1999-09-023914SENATE819101999-09-02The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Notices8191819109:30:008191Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—On behalf of Senator Coonan and the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting Senator Coonan shall withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 10 standing in her name for 11 sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 112. Madam President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning the regulations.Leave granted.The letters read as follows—Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) Statutory Rules 1999 No. 11212 August 1999The Hon David Kemp MPMinister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), Statutory Rules 1999 No. 112, which apply changes to the Public Service Regulations to officers in the Parliamentary Departments.The Explanatory Statement notes that subsection 9(6) of the Public Service Act 1922 provides that the Governor-General may make regulations in relation to officers and employees of the Parliament on the recommendation of the President and/or the Speaker. However, neither the Explanatory Statement, nor the Act itself, indicates whether the recommendation of the President or the Speaker is mandatory or directory. These Statutory Rules do not appear to indicate on their face that they have been made on the recommendation of either or both of the President or the Speaker.The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice as to whether either of the Presiding Offic ers has made any recommendation and whether subsection 9(6) is mandatory or directory.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairMinister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public ServiceSenator Helen Coonan25 AUG 1999ChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600Dear SenatorI Refer to your letter dated 12 August 1999 regarding the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1), Statutory Rules 1999 No. 112.You have noted that the Governor-General may make regulations in relation to officers and employees of the Parliament on the recommendation of the President and/or the Speaker, and you have asked whether such a recommendation was made in this case, and whether such a recommendation is mandatory or directory.In answer to your first question, both the President and the Speaker recommended the making of Statutory Rules No. 112 to the Governor-General. The attached Executive Council documents refer.In answer to your second question, I am advised that subsection 9(6) of the Public Service Act 1922 is mandatory in requiring a recommendation of the President and/or the Speaker. This is because of the empowering nature of the subsection, and the operation of the doctrine of the separation of powers and the privileges of the Parliament. I can provide you with fuller legal opinion on this issue if you wish.I trust this information assists the Committee's deliberations. Please contact me if you require any further information.Yours sincerelyDAVID KEMP8191Senator Ferguson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Australian aid workers, Mr Steve Pratt and Mr Peter Wallace, were released yesterday from the Sremska Mitrovica prison outside Belgrade, and (ii) the release was due to a grant of clemency by President Milosevic after intensive representations from the Australian Government, other governments and a number of official and non-government organisations, including Australians from the Serbian community;(b) celebrates the freeing of Mr Pratt and Mr Wallace and thanks the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, for his efforts in his capacity both as Governor-General and patron of CARE Australia, Mr Malcolm Fraser for his tireless work over the past 5 months, Ambassador Lamb, Australian Embassy staff and departmental officials who have worked on this case since the men were first detained on 31 March 1999;(c) expresses its gratitude to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan; former South African President, Mr Nelson Mandela; President Ahtisaari of Finland; Greek Foreign Minister Papandreou and the Greek Government; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs Sadako Ogata; United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary Robinson; Russian Envoy, Mr Victor Chernomyrdin; Reverend Jesse Jackson; former United States President, Mr Jimmy Carter; former United States Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger; and other members of the international community who have assisted the Australian Government on this case; and(c) believes the men's release removes a major impediment to Australia's relations with Yugoslavia and will be welcomed by the many Australians who have family ties in Serbia.Senator Forshaw to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) on 27 August 1999 the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, unveiled a memorial to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Great Irish Famine, (ii) the memorial, located at the Hyde Park Barracks in Sydney, recognises the courage and hardship of the many thousands of Irish people who made their way to Australia at the time of the Great Famine (1845 to 1848) to start a new life, and that they and their descendants have made a remarkable and lasting contribution to the Australian nation, (iii) the memorial particularly recognises the contribution of the 4 014 young, single Irish women, between the ages of 14 and 20, often referred to as the `Irish Orphan Girls', who left their homes and families and travelled to Australia and initially resided at the barracks, and (iv) the memorial, in the words of the Irish Ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Richard O'Brien, `is a powerful and emotive symbol of the Scattering of the Irish—the triumph of hope and courage over displacement and despair,' and will enable `Ireland and Australia to share together a memory from our common heritage, a powerful contemporary image of humanity and, indeed also, a challenging vision for the future'; and(b) congratulates the Great Irish Famine Commemoration Committee, its Chairman, Mr Tom Power, and all those involved in bringing this memorial to reality.Senator Mackay to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) condemns the Howard Government for its failure to support job creation in the Hunter region;(b) notes that: (i) in the past 2 years, more than 2 000 jobs have been lost in the coal mining industry in the upper Hunter, and when BHP closes its iron and steel working facilities in Newcastle on 30 September 1999, 3 000 jobs will have been lost in that industry, and (ii) the Howard Government has been aware of this situation since July 1997 and, despite that knowledge, has not supported job creation projects for displaced iron and steel workers and miners in the region; and(c) condemns the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Macdonald) and Senator Tierney for their insensitivity in the treatment of displaced Hunter region workers, where unemployment continues to be more than 50 per cent above the national average. Business81938193Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. today:No. 3— Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries and others) Bill 1999No. 10— Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999No. 4— Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999No. 5— Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999No. 6— War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999No. 7— Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998No. 8— Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999No. 9— Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999No. 11— Statute Stocktake Bill 1999Committees81938193819309:37:008193Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I seek leave to move a motion to grant an extension of time to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee to present a report.Leave not granted.