the Democrats argued for the replacement of discriminatory, age based junior rates of pay with a competency based structure. Young people must also be offered training to develop skills and receive appropriate remuneration through wage increases as their competence increases. This would recognise the value of youth labour, and end the discrimination and exploitation that currently exists in over half of industrial awards.The government wants to entrench youth wages where they exist and extend them to all awards. In doing so, it is breaking its promise to wait for the AIRC to examine non-discriminatory alternatives, proposing the drastic reduction in pay rates for hundreds of thousands of young people and turning its back on positive job creation. If the government is serious about creating job opportunities for young people, it would do far better to direct its employment efforts towards extending eligibility for job search assistance to young people, improving access to education and training, and making and maintaining commitments to investing in sustainable industries to create meaningful and secure jobs.18:40:008176Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am going to start my speech on the second reading by asking a question which I hope will be answered satisfactorily for the Democrats and for the nation at the end of this debate. If the nation as a whole, and the political parties as a whole, accept the notion that nearly all 15-year-olds in employment should be on youth rates, can you explain to me why there is a justification for 22-year-olds to be paid youth rates? Why in your great agreement have you not put a ceiling on the youth rate application? I look forward to the very informed answer I will get from both sides, especially from the adviser who shook his head vigorously.I cannot believe that Senator Collins, for whom I have a great deal of regard, and Senator Campbell—from the Labor side—for whom I have considerable regard also, can honestly stand in here and defend this bill before us. I know you have been sent in to do a job and I really want to know if your hearts are in it. Senator Collins, before she came to the Senate, was a national industrial officer with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA. She, along with Senators Bishop and Hogg, who as far as I know are not speaking in this debate, should know more about this issue that anybody because, I am advised, about 100,000 of the 230,000 members of her union are under the age of 21 years. So this is an issue with which she should have great affinity.I think Senator Collins's former boss was Joe de Bruyn. He is the leader of the SDA nationally and he had this to say about Labor's new junior rates position:The Labor Party had a unique opportunity to force Peter Reith and the Federal Government to recognise the validity of the claim that 18 to 20 year old workers should be paid the adult rate if their work performance justified such a measure.He goes on:Instead, without any consultation with the largest Union in Australia which covers 75% of unionised teenage workers, it has negotiated a shoddy deal with Peter Reith to preserve the status quo.Joe de Bruyn goes on:Young workers will undoubtedly be deeply disappointed that the unique opportunity to achieve wage justice has been squandered in the interests of needless compromise with the Government.He then says:The Union itself is bitterly disappointed that it was not consulted by the Labor Party over its deal with Mr Reith and that the basic entitlement of young people to a fair rate of pay has been given away.Senator Campbell's successor—that is, the Labor Party's Senator Campbell—over at the Metal Workers Union, Doug Cameron, was equally incensed, saying the decision `provides every indication that federal Labor has dropped the ball on moving the policy focus away from trying to create short-term, low skill, transient jobs that provide no future for young workers.' He said that he could not understand why the Labor Party would embrace a key element of the deregulated labour market agenda of the Liberals. Doug Cameron went on to say:It is an agenda which has increased job insecurity, led to a lack of dignity at work for young workers and left young people in a totally inequitable labour market position. The problem for the Labor Party is that, when we come to the IR legislation, they are going to be defending the right of workers to receive appropriate wages and conditions, yet in this circumstance they are defending the right of workers not to receive appropriate wages and conditions. I am sure that that inconsistency in their situation will be brought home to them by the government.The ACTU executive expressed its deep concern and disappointment at the Labor Party and coalition agreement and rejected the government's bill as dishonest and misleading. The amendments I have circulated, and I will move them later on in the committee stage, have been developed by us in consultation with the ACTU and fully reflect its preferred position, as well as ours. The ACTU is quite right when it says that junior rates, as expressed through this bill, are a simplistic approach to the issue of youth unemployment.Over the past 20 years in Australia, many of them years in which the Labor Party was in power both here and in the states, real wages have declined markedly for young people despite a significant increase in adult real wages over the same time. So one has gone up and the other has gone down. Real wages for young males have fallen by 18 per cent, going from $396 in 1976 to $342 in 1986, which was 10 years later, to $322 in 1996. Real wages for young females have fallen by less, but they have still fallen by 12 per cent, going from $361 in 1976 to $332 in 1986 to $316 in 1996. Real wages for adult males have increased by seven per cent over the same period, and real wages for adult females have risen by 12 per cent.In its recent employment outlook, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development found no clear case for junior rates. I quote:On the basis of the available evidence, however, it is not clear that a rise in minimum wages has unambiguously led to job losses for youth in all circumstances . . . The substantial difference across countries in teenage employment trends can only be marginally attributed to differences in the evolution of minimum wages and must be explained by other factors. The Reserve Bank, in a 1992 analysis of youth employment, found that wage rates did not seem to be driving the decline in youth employment. It said:The recent deterioration of the youth labour market does not seem to be due to any change in relative wage