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the committee on the roles and responsibilities of various bodies in the regulation, design and management of airspace and the decision to terminate the Class G airspace trial be extended to 25 November 1999. Notices81938193Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 301 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to nuclear weapons and year 2000 (Y2K) computer problems, postponed till 20 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 20 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 20 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 20 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 20 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 20 September 1999.Motion (by Senator Mark Bishop)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 299 standing in the names of Senators Bishop and Stott Despoja for today, relating to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 , be postponed till five sitting days after today.Committees819381938193Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to: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 unem ployment, and, if so, whether any contempts were committed by those unauthorised disclosures and dealings.Miscellaneous8194Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes, with grave concern: (i) the findings of a study into student poverty by Associate Professor Sue Turale and Dr Janice Newton of the University of Ballarat's School of Nursing, (ii) that these findings showed that student poverty is leading to increased drop-out rates, depression and poor nutrition, and that it is one of Australia's most misunderstood and ignored problems, (iii) that in the days before receipt of wages or income support, some students cannot afford food, medicine or transport, and (iv) that a number of students live well below the poverty line; and(b) urges the Government to: (i) address student poverty as a matter of vital importance, (ii) raise income support levels for students to sustainable, liveable levels, (iii) increase the means test threshold to ensure more students can access income support, and (iv) reduce the age of independence for accessing income support to 18 years of age, in line with legal and community standards of independence.Bills8194s2248194Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.819409:40:008194Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—How's the weather? Getting hotter, according to most of the world's scientists!The World Meteorological Organisation records 1998 as the warmest year worldwide since reliable measurements began in 1860. Seven of the 10 warmest years have been in the 1990s, and the mean surface temperature of the planet has risen by 0.7C in the last century. In Australia, 1998 was the hottest year since records began in 1910.El Nino, drought-causing scourge of Australia's farmers, has become more frequent and more severe since the mid-1970s. The El Nino that finished in 1995 was the longest in the last century, and perhaps the longest in the last 2000 years. Researchers conclude that the changed pattern is probably caused by global warming.Coral reefs are showing the signs of stress—widespread bleaching and death following rising sea temperatures. According to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, "The rapidity and extent of these projected changes, if realised, spells catastrophe for tropical marine ecosystems everywhere and suggests that unrestrained warming cannot occur without the complete loss of coral reefs on a global scale."1There is little doubt that human activity is causing the Earth to get hotter by increasing the amount of gases that trap heat in its atmosphere.We are tampering with the very systems that sustain life on Earth. In 1995, the thousands of scientists who make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that " the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate". In 1997, 1586 scientists from 63 countries, including 110 Nobel Laureates, pleaded for "scientists and citizens around the world to hold their leaders accountable for addressing the global warming threat".2Australia's performance has been disgraceful. Per capita, we are one of the top three emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Yet Environment Minister Robert Hill coerced the global community into allowing us to increase our greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent over 1990 levels, when most developed countries agreed to a 5 per cent decrease by 2008-2012. Even this meagre target looks beyond the Australian authorities' grasp at the moment, with emissions from burning fossil fuels having increased by 13 per cent by 1996.3Dozens of projects with major greenhouse implications are already on the drawing board around the country. Queensland for example plans coal-fired power stations at Milmerran and Kogan Creek, and a shale oil plant on the Great Barrier Reef. These three projects alone will add 4.5 per cent to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.Also in Queensland, clearing of native vegetation is continuing at outrageous rates of 300 000 to 400 000 hectares per annum, not only releasing greenhouse gases but destroying the capacity of plant and animal communities to resist the impacts of changing climate.In the nation's south, emissions caused by logging of old growth forests have not even been factored into the equation yet. About 70 per cent of all the carbon stored on the land is in forests and wetlands. Older trees store very much more carbon than younger trees. Logging old forests drastically depletes the pool of stored carbon, which can only be replenished over hundreds of years. Plantations do not make up for logged wild forests.It is time for Australia to get serious about tackling global warming. Governments do not rely on voluntary action to meet international trade commitments. Why should environmental commitments be treated differently?This bill will ensure that Australia meets its commitments under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol—- the international agreements which commit the global community to protect the Earth's climate for present and future generations.The bill puts the Australian Government's own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions into law, provides a mechanism for assessing individual proposals, and gives industry taskforces the opportunity to work out their own plans for meeting greenhouse targets. The Greenhouse Office steps in if they fail.This law will stir Australia into a brighter future, with sun power instead of fossil fuels, efficient energy use instead of waste, a halt to clearing native vegetation and protection of old growth forests. It will stimulate new industry, new investment and new jobs, especially in regional Australia.It will help us reap the benefits of the best solar energy research in the world by turning attention to renewable instead of fossil energy. For example, removing the subsidies for diesel generation in remote parts of Australia will open a 600 MW domestic market for solar and wind energy. That in turn is a stepping stone to a far larger export mark et in the myriad islands of Indonesia and the Philippines to our north.Efficient energy use saves money as well as the environment. Local government could halve greenhouse gas emissions and save $78 million a year in electricity costs, just by installing more efficient street lights around the country.4Householders could each save around $1000 in energy bills over a 15-year period, if they had access to a super-efficient fridge. That is no small saving because fridges and freezers consume about 20 per cent of the electricity used by the average Australian household. The electricity industry would benefit by reducing summer peak demand.In a hopeful sign, the Worldwatch Institute in Washington reports that 1998 was the first year when the world's carbon emissions fell, unprompted by a major economic downturn. The amount of carbon emitted to produce $1000 of income declined by 6.4 per cent—in other words, less fossil fuel was used but the economy still expanded.There is advantage in being first. Newcastle City Council in NSW grasped the opportunity early, has set a target of reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions by 68 per cent in 2001 compared with 1995, has already saved $600 000 in the process, and has created the Australian Municipal Energy Improvement Facility to train other councils.Australia as a whole can replicate the Newcastle achievement. We can set ourselves on a path of industry innovation, play a leading role in protecting the world's environment and, by passing this bill, be the first country in the world to implement the Climate Change Convention through legislation.1 Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove, 1999. Climate Change, Coral Bleaching and the Future of the World's Coral Reefs . Greenpeace. See www.greenpeace.organise for text2 World Scientists Call for Action at the Kyoto Climate Summit. See www.ucsusa.org for text.3 The Senate Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts is conducting an inquiry into Australia's Response to Global Warming, due to report in August 2000. Ph. 02 6277 3195 Fax 02 6277 5829 email erca.sen@aph.gov.au4 SEDA and Energy Efficiency Victoria 1999. Energy and Cost Savings Opportunity in Streetlighting .Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Miscellaneous8195Motion (by Senator Harris) agreed to: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.Business8196819609:41:008196Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Prior to seeking formality for government business notice of motion No. 1, I would like leave to amend it slightly in the following terms:paragraph (a): omit "7 p.m. and 8 p.m.";paragraph (b): omit "8 p.m.", substitute "3.45 p.m.";inset "and Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998" after "Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 in paragraph (b); andomit "bill" and insert "bills" in paragraph (d).Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I move:That on Thursday, 2 September 1999, if the question for the third reading of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 is not determined by 12.45 p.m.:(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 a.m. to adjournment;(b) the routine of business from 3.45 p.m. shall be consideration of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 and 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 bills has been determined. 09:42:008196O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—I understand that the effect of the amended motion which Senator Campbell has moved, and has been granted leave to amend in the way that he has outlined, would be that general business not proceed today, that there be a dinner break, that we proceed to complete the legislation on the Notice Paper —effectively the youth wages legislation and the RFA legislation—and that the Senate would rise upon the completion of those bills.The opposition supports the position advanced by the government; indeed, it was the opposition that proposed that this legislation be dealt with. We had, of course, as Senator Faulkner said yesterday, put before the government a proposal that we proceed to complete the RFA legislation by sitting until completion today, and we offered to give up general business to facilitate that occurring.We saw yesterday the remarkable events that took place in the House of Representatives when Minister Reith made the outrageous suggestion that the opposition had refused to permit the youth wages legislation, which is on the Notice Paper for today, from proceeding. Of course, that was absolutely untrue. The opposition had not been asked to facilitate that debate. Indeed, it was always within the control of the government, as everyone here knows, to put that legislation on the Notice Paper and, indeed, it was on the red last Monday. The only issue at that time was whether it was competent to be there, because it had not been through the selection of bills process that was to be completed at a meeting at 4.15 p.m. on Tuesday. The advice given at that time was that, of course, the government could list the bill and it could proceed pending that. So it sat on the Notice Paper, second in order behind the RFA.During the week we have seen the situation where there has been quite a deal of debate—not by the opposition, I might say, but particularly by Senator Brown and by various Democrat senators—to the RFA legislation, which took the debate through to yesterday afternoon. As I said, in the intervening time we had the outrageous suggestion by Mr Reith in the House of Representatives in which he misled the House of Representatives by saying that the opposition had put a barrier in the way of dealing with the youth wages legislation. So we now see that the government has put forward the youth wages legislation as a priority, and it has dropped the priority for the RFA legislation.One has to say that if this thing had been properly managed, and if the government did indeed have a priority for the youth wages legislation, it could have been listed at any time as a priority over the RFA legislation, but it was not. It was only after matters blew up yesterday, following those outrageous statements by Mr Reith, that the government decided to pull the RFA Bill and to seek to commence the second reading debate on the youth wages legislation. The opposition has never been worried about the debate coming on; in fact, we would be, as indicated by our support of the motion today, anxious for that debate to proceed, just as we are for the RFA legislation to follow the proper course. The RFA legislation has been on the Notice Paper for a great many months, and the government has been very tardy in pursuing that. The Forest Protection Society and others in the timber industry have been very critical of the government for leaving that matter sitting in abeyance and giving it a low priority.We have been saying, effectively, that we want that legislation dealt with. We have announced our position, and we will debate that legislation to completion today, just as we will debate to completion the youth wages legislation, which is before the chamber at the moment. But, one would have to say that the situation that we find ourselves in, and the fact that the Senate will obviously sit until the small hours of the morning, probably at the earliest to complete this legislation, is a circumstance which has been brought on not because the opposition has been reluctant to properly deal with the government's legislation but because the government has not managed its legislative program properly.If there is to be a late sitting, we support it. If there is to be a late sitting, we will be here. But one would have to say that the government should improve its approach to manage ment of legislation in this chamber and, if there is to be a priority for legislation, let us not make those decisions on the hop. Hopefully, the Prime Minister will speak to Mr Reith about the way in which he misled the Australian parliament and the Australian public about the processes in the Senate. He misled the Australian people by suggesting