levels, which have been declining steadily since the mid 1970s.Professor John Freebairn of Melbourne University, at a recent Reserve Bank conference on unemployment, also concluded that the evidence on wage rates and unemployment was not clearly proven. He said:Unfortunately not a lot is known about the magnitude of elasticities of substitution between labour categorised by gender, age and skill level . . . For Australia there have been . . . natural experiments which also suggest a low elasticity of demand for particular types of labour. The 20 per cent increase in relative wages for females in the early 1970s have no discernible effect on the gender composition of employment and unemployment.Similarly, research by Professor Bob Gregory at the ANU and by Bernstein and Schmitt at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington show little relationship between minimum wage rates and unemployment. I am quite sure that, when the IR debate comes up, the Labor Party will in fact refer to these kinds of studies because they support its view that real wages should be maintained for workers, a position the Democrats agree with. However, in this instance the Labor Party is not supporting that, and that is the inconsistency in its situation.The ALP should know all of this evidence, because the SDA, in its submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, reflects all of this evidence. This is the same submission that the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, described as `a sensible position.'Debate interrupted.Adjournment817710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! It being 6.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn. 817818:50:008178Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Tonight I wish to disclose certain unusual property transactions in Edmonson Park, Sydney, involving key backers of the Labor Party Right. In late 1997, Ms Dobromilla Seigl wanted to sell land which she owned in Edmonson Park, Sydney, for around $650,000. In early December 1997 she received a telephone call from a man claiming to be named Anthony Contervento. He offered $800,000 for the land, provided that the land transfer could be concluded swiftly.It appears that Ms Seigl had her suspicions about the deal. She overheard Mr Contervento talking on one occasion to people on the other end of the telephone in Arabic, not Italian. Also, all negotiations for the sale of the land were carried on via a mobile telephone. The one time that Ms Seigl tried to contact Mr Contervento on a landline, it turned out to be an answering machine at a business owned by Mr Karl Kazal. Mr Kazal comes into this issue again a little later on. Despite her apprehensions about the propriety of the deal, Ms Seigl liked the price offered and, on 12 December 1997, the property was sold to Mr Contervento for the sum of $800,000.So what is the problem with this? The problem is that Mr Anthony Contervento does not exist. Just look at the spelling of the name: C-o-n-t-e-r-v-e-n-t-o. Clearly someone with no knowledge of Italian has made it up. Recent inquiries have been made about the existence of Mr Contervento. He was known as Ray Kazal, but he changed his name in December 1997 to Anthony Contervento. In January 1999 he again changed his name—this time to Jimmy Kazal. Six days after the sale to the non-existent Mr Contervento, on 18 December 1997, the Zayad Bin Sultan al-Nahayan Charitable and Humanitarian Foundation Ltd—ACN 081 093 629—was formed. Its founding directors were Karl Kazal, Tarek Kazal and Assam Alrahmah. The latter was a businessman in the United Arab Emirates. Now here comes the interesting bit: on 30 December 1997 the non-existent Mr Conter vento sold the property to the foundation for $1,419,000.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—What?TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—That is a very good question, Senator Macdonald. That represents a capital gains profit to the non-existent Mr Contervento of $619,000 in the space of 18 days. Not a bad little earner for a supposedly legitimate business transaction, was it? Then, in mid-February 1998, Karl Kazal spoke to Elders Real Estate about the sale of the adjoining property—lot DP 389866. One wonders who is going to be buying what in that transaction and one wonders whether any tax is going to be paid or whether the money will just disappear, as it appears to have done in this case.So what does this all mean? There are only two possible reasons for one member of the Kazal family to buy a property and then a few days later sell it to a supposedly charitable trust controlled by two other members of the Kazal family: either the Kazals are ripping off the trust that they control or they are laundering money. If we assume that they are not ripping off a trust that they control themselves, then the question is: why are the Kazals laundering money?Who is this shadowy friend of the ALP Right, Mr Karl Kazal? Is it the same Karl Kazal who was behind the stacking of 450 people into Lakemba Day Branch at the behest of Labor MP Tony Stewart? Who is this mate of the Labor Party? Is this the same Karl Kazal who got $2 million from the Labor-friendly Sydney Cove Authority to redevelop two properties that his company owned in The Rocks, including the new Vault nightclub? Who is this mate that the ALP Right uses to stack out its branches? Is it the same Karl Kazal who, for his efforts in helping to stack out Lakemba Day Branch, got $45,000 in state government funds for the Lebanese Muslim Association Sports Club? There are many questions that need to be answered in this sad and sorry tale, and I certainly hope that the Labor Party comes clean in disclosing the answers.817918:56:008179Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I suppose we will have to wait for another time to reply to Senator Knowles. I might have some stuff to drop on you tomorrow, Senator Knowles.What I want to talk about tonight is the outbreak of the Newcastle Disease on the Central Coast of New South Wales. In April of this year a virulent strain of the Newcastle Disease broke out at Mangrove Mountain on the Central Coast. It was the first time that this disease had occurred in Australia and it was the worst outbreak of what is called `emergency animal disease' in Australia's history. What occurred as a result of the outbreak was that two million chickens were killed, up to 9,000 emergency services personnel were used to bring the disease under control and, up to now, 70 farmers are facing financial ruin as a result of that emergency control.The direct impact, of course, is on the federal seats of Robertson and Dobell where chicken