that the opposition has been putting a barrier in the way of dealing with this legislation. Frankly, Madam President, what Mr Reith said in the House of Representatives yesterday was absolutely untrue.09:48:008197Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I actually agree with most of what the Opposition Whip said in relation to what we are trying to do here today, but I disagree with him in relation to the interpretation of Mr Reith's comments in the House of Representatives.The opposition in the Senate has actually been working very constructively to try to reach a conclusion of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 —there is no doubt about that. Everyone knows what has been going on in the Senate for the last three weeks. Senator Brown—who, of course, has a strong interest in the Regional Forest Agreements Bill—has been ensuring that we have had, what one could only call, an extremely extensive committee deliberation on that bill. Some might call it a filibuster. I have seen a few in my time. I think we have now spent 21-plus hours on the bill. It has had an extraordinary length of time spent on it.Most senators in this place have an interest in the RFA Bill. It is an important piece of legislation. But Senator Brown has decided to pull on a stunt or do something about it. I think the debate has been incredibly repetitive. I do not think it is actually achieving anything. But a decision has been made by one senator that we will spend at least three or more of the handful of weeks we are sitting between now and Christmas on the one bill and therefore limit the time available to consider about 120 other pieces of legislation. But that is a decision that has been made, and there is very little—as the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, the Opposition Whip and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate know—that one can do about it.On Monday I approached other parties and said, `Could we please, after over two weeks of consideration of the RFA Bill, move to close that debate.' After some, I think, 15 or more hours at that stage we sought to guillotine that debate on Monday night or Tuesday so that we could get on to the youth wages bill. That was the proposition I put, and I did not get agreement. The Labor Party said, `No, we'll just see how we go.' They did say, `We'll cooperate to get the RFA finished; our speakers will not keep speaking,' and so forth, but I could not get agreement to close down that debate after two weeks.Then, when the opposition made a very generous offer of their time in relation to general business today and sitting late tonight to try to conclude the RFA, I said to the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, `If we are able to get the RFA'—I guess it was a hopeful hope—`before today, would we be able to get an extension of time to get youth wages done?' The answer came back: `No, this offer is in place to do the RFA only.' That is fair enough; no-one disagrees with that. But the reality of it is that, over here in the Senate, Senator Faulkner and Senator Carr have acted constructively to try to conclude the RFA Bill, yet in the other place yesterday the acting Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley—sorry, the Leader of the Opposition I guess he is; or temporary leader until they decide that he has had his time—made a fool of himself by getting up and saying, `Why don't you bring on the youth wages bill?' So he is over there saying, `Bring on the youth wages bill,' but over here we are having very constructive, genuine negotiations on getting the RFA completed. What Mr Reith said was actually quite accurate. You can put interpretations on it, but Mr Reith said that—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—But he lied. I will withdraw that, Madam President.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Mr Reith said that we had approached the opposition twice to get on with the youth wages bill and, on both occasions, the answer was no—and it was. What he said was absolutely accurate. I said to Senator Carr on Monday that we wanted a guillotine so we could get on with youth wages, and the answer was no. I went to him on Tuesday and said, `If we can get RFA done early, can we please get on with youth wages,' and the answer was no. So what Mr Reith said was absolutely accurate. But Senator Faulkner, I think, turned it into a huge thing.In relation to the RFA, Senator Faulkner and Senator Carr have acted in absolute good faith. They are assisting us in managing a difficult position where one senator has extended this debate over an enormous amount of time, and we are very thankful for the offer. We decided, after the provocation of Mr Beazley yesterday, that we would bring on youth wages and effectively ensure that we did get that bill. We thought it would be rude to ask to get RFA done as well. We are genuinely appreciative of the efforts of the opposition to see if we can accommodate the conclusion of the RFA Bill as well. We are genuinely appreciative.The objects of the government are to complete the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 today and to sit tonight until both that and the RFA Bill are completed. I also indicate that my motion would have the effect of not having a dinner break tonight, but it is the government's intention that there be one for at least one hour at an appropriate time—probably around seven o'clock. I do not think you necessarily need to put it into the motion. The government will indicate that it will seek to suspend for a dinner adjournment between seven o'clock and eight o'clock this evening.09:54:008198Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—The Manager of Government Business in the Senate has made a number of points which have highlighted the approach that the opposition has taken in terms of its cooperation and its intention to assist with consideration of the legislative package that the government has brought forward. He has also highlighted what he sees as Mr Reith's statements with regard to the attitude to the opposition. The attitude of the opposition was spelt out by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate yesterday. He made it perfectly clear that, as far as we are concerned, it is the responsibility of the government to bring legislation forward and it is the responsibility of senators to seriously consider government legislation, to put their view and to debate that legislation.There is always an interest in how long the debate should take. Senator Ian Campbell says that he approached me with regard to the issue of a guillotine for the RFA Bill. That is true; he did. He put to me in, I might say, a less than serious manner, his view in the context of what he has always put: that there ought to be a guillotine on all legislation; that there ought to be `time management'—I believe that is the trendy, sort of politically correct expression that is used; and that this government believes that there ought to be limited debate in the Senate as a matter of course. He also knows that my response to him was what the Labor Party's response has been on all occasions: that we do not support that approach to the management of important legislation.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I think Senator Robert Ray would have said something to you about being serious: `Don't come to us with your trendy terms; come to us with what you really mean.' Of course, you have now explained what you really meant was that there ought to be a curtailment of debate as a matter of course in the Senate, which is not a position that we support. We think that legislation should be debated on its merits, that amendments should be considered thoroughly and properly, and so we encourage a thorough examination of government legislation.Senator Brown has been criticised because, perhaps, he has been a bit too thorough. There are occasions when I think there are legitimate concerns about the length of time that is taken on a particular proposition before the Senate. It may be argued that spending the entire week on a particular bill may be a little excessive. Senator Brown is entitled to pursue his views on this matter, just as the rest of the Senate is entitled to pursue its views as to the way in which this legislation is processed.But at no time did this government come to us and say that they wanted to bring on the youth wages bill, which is what they should have done if they were serious about having the matter dealt with as a matter of priority. The priority was set by the government at all times. The government determined that it wanted to deal with the RFA Bill first. The government now says that it wants to change the priority, which is in direct response to the criticisms that were made by Senator Faulkner yesterday where he highlighted the hypocrisy and total dishonesty of Mr Reith in suggesting, as he did, first of all at a doorstop yesterday morning—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I think that is a statement that is not in order, and I would ask you to withdraw it.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I will withdraw anything that is not in order. What I would suggest to the Senate is that it is totally inappropriate and disingenuous for Mr Reith to announce at a doorstop yesterday morning that the Labor Party was, first of all, changing its position on junior wage rates and that we had gone on some sort of rampage to prevent the consideration of the government's legislation in this chamber. That was a position which was totally wrong. It was a position that was totally untrue.What we are seeing now from Mr Reith is a pattern of behaviour—a pattern of behaviour which goes to his credibility. What is apparent to us all is that Mr Reith is quite prepared to say and do anything if it suits his narrow political purposes. You cannot deal with a bloke who constantly seeks to misrepresent the facts. Of course, what we have here is a situation which has nothing really to do with the way in which we treat young people in this country, but has everything to do with Mr Reith's positioning for the leadership of the Liberal Party. His representation of these events has been totally disingenuous. As I say, the man is quite prepared to say or do anything.In the House of Representatives yesterday, Mr Reith said:Our understanding was that the Senate would deal with this matter this week and now we find that, to the convenience of the Labor Party, this issue is not going to be dealt with by the Senate.That is a statement which is totally untrue. As I say, the man is prepared to say or do anything to suit his narrow political purposes. What we have seen with this motion before the chamber is what was always the case: the government determines the political priority that it gives to the legislative program. The management of the program in this Senate is the government's responsibility. Our job is to see that matters are carefully considered and to ensure that there is proper accountability of the executive, which we do effectively and will continue to do effectively.The motion before the Senate is one that we support. We do acknowledge there is a need to have a break to allow people, particularly staff, to at least meet minimum conditions within this chamber. However, we do say that it is important for us to consider both pieces of legislation, and we are prepared to support the government in its move to see that both these pieces of legislation are dealt with today. I trust that the Senate as a whole agrees with this, and I trust that Mr Reith will desist from his gross misrepresentations, his untruths, his distortions and his crass political manoeuvres which, as I say, are aimed more at his colleagues within the Liberal Party than at informing the Australian public about the truth of the way in which this parliament actually functions.10:01:008200Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—On behalf of the Australian Democrats and in my capacity as acting whip at the moment, I would like to speak to the motion mainly, rather than to the fairly extraneous political debate that has been happening instead of addressing the motion over the last 20 minutes or so. I will also briefly respond to some of the comments that have been made in a broader sense. Firstly, I would say that personally it would not surprise me at all that Mr Reith and Mr Beazley have absolutely no idea of what is happening in the Senate, what the processes of the Senate are or how the Senate works. I would expect that their interest and understanding of it is fairly limited, and I imagine that is behind the statements that both have been making over the last couple of days—more highlighting their complete lack of understanding of the Senate's process, which probably goes hand in hand with their lack of understanding of or interest in the Senate's important parliamentary role as well.Be that as it may, clearly it is always in the government's gift or power to order the priority of government legislation in this chamber, and that is a fundamental bottom line in relation to all of the backwardsing and forwardsing on that issue. That fact probably emphasises that the government has chosen to give priority to the youth employment bill, but it is important to emphasise what does not seem to have been noted in the debate around this issue—that is, it is obviously something the government and the opposition have given political priority to.There is absolutely no legislative priority on this one. This is an issue that actually does not need to be debated or passed until next year. The youth wages exemption that the bill relates to runs out, I think, in June or July next year, so there is no need for legislation to be passed prior to that. There is certainly no need in any urgent legislative sense for it to be passed at all this year. It is clearly a political priority—and that is fine; political priorities come into being—but it is important to highlight that that is exactly what it is. The Senate's time in terms of the very crowded legislative agenda that we always have to deal with is being utilised to deal with the political priorities of both the government and the opposition in relation to the youth wages legislation. There is absolutely no priority for this legislation in a true legislative sense. We could deal with it next year. The same outcome would happen and there would be no problem in doing so.Nonetheless, the approach that the government has decided to take—and obviously it suits the opposition's political aims as well—is to have the bill out of the way as quickly as possible. The political pain and bleeding that they are doing internally and the quite justified outrage and abuse that they are getting from sections of the community and the trade union movement over this particular bill and their support of it is something that I am sure they would like to end as soon as possible, so again I am not surprised that they are supporting it being given the political priority that it is being given. In a political sense, from their position, I do not blame them for doing that.In terms of the process in relation to this motion—as with any agreement determined between the government and the opposition that in effect enables legislation to get through to meet political priorities—I could take the usual cheap political shots and talk about shabby backroom deals and shonky agreements to try and push things through and all that sort of stuff, but I will not do