growers and their families, employees of those chicken growers, contractors and the Central Coast economy have been affected significantly by this disease. In fact, it has been estimated that up to $20 million has been lost to the Central Coast economy. Many of the families affected have had no income at all for the last six months, and they have no prospect of any improvement in that situation over the next 12 months.What is needed right now is action from the federal government. Initially, there was quick action by the government. It changed regulations to allow Newstart allowance to be collected by those people affected. An income test was applied, but there was no test applied to assets. However, farmers became ineligible for the allowance once the quarantine was lifted, even though it would take 16 weeks for chickens to regenerate so that income could be generated by those people. Some of the families are in desperate need and some assistance is still needed. In fact, these proud hardworking Australians up in the Central Coast are now in the situation where they are receiving food parcels from the Seventh Day Adventist Church and other charitable organisations. It has been estimated that it will take between two and four years before that industry recovers in that region, and still we are waiting for some sort of government assistance for these people who are affected.The real issue at the moment is that there is a delay by the government in either rejecting or handling the application for exceptional circumstances. When Mr Vaile was the minister for agriculture, he encouraged the farmers to put in their applications for exceptional circumstances, and in fact they have since made detailed and comprehensive submissions, containing extensive data, to the new minister, Mr Truss. However, there is no expectation of determination on this application until sometime next year. In that period, farmers and their families are going to be in dire straits.The exceptional circumstances conditions are three: the disaster has to be rare, unforeseen and severe. It is quite rare that this strain was able to mutate as spontaneously as it did; it is unforeseen in that it is the first time that it has occurred in Australia; and it is severe—as I said, $20 million is certainly a big bite of the Central Coast economy. There is ample evidence that the guidelines that are currently applied for exceptional circumstances are inappropriate in this case. The guidelines were created for crops which would be affected by drought, and under the guidelines the disaster must exist for a period of over 12 months. As such, a number of people become ineligible for any assistance along those lines. The government has recommended that people may wish to apply to the Farm Family Restart Scheme, but to qualify for this you must have been a farmer for two years. In that area, where there is a bit of a turnover, there are a number of people who will not be eligible.We have a situation where there is a delay in the exceptional circumstances application—whether it is going to get ticked off or not—and there are a number of families who are not eligible to apply to the Farm Family Restart Scheme. A number of these farmers have large mortgages. The banks have deferred the mortgages but they still have to pay interest. The people may be looking at bank ruptcy unless they can get some assistance from the government. A dollar spent now is a dollar that we do not need to spend down the track, because if we do not spend it now the damage will be done.I would like to call upon the minister, Mr Truss, to go up to the Central Coast and talk to these hardworking, proud Australians who have been affected by something outside their control. I would like him to look them in the eye, look at their difficulties, look at how they are struggling to survive—these proud people who are actually taking food parcels—and listen to what they have to say. Give them help. I know that, if Labor were in power, we would help.818019:03:008180Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Senator Hogg, I would like to express my appreciation to you for taking the chair to enable me to make this presentation tonight. I do appreciate it.There is a rather large predicament right now in my home state of Tasmania. On the surface, it would appear that three russet burbank potatoes, part of a small consignment from Tasmania to Western Australia, have been identified as possibly carrying the exotic disease ring rot. The potatoes came from one or perhaps two properties on the north-west coast—no-one is quite sure, because the bins carrying potatoes from one farm to another were topped up with potatoes from bins sourced from another farm.Two properties have been quarantined and a large, imposing sign at the entrance of both farms reads: `Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Quarantine Area, No Admission without Permission, by Order, Chief Quarantine Officer.' Like an infectious diseases section of a hospital, no-one can enter or leave without notifying an authorised person. The farmers are even limited in access to their own properties, and further harvesting of potatoes still in the ground is on hold. The farmers are quite rightly shocked, bewildered and a little embarrassed that their properties have been locked, isolated and identified as perhaps—and I emphasise `perhaps'—carrying the disease.The disease ring rot has previously been found in some parts of Europe and America but never before in Australia. I would like to point out that potatoes dug out of wet ground often carry a ring around their skin, but they have never been suspected of contamination with ring rot. Samples of potatoes from the farms have been sent to Western Australia, Queensland and Hobart for testing, but pathologists have been unable to find the disease in any of the samples that have been tested. Extractions from the potatoes allegedly—I emphasise `allegedly'—carrying the very slow growing disease are currently growing on agar in an attempt to further the investigation, and DNA has been brought in from Canada to determine whose potato is hosting the symptoms, or, indeed, if any are. It is hoped to have colonies separated very soon so that the mystery can be solved. However, the pathologists in Hobart submit that the symptoms just do not ring true with bacterial ring rot.Some of you may recall—Tasmanian senators certainly will—that Simplot recently closed its potato processing plant in Western Australia to concentrate its total activities in Tasmania. The tonnage is significant. No doubt there are many disgruntled farmers, packers and wholesalers in Western Australia who have been hurt by this decision and, in their own peculiar way, would see this stunt as `pretty good retribution'. In fact, I hear that it's all a bit of a joke in certain sections of Western Australia!The industry in Tasmania is asking a lot of questions. They are not happy about what has happened, and rightly so. They understand that Quarantine must do its job. They respect that and ultimately want to be cleared of this alleged curse that has been temporarily bestowed upon them. However, the industry's major concern is that personnel in Western Australia pressed a very large panic button before obtaining more sound or even clear evidence—a very large panic button that smacks of sour grapes or, should I say, rotten potatoes. The insult commenced with Western Australian authorities and importers, in the month prior to their `great find', being unusually strict with certification and holding up the smooth flow of documentation whenever possible. No, fellow senators, this is not a case of bacterial ring rot in Tasmanian potatoes; it is a case of Western Australian farmers, packers, wholesalers and those in authority playing fast and loose with the very sound reputation of the Tasmanian potato industry. They are being bad sports. They are seeking retribution because something was taken away from them and given to someone else. They may think it's a joke, but actually we may have the last laugh.The New Zealand fire blight issue comes to mind and I would have thought better of certain sections in Western Australia. They obviously do not know about AQIS in Canberra dealing with the rest of the world, seeking disease free status for export of our potatoes to many countries—a disease free status that does not recognise that Bass Strait exists. Indeed, should they wish to export, they may wish they had never started this whole sorry episode from Western Australia.Tasmanian farmers are conscientious, they are straight down the line. Their product quality management is very good, and I notice Senator Denman from Tasmania is nodding. I feel overwhelmingly a great sense of regret that our farmers, especially our potato growers, have been treated in this shabby way. Indeed, it may well end up being a `hot potato' for those who seek to denigrate the Tasmanian potato industry.Senate adjourned at 7.10 p.m.Documents81818181The following government documents were tabled:Committee to Examine the Use of the Term `Drug Free'—Final recommendations on the use of the term `drug free' in relation to presentation and advertising of therapeutic goods, 28 August 1998.Commonwealth Electoral Act—1999 Redistribution into electoral divisions—South Australia—Report, together with maps showing proposed boundaries and names and compact disc containing suggestions to the Redistribution Committee, comments on suggestions, objections to the proposed redistribution, and comments on objections.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (Regional Council Election) Amendment Rules 1999 (No. 1).Defence Act—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determination No. 11 of 1999.Superannuation Act—Declarations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 168 and 169.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 196B—Instruments Nos 60-63 of 1999.8181The following document was 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—Department of Transport and Regional Services.Answers to Questions on Notice8182The following answers to questions were circulated:8182(Question No. 646)6468182O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:(1) In undertaking normal value investigations overseas, what specific steps, in addition to the examination of so-called audited accounts by the Australian Customs Service (ACS), are taken to check the veracity of an exporters claim.(2) Do such steps include reference to third parties and/or independent and credible trade and industry sources; if so, what specific examples of such references can the ACS provide; if not, why not.(3) Is the ACS aware of the corruption perception index (CPI) and its purpose to provide data on perceptions of corruption within countries by national surveys.(4) Are any allowances and/or adjustments made to quantify the reliability of audited accounts, which are supplied by exporters from countries which may suffer from `crony capitalism' and/or corruption.(5) Given that on the 1998 CPI Indonesia scored the sixth lowest of the 100 countries ranked and Australian paper producers contend it has a high level of corruption, how has the ACS made allowance for this in its most recent inquiries in that country; if no allowance has been made, why not.(6) Does the ACS have any rules or by-laws in place which govern the conduct of its officers who undertake overseas investigations.(7) Are ACS officers cautioned about the essential need for them to remain at arm's length from former colleagues who may represent the interests of foreign exporters from time to time as consultants and/or lobbyists.(8) Is it regarded as appropriate behaviour and acceptable practice for ACS officers to rely on the statements of any such former colleagues in such circumstances.(9) What checks and balances does the ACS have in place to make allowance for any undue influence of an overseas investigation report by such a consultant/lobbyist; if no checks and balances are in place, why not.(10) If checks are in place, how does the ACS explain the comments and words of appreciation for a former officer, now a consultant, which appear in the public file report of the officer who conducted the overseas inquiries in Indonesia for the coated papers dumping inquiry.(11) In its consideration of `normal values' in overseas country investigations, how does the ACS determine the question of `normalcy' when the country in question is markedly disturbed by economic, political or social crisis with resultant impact on local markets from lack of demand and excess manufacturing capacity.(12) Does the ACS make use of weighted averages in such circumstances.(13) If weighted averages are applied, how can such use adequately assess the impact of extreme conditions such as the following, which, in the case of Indonesia, are asserted to exist by Australian paper interests: (a) exchange rates, which are known to fluctuate by as much as 26 per cent in a single day and regularly move by more than 10 per cent in either way on a weekly basis; (b) extreme volatility in currency movements with the currency declining to a small percentage of its original value; (c) inflation rates with volatile movements as much as plus 8 per cent in a month, then negative; (d) interest rates as high as 50 per cent per annum; (e) collapse of the banking systems with 60 to 80 per cent of non-performing loans; (f) technical insolvency of many of the country's enterprises; and (g) artificial support of the country's currency by substantial foreign aid, including significant funding by the International Monetary Fund.(14) Do any, or all of the circumstances in (13) warrant the use of a surrogate country in order to establish `normal values'; if not, why not.8182Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:In addition to a company's audited accounts Customs relies upon verification against management accounts, source documents, ie invoices, payment advices, etc and other internal company records;(2) Where considered necessary Customs may resort to information provided by other sources as a means to check the veracity of the exporters claims or where the exporter declines to provide information or is unable to provide certain information. In the case of A4 copy paper pulp prices were compared against those to an unrelated third party and comments contained in a company research paper by a reputable broking firm.(3) Customs is aware of the Corruption Perception Index as a result of a submission by Australian Paper in the context of the revocation inquiry involving A4 copy paper from Indonesia.(4) No. Australia's legislation and World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement only recognise adjustments to prices where it affects price comparability. Further, Australia's legislation and the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement require the use of the exporter's records where they are kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the exporting country.(5) Customs has not made any allowance. Indonesia's ranking on the corruption perception index and Australian paper producers contentions as to the high level of corruption were not relevant as Customs was satisfied that such factors did not impact upon price comparability. No evidence of corruption affecting sales of A4 copy paper by Tjiwi Kimia was presented by the Australian industry.(6) There are no regulations specific to undertaking overseas investigations. Customs officers are bound by the APS Code of Conduct as detailed in the Public Service Regulations (Amendment—Interim Reforms) 1998. Regulation 5—The APS Values and Regulation 7—The APS Code of Conduct are particularly relevant.(7) As for (6).(8) In determination of normal values Customs officers do not rely upon statements by consultants, such determinations are based upon evidence.(9) The result of overseas investigations "the normal value report" is subject of scrutiny and assessment by other officers including senior officers to ensure that the recommendations are supported by the facts.(10) The report referred to contains the following statement, "Tjiwi Kimia, together with their consultant, cooperated fully with Customs and met most requests for copies of documents etc".All normal value reports contain a section on Cooperation and Confidentiality. The visiting officers are required to give an assessment of the level of cooperation provided by the exporter. The assessment may have implications for how the information collected is assessed and the level of any measures that may be imposed.(11) `Normalcy' is not a term used in the relevant legislation and therefore is not a consider ation in determining normal values. Where there is a situation in the market of the exporting country which renders domestic sales as unsuitable both Australia's legislation and the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement provide alternative methods being sales to third countries or costs plus profit.(12) Depending on the particular circumstances of an investigation weighted averages may be the most appropriate means to determine normal values.(13) The application of the weighted average method to determine a normal value will adequately assess the impact of the extreme economic factors referred to if those factors effect either domestic selling prices or cost.(14) The circumstances referred to in (13), per se, do not authorise recourse to surrogate information. The Minister could only contemplate the use of surrogate information if satisfied that sufficient information had not been provided or was not available to enable normal values to be determined by reference to either third country sales or costs plus profit.8183(Question No. 688)6888183Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What are the 70 binding requirements claimed by the Government to protect the environmental values of Kakadu National Park.(2) How are these requirements binding.(3) What is the enforcement mechanism for each one.8183Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) On the basis of my recommendations, which arose from the assessment of the 1997 Environmental Impact Statement on the Jabiluka project, the then Minister for Resources and Energy placed 75 conditions on the proponent, Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. After the subsequent assessment of the Jabiluka Mill Alternative, the Minister for Resources and Energy placed a further 17 conditions on the proponent. Again, these were based on my recommendations to him. Some of these recommendations relate solely to either the Ranger or Jabiluka mill alternative, while others are common to both. (Copies of the recommendations and the conditions have been forwarded to the honourable senator. Further copies are available from the Senate Table Office.) During the meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Paris in July, the Government also made the commitment that all of the recommendations made by the Supervising Scientist and the International Council of Scientific Unions on the scientific issues will be fully implemented and incorporated into the design of the Jabiluka mine project. These recommendations are presently being consolidated into additional conditions by officers of the Supervising Scientist and the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.(2) and (3) The Northern Territory Minister for Resource Development has undertaken to give effect to the requirements of the Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy in Authorisations issued under Northern Territory legislation (Uranium Mining (Environment Control) Act 1979). The Supervising Scientist will supervise and assess the effectiveness with which this legislation is applied, and also assists in the design and application of standards and practices through a formal agreement with the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy.These arrangements will be further improved by amending the legal regime governing enforcement of environmental conditions to strengthen the role of the Commonwealth government. In addition, if the company does not satisfy the requirements, the Commonwealth Minister for Resources may refuse to grant export permits for the uranium. The export permits are required under the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations.8184(Question No. 695)6958184Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to seek the views of traditional owners, the Northern Territory Government, and the Northern Land Council, on: (a) renomination of Kakadu National Park on cultural criteria and cultural landscape criteria; and (b) extending the boundary of the park.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; (b) when: and (c) what were those views.8184Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1—2) At the meeting of the World Heritage Bureau and Committee in July 1999, the Australian Government undertook to consider and consult with traditional owners on: . the possible nomination of the existing Kakadu National Park as a cultural landscape;. a larger World heritage cultural landscape nomination for land centred on the existing Kakadu National Park but extending considerably further north and south; and. the potential inclusion of the East Alligator River catchment in the Kakadu World Heritage Property.These matters were discussed at the NT World Heritage Ministerial Council meeting of July 1999. Further consultation by the Commonwealth has been scheduled with traditional owners, through the Kakadu National Park Board of Management and the Northern Land Council, on possible renomination of the Park as a cultural landscape. It was also agreed that the Northern Territory Government will "examine the possibility of Gurig, Nitmiluk and other areas outside Kakadu National Park being nominated for listing as a cultural landscape." The views of the traditional owners are to be ascertained.8184(Question No. 976)9768184Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:With reference to Kirribilli House:(1) What was the specific nature, location of the work within the grounds or buildings, date of request, date of completion and cost of each item, excluding security works, of: (a) major works; and (b) minor works, undertaken or committed to be undertaken on the residence, grounds and other buildings in the period 3 March 1996 to 10 May 1999.(2) What was the total cost of security works undertaken in the period 3 March 1996 to 10 May 1999.8184Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Most of the information sought has been provided in my answers to parliamentary question numbers 425, 664, 860, 861, 1766, 2705 and 474 published in the House of Representatives Hansard on 20 August 1996 (p 3293); 9 October 1996 (p 5065); 19 November 1996 (p 7096 and p 7097); 21 October 1997 (pp 9362-9363); 15 July 1998 (pp 6204-6206); and 12 May 1999 (pp 4340-4341) respectively. Further related information was provided by my department to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's Examination of Additional Estimates 1998-99, Additional Information Received Volume 1, Parlia ment, Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio (including ATSIC) (pp 118-121).The remaining details requested in the honourable senator's question are not readily available and much of the information requested cannot be identified separately. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the honourable senator's question would be a major task and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources and effort that would be involved.(2) $89,323.50 on security works and maintenance at Kirribilli House and $497,541.25 on combined perimeter security works and maintenance for Kirribilli House and Admiralty House. This includes work on a major physical security upgrade as recommended in a review commissioned by the Keating Government.8185(Question No. 977)9778185Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:With reference to the Lodge:(1) What was the specific nature, location of the work within the grounds or buildings, date of request, date of completion and cost of each item, excluding security works, of: (a) major works; and (b) minor works, undertaken or committed to be undertaken on the residence, grounds and other buildings in the period 3 March 1996 to 10 May 1999.(2) What was the total cost of security works undertaken in the period 3 March 1996 to 10 May 1999.8185Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Most of the information sought has been provided in my answers to parliamentary question numbers 425, 1766, 2705 and 474 published in the House of Representatives Hansard on 20 August 1996 (p 3293); 21 October 1997 (pp 9362-9363); 15 July 1998 (pp 6204-6206); and 12 May 1999 (pp 4340-4341) respectively. Further related information was provided by my department to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's Examination of Additional Estimates 1998-99, Additional Information Received Volume 1, Parliament, Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio (including ATSIC) (pp 118-121).The remaining details requested in the honourable senator's question are not readily available and much of the information requested cannot be identified separately. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the honourable senator's question would be a major task and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources and effort that would be involved.(2) $461,805.75 including security maintenance costs. This includes work on a major physical security upgrade as recommended in a review commissioned by the Keating Government.8185(Question No. 978)9788185Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:What was the total expenditure on renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings at: (a) Kirribilli House; and (b) the Lodge, during the period 1 March 1993 to 1 March 1996.8185Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) $102,827.69(b) $520,389.208185(Question No. 979)9798185Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings at: (a) Kirribilli House; and (b) the Lodge, during the period 1 March 1996 to 1 March 1999.(2) If work has been committed to be undertaken at either residence during the above period, but not yet paid, what is the expected total expenditure on that work.8185Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) $346,757.41(b) $208,952.51(2) Kirribilli House $116,506.00.The Lodge $6,472.36. 8186(Question No. 980)9808186Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Why was material not asked for in the question included in the answer provided to House of Representatives question no. 474 asked of the Prime Minister by the Member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio).(2) In the period of either the first or second Howard Governments, has there been an informal or formal instruction within the department that any answer to a parliamentary question regarding expenditure on the Prime Minister's official residences is to include comparative expenditure details regarding the period of office of the former Prime Minister; if so: (a) who issued the instruction: (b) when; (c) under whose authority; (d) who in the Prime Minister's office requested this practice be instituted; and (e) how was the instruction conveyed.8186Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) The additional information was included because it was relevant to the question. Comparative details have previously been provided to give a balanced perspective.8186(Question No. 1142)11428186Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the Minister (not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet) prior to 22 June 1999.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose or function of the dinner; (c) who were the attendees at each function or dinner; (d) what was the cost of the dinner or function; (e) how was the dinner paid for, by example, invoiced to the Department, credit card, reimbursements, et cetera; and (f) what was the venue.8186Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 5(2) Prior to 22 June 1999 the department paid for 5 dinners or functions hosted by the Minister where hospitality was extended. The details of these dinners or functions are provided in the table below:2(a) when2(b) purpose2(c) attendees2(d) cost2(e) how paid2(f) venue3/12/97Minister's Christmas `thank-you'Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, staffers and key departmental officers$729.00InvoiceParliament House, Canberra13/5/98Budget preparation `thank you'Minister, staffers and key departmental officers$736.00InvoiceParliament House, Canberra4/12/98Minister's Christmas `thank-you'Minister, staffers and key departmental officers$797.50InvoiceParliament House, Canberra10/5/99Budget preparation `thank-you'Minister, staffers and key departmental officers$725.00InvoiceParliament House, Canberra29/5/99FaCS Strategic Planning SeminarMinister, staffers and key departmental staff$913.15InvoiceHotel Kurrajong, Canberra8187(Question No. 1158)11588187Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:(1) Was National Jet Systems awarded a contract in 1994 to provide aerial surveillance capacity to Coastwatch for a 9-year period at a cost of $300 million.(2) What is the current annual cost of the contract.(3) What performance did the contract require of National Jet Systems in terms of providing: (a) total flying hours per annum; (b) equivalent surface area to be covered per annum; (c) average availability of aircraft per month; and (d) average systems malfunction per sortie.(4) Have any alterations to that contract been agreed to between 1994 and before June 1999; if so (a) what was the nature of the alteration; and (b) what change(s) in performance were specified.(5) With reference to recommendation 8 of the Coastal Surveillance Task Force; what will be the contract specifications for the two additional aircraft and instrument flight rules rated helicopter, in terms of (a) total flying hours per annum; (b) equivalent surface area to be covered per annum; (c) average availability of aircraft per month; and (d) average systems malfunction per sortie.8187Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) $31.121m.(3) (a) Based on the normal rates of effort specified in the Coastwatch contract, the contractor is required to deliver 14 295 hours of flying across its fleet of 13 aircraft.(b) There are no equivalent surface area coverage specifications in the contract. Whilst it is possible to derive a theoretical potential maximum area of coverage per annum, achievement of this figure is influenced by a range of factors, not least of which are the weather conditions impacting upon sensor performance and aircraft endurance.(c) The contract does not specify the average availability of aircraft per month. It does provide that the contractor is allowed three days per 100 hours of operation per aircraft for scheduled maintenance. Additionally, the contract stipulates a comprehensive performance based regime which uses a weighted matrix covering nine separate performance factors, one of which is the availability of aircraft, to derive a performance index. This index is used to calculate levels of payment to the contractor.(d) Systems malfunction per sortie is not a performance bench mark. See also remarks at 3(c) above relating to the performance reporting regime.(4) Yes. Contract variations that have applied since initial contract signature were formally signed into effect in February 1999.(a) The mix of Aircrew allocated to particular aircraft, and their geographic basing was adjusted to reflect operational requirements. Maximum continued Rate of Effort (ROE) was adjusted to reflect CASA Aircrew duty cycle regulations.(b) There was no change to performance requirements contained in the contract arising from the amendments signed into effect in February 1999.(5) (a) For the two additional Dash 8 aircraft, 4000 hours; for the helicopter, 500 hours.(b) See 3(b) above.(c) In addition to existing performance measurements (see 3(c) above) which ensure that the contracted number of flying hours are delivered, additional performance requirements have been introduced for individual aircraft types and mission-critical equipment and radar.(d) See 3(d) above.8187(Question No. 1159)11598187Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:(1) During the 1997-98 financial year was approval given to Coastwatch to replace its information technology (IT) systems on the grounds of obsolescence and year 2000 compliance; if so: (a) what were the functions approved for the new IT system; (b) what was the cost of the approved system; and; (c) when was the new system implemented.8187Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(a) The functions of the system are to provide surveillance management tools for flight planning, briefing, reporting and analysis.(b) Under the terms of the IT outsourcing agreement with EDS, the cost is measured in `developmental days': approximately 2000 person days have been approved for the project in addition to approximately $400,000 in hardware and supporting arrangements. The total cost is anticipated to be of the order of $2.5 million. (c) The system is currently under development with implementation of Phase 1 expected by October 1999, subject to any changes in scope flowing from the Coastal Surveillance Task Force.8188(Question No. 1160)11608188Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:With reference to recommendation 9 of the 18 recommendations presented to the Government by the Prime Minister's Coastal Surveillance Task Force:(1) What functions, additional to those approved for Coastwatch information technology in the 1997-98 financial year, are to be added by virtue of the creation of a national surveillance centre.(2) What is the estimated cost of the additional functions.(3) When will the additional functions become operational.8188Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The National Surveillance Centre (NSC) will provide improved internal capacity to analyse information received from agencies and enhanced electronic communications links, including with State agencies.(2) The total cost over four years will be in the order of $20 million.(3) Detailed specifications for the NSC are yet to be prepared and an operational date has not been set. However, as with all the Task Force's recommendations, it will be progressed as a matter of priority.8188(Question No. 1161)11618188Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:(1) In the 1997-98 financial year, did the Intelligence Branch of the Australian Customs Service receive funding to improve its ability to securely exchange information with other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies; if so: (a) what were the functions approved for the systems; (b) what was the cost of the approved systems; and (c) when did the new systems become operational.8188Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The funding was for use by the National Crime Authority, Customs and the Australian Federal Police as part of the National Illicit Drugs Strategy (NIDS) Information Technology initiative. The Intelligence Branch, within Customs, was appointed to administer the funding on behalf of the other agencies.(a) The functions were to:(i) Provide secure data interchange for intelligence and operational information between operational law enforcement agencies.(ii) Provide law enforcement agencies with secure access to a range of databases for analytical and investigative purposes.(b) $4.9m setup, $4.3 ongoing.(c) The current status is:(i) AFP, Customs and NCA have been connected to the Highly Protected (HP) environment of the Secure Gateway Environment (SGE).(ii) The implementation of a secure e-mail infrastructure between AFP, NCA, Customs and Austrac is under development. Implementation and completion of this functionality is expected in the financial year 99/00.(iii) ACS and NCA access to the AFP's PROMIS database commenced in mid January 1999.(iv) The development of a data upload facility from the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI) ACID database to the AFP PROMIS database is expected to be completed in the 99/00 financial year.8188(Question No. 1162)11628188Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:With reference to recommendation 9 of the 18 recommendations presented to the Government by the Prime Minister's Coastal Surveillance Task Force:(1) What use will be made by the national surveillance centre (NSC) of Coastwatch of the improved communications links for Intelligence Branch.(2) What additional communications functions are to be provided for the Coastwatch NSC; (b) what will be the cost of these systems; and (c) when will they become operational.8188Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The communications links to be established for the NSC will complement those being implemented for the Intelligence Branch. The NSC will have access to relevant material transmitted over the Intelligence Branch links.(2) (a) The National Surveillance Centre (NSC) will provide enhanced electronic communications links, including with State agencies and an internal capacity to analyse information received from agencies.(b) The cost of the supporting infrastructure for the NSC including computer and communications systems over four years will be of the order of $11.5 million.(c) Detailed specifications for the NSC are yet to be prepared and an operational date has not been set. However, as with all the Task Force's recommendations, it will be progressed as a matter of priority.8189(Question No. 1163)11638189Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:(1) What was the relationship of the intelligence function of the national surveillance centre (NSC) to the Intelligence Branch of Australian Customs Service, in particular, will functions of Intelligence Branch be transferred to the NSC; if so: (a) what functions and what numbers of staff will be transferred; (b) what additional staff is to be recruited for the analytical function of NSC; and (c) what is the estimated annual cost of these staff.8189Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Customs' Intelligence branch is responsible for strategic intelligence and intelligence liaison. The NSC will be responsible for tactical intelligence as it relates to the surveillance function. The Intelligence branch will continue to provide intelligence support to the NSC as required. Both Coastwatch and the Intelligence branch will be represented on the Information Oversight Committee. It is not intended that there be any transfer of staff or functions from Intelligence branch to Coastwatch.(a) N/A(b) Funding was approved for 11 positions for the NSC of which 9 will be for the analytical function(c) $1.3 million for the 11 positions mentioned in (b).8189(Question No. 1164)11648189Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:(1) Did Coastwatch conduct trials of satellite communications equipment during the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the result of these trials.(3) Did Coastwatch write an operational specification for this type of equipment; if so: (a) when was the specification completed; and (b) when did Coastwatch first propose purchasing equipment based on this specification.8189Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The trials demonstrated that satellite-based communications had potential to provide more robust communications capacity.(3) Based on the outcome of the trials, the Government has agreed to funding of approximately $0.6 per annum to upgrade the communications capability of all Coastwatch aircraft.8189(Question No. 1337)13378189Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:During the 1998-99 financial year was the department charged for defence aircraft taking off and landing at Australian airfields; if so, what was the total cost of such charges.8189Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Yes; $844,953.50.