that because I think that those sorts of arguments are fairly hollow. By virtue of not doing that, I hope that I will not have to listen to them again from the opposition because they seem to like to employ that sort of feeble rhetoric when other parties reach agreement that they are not supportive of.I can understand that part of getting legislation through this place and part of getting agreement on things is reaching agreement across party lines. That has happened here and that is fine; that is the way to make things happen. Unless I was completely not listening last night in the whips meeting, which I suppose is possible, I did think last night we were talking solely about dealing with youth employment today and not RFAs. When the government initially put forward this motion in its first incarnation, it was to deal with RFAs all day today for as long as it took. At the whips' meeting last night my understanding—unless I was completely off track—was that, instead of dealing with RFAs, we would deal with youth employment. Now we get in here this morning and find we are actually dealing with youth employment and RFAs. I think that is a bit excessive.Again not going through the shabby backroom deal cheap rhetoric, but in a spirit of cooperation on this, whilst the Democrats do not necessarily support and would prefer to see the RFA Bill not pushed through, we do think that it would be better, ideally, to have been made aware of this in advance rather than find out about it on the floor of the chamber. I realise things can change quickly, but I just make the point that it is a change from what my understanding was from the whips meeting last night, and the first we were aware of it was when it was moved on the floor of the chamber this morning. I just make that point for what it is worth.In recent times, the Democrats have supported—it is no secret and we don't back away from it—guillotines on legislation which we have seen as a legislative or political priority. Ones that we do not believe should be guillotined, we do not support. For that reason, we certainly have refused to support any countenance of a guillotine on the RFA legislation. Our views on that legislation are quite well known. In effect, whilst this is not a guillotine, it is a guillotine by exhaustion, if you like. For that reason, and particularly given that it is now been put on top of the youth employment bill, it is not something that the Democrats are able to support.We think it is appropriate to put that on the record, especially given that we are now dealing with the youth employment legislation as well. It is something that the Democrats will not be attempting to filibuster in any way. It is an important issue on which we have a number of amendments, particularly given the very valuable contribution which the ALP made to the youth wages debate three years ago and which we have taken on board. We want to ensure that those arguments get a full hearing today. Our amendments relate to some of those important principles that the Labor Party stood for at least three years ago—in fact, until a couple of weeks ago. Dealing with the RFA legislation as well will make it a fairly long night.While we certainly will not filibuster on youth wages, we think it is an issue which needs to be given a proper airing so that some of the furphies surrounding it are teased out and exposed. There is a gradual sinking realisation that we are probably in for a long night, but that is the way it goes. Obviously the ALP and the government are supporting both of these bills. That being the case, I may as well stop talking so that we can get on with it.10:10:008202Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—Firstly, I want to thank the Labor Party for being direct with me about what has been happening. Senator Faulkner indicated to me that there had been a move to guillotine the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . I gave him a commitment that, as I saw it, that legislation could be dealt with by this morning and certainly, by the use of Labor's time, this afternoon. There are a couple of very important clauses of that bill which are yet to be dealt with. Whenever it comes before this chamber, I will be dealing with those in the way I would have in the ordinary course of events. At no time has the government spoken to me about truncating or changing the debate on that matter. I want to thank the Labor Party for at least being direct about the moves that were afoot. It does help to have good and efficient running of this place if everybody is direct with everybody else.You will be aware, Madam President, that I have been making a big contribution to the regional forest agreements legislation, but that is my parliamentary life. I would not be in this place if it were not for that matter—and many others—and the impact it has on my home state, Tasmania. It would be derelict for me to simply skip through and take a light-hearted attitude to it as if it does not matter. It does matter. Senator Ian Campbell used the words `stunt' and `filibuster'. I have to see that for what it is, ignore it and keep going as I would ordinarily. Even from that point of view, what is the worst—creating a stunt or creating a million stumps, as the Prime Minister would do through his regional forest agreement process?The other important thing to recognise is that whenever it comes before this place I will debate the regional forest agreements legislation just as I would normally—no longer, no shorter, no different—because it is so important to me. I foreshadow that I will move to amend this motion, which the Senate has given leave to be debated today, by deleting the words `and Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 ' because I do not believe that it should be shoved late into the night on Thursday. I believe it should be debated in the ordinary course of events.Senator Bartlett has just spoken about keeping the youth wages legislation until when next we come back. The same does really apply with the regional forest agreements legislation and we do not need to be using this pincer movement to put pressure on so that both pieces of legislation go through. If that is how the government wants to work, then so be it.I ask the Senate, particularly the Labor Party, to consider very seriously the mooted amendment that I will be moving. It will bring incredible pressure on me later in the day—and, I am sure, on the Democrats—when we want to debate the regional forest agreements legislation. We are up to meeting that pressure and, as I said, dealing with the legislation as we would ordinarily. I wonder whether it is worth discomforting everybody in this way, simply to meet a government schedule which has come out of another place which is not affected by the pressure put on the Senate. Madam President, I seek leave to move an amendment.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I move:Paragraph (b), omit "and the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 ". Question put: That the amendment (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.10:19:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Lees, M. H. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.39Alston, R. K. R. 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. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Heffernan, W. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A.Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Notices82038203Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Quirke)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 296 standing in the name of Senator Quirke for today, relating to an extension of time for the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy to report, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees820382038203 Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Gibson) agreed to: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 1999.8203Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Gibson) agreed to: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.8203820310:23:008203Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I present the seventh report of the Publications Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.8203820310:24:008203Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Tierney, I present report No. 2 of 1999 of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on the scrutiny of annual reports.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills8203r829Billsr830Billsr828820310:24:008203Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present further additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee in response to its inquiry into the Social Security Administration Bill 1999 and two associated bills.Bills8203r904Billsr9038203Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Alston) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.820410:24:008204Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I table a correction to the explanatory memorandum in relation to the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—APPROPRIATION (SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES) BILL (No. 1) 1999In this bill the parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet the expenses of the book industry assistance plan and augment funding for the supported accommodation assistance program provided in the 1999-2000 Budget.Book industry assistance plan$60 million is provided in this bill for each of the four years 2000-01 to 2003-04. The book industry assistance plan has three main objectives: (1) to provide financial assistance to those producing books in Australia, (2) to provide financial assistance to Australian creators of books and (3) to provide financial assistance to retail sellers of textbooks in Australia. It may also have additional objectives that include. the provision of financial assistance to libraries of Australian primary schools to acquire Australian books,. the collection, compilation and dissemination of statistical information about book production and book sales in Australia,. the promotion of the intrinsic value of books and reading,. the promotion of literacy,. the promotion of the books of Australian authors,. the training of book producers,. support for innovation and infrastructure development in book production, and. support for other ancillary or incidental objectives.Supported accommodation assistance program An additional $15 million is provided for each of the four years 2000-01 to 2003-04 to deliver assistance to homeless people who are disadvantaged, in crisis and/or on low incomes.The funding proposed in this bill meets these two commitments of the Government to the Australian Democrats in the context of our tax reform package.APPROPRIATION (SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES) BILL (No. 2) 1999In this bill the parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet the expenses of seven environment initiatives. These are:. supporting conversions to compressed natural gas or liquid petroleum gas for commercial vehicles and buses that have a gross vehicle mass equal to or greater than 3.5 tonnes, trains and ferries;. developing a product stewardship system for the refuse and recycling of waste oil;. supporting the utilisation of photovoltaic systems on residential buildings and community-use buildings;supporting the development and commercialisation of renewable energy;. supporting the use of renewable energy for remote power generation;. supporting the development and implementation of in-service emissions testing capabilities for diesel and petrol vehicles, where the diesel emissions testing is in connection with the making and/or implementation of a Diesel National Environment Protection Measure; and finally. a greenhouse gas abatement program.The total amounts to be appropriated are:. $214 million for 2000-2001. $222 million for 2001-2002. $227 million for 2002-2003. $233 million for 2003-2004The funding proposed in this bill meets these environment commitments of the Government to the Australian Democrats in the context of our tax reform package.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the summer sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills8205r8988205Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Alston) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.820510:26:008205Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—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—The issue of employees losing their accrued entitlements when a company is insolvent has touched a chord with the Australian people. This Government is determined to deal with the issue sympathetically. But we need to do it in a way that recognises the risk to jobs of imposing new costs on business. It is a complex, national issue with both economic and social dimensions. The most recent example of large-scale insolvency leading to loss of entitlements was at the Oakdale Colliery, south west of Sydney, but there have been others in the black coal and other industries.The Government recognises the impact these situations can have on the employees and their families, as well as the local community. Fairly, the Australian people have an expectation that employees will not be deprived of their lawful entitlements.I am pleased to inform the Senate that the Coalition Government is taking action to resolve the Oakdale situation and other instances of loss of entitlements, where the employees concerned are covered by the black coal industry's long service leave fund, that may occur over the course of this year. We are also taking steps to address the national issue.The Government has decided that the full entitlements owing to the former employees at the Oakdale Colliery will be paid. We are also aware of the similar circumstances in which the former employees at the Merrywood coal mine in Tasmania find themselves. It is expected that soon after the passage of this bill the workers would be paid moneys from the fund, subject to the verification of individual claims. This is a good outcome for the Oakdale and Merrywood employees and their families.Unfortunately we cannot go back and rectify all the mistakes of the past. For the future, however, the Government has decided that it will establish an employees' entitlement scheme to deal with these issues. Reflecting work initiated by this Government over the past year, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has now released a discussion paper canvassing various options for providing a safety net for employee entitlements across all industries.Following the endorsement of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, the Government announced its intention to amend the Corporations Law to stop directors from entering into arrangements or transactions that avoid payment of employee entitlements and to strengthen the existing prohibitions against insolvent trading. Further consideration is being given to the additional option of making a company, within a group, pay outstanding employee entitlements of another company in that same group.These are complex matters. In moving now towards the development of a national scheme, many factors need to be considered, including the interests of employers, employees and the community more generally. We look forward to talking to insurers, State Governments, employers and unions about our options. Following its consideration of responses to the discussion paper, the Government is confident that an equitable, comprehensive and practical package of measures will be established. For the first time in Australia, a Government will have acted to put in place a national scheme. The Australian Labor Party—the so-called representatives of the workers—had thirteen years and did not actually confront the issue. Many thousands of workers have suffered through that inaction.To ensure that the former employees at Oakdale, Merrywood and any other similar cases in the black coal industry this year, receive their full entitlements, this bill amends the legislation governing the coal industry fund.The long title and the object of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992 (the Funding Act) will be amended by this bill to reflect the fact that the Oakdale employees and others will be receiving moneys from the fund in respect of their outstanding leave and redundancy entitlements beyond the Funding Act's original intention. The bill will also amend the Funding Act to enable and require money in the fund to be used to make certain payments in respect of entitlements to the former Oakdale and other mines' employees. The bill sets out the conditions under which the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation can make the payments to those black coal employees who are covered by the fund. These payments will be reduced by the amount of money made available to the former employees through the liquidation of the relevant companies.Section 7 of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 1992 specifies the purpose of the levy imposed by that act. Consistent with the current practice in relation to legislation imposing levies, this provision will be repealed by the bill.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till a later hour this day.Bills8206Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the following bills without amendment: Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999 Bills8206r8658206Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.10:27:008206Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I make these remarks in continuation of my speech during the second reading debate yesterday. To pick up where I left off, the shoppies union, in its submission to the Industrial Relations Commission, had reflected all the evidence that I had outlined earlier. That is the same submission that the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, described as a sensible position, so sensible that he advocated it as recently as March 1999 in the parliament. Now that the Leader of the Opposition has unwisely allowed himself to be dubbed `the great liberator', he faces the risk of his young voters demanding that he live up to his name and liberate them from the tyranny of youth wages where they shouldn't be applied. I want to show that junior rates are not a proven requirement to protect young workers. If they were, why has youth employment fallen in real terms over the last two decades? If they were, why have more young jobs disappeared from the metal trades than from the retail trade even though the junior rates in metals are a lot lower than in retail? Why does youth employment in the building trade continue to grow strongly, despite the absence of junior rates? Let us remember that the vast bulk of young workers in Australia are not employed on junior rates; 31 per cent are on adult rates, 40 per cent are on training rates, and only 29 per cent are on junior rates. And whilst we are at it, let us also remember that the vast bulk of young workers fall under state, and not federal, legislation.The Labor Party could have easily used the opportunity to change federal legislation to lead policy changes in just one of the six jurisdictions in which we have junior rates awards. The economics of this issue is populist, pro-employer and discriminatory bunkum. The Labor Party, liberated from the need to support the good policy which it should have supported on this, has fallen for that bunkum—hook, line and sinker.According to shadow minister Arch Bevis, the government has accepted every one of the Labor amendments. But I know that numerous Labor members of the House of Representatives and numerous Labor senators would have liked the ACTU position accepted. Where is the amendment to deny youth rates for ages above 18 years? Let me quote what the shadow minister Arch Bevis said on 10 February 1999 in what seems an eminently sensible set of remarks:At the age of 18 you can decide whether you want this government at all, you can vote for them, you can be held criminally liable and sentenced in court as an adult. Obviously you can participate in all legal activities, you can consume alcohol, you can freely join the military, you can wear the Australian military uniform and go overseas and die for your country but, as far as this government is concerned, when it comes to your civilian life you are still a junior and should be paid as a junior. And how is that defensible? How is . . . anyone on the govern ment benches going to defend the proposition that says that as an 18-year-old or 19-year-old or 20-year-old you can die for your country and you can vote to determine the policies of your nation but the day you go and get yourself a job we think you are a junior and you are not worth full rates of pay. It does not matter what the job is . . . it does not matter what the productivity is, you will be paid according to the date of your birth, if John Howard and Peter Reith have their way. There is no equity in that.Mr Bevis went on:It is not too hard to work out an alternative system . . . We make judgments every day in determining conditions of employment—not based on age but based on skill, competency and things like that. Is there some magical barrier to applying skill and competency for someone who is under 21? What absolute nonsense.He then went on:We will oppose this legislation. It is unfair and it is intimidating.I must say I find him a very professional shadow minister to deal with, and in that instance I cannot help but agree with his sentiments. I now turn to the Leader of the Opposition, who in March 1999 when he was talking about the government's junior rates policy which would turn adults into juniors said: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.That is a ringing endorsement for putting a reasonable ceiling on youth rates. I know that a number of Labor senators continue to support that position, and they are put into an impossible situation of having to support a set of amendments that they fundamentally disagree with. That quote was from the Leader of the Opposition before he was liberated. This is a leader who we know on this issue had the government over a barrel and let them go, who had all the aces and threw his hand in.To some in the Labor Party—not to all, but to some—18-year-olds are just kids and are the cannon fodder in this issue. But for what? Where is the social and political benefit of your achievement? Where is the empirical evidence that says that the amendments that you have negotiated will have a positive social and economic outcome for this country? The coalition have been consistent throughout in their policy. But the Labor Party's policy has been turned on its head, and it is that inconsistency which deserves to be exposed.We now share with the Netherlands the distinction of being the only country in the world that treats 22-year-olds as kids on payday. If you are an honest believer in youth rates, how on earth can you believe that a 22-year-old is a kid? You have to believe in some sort of a ceiling. Canada, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Poland and Spain have all abolished junior rates. France, Luxembourg, Turkey, Ireland, Korea, Portugal and the Czech Republic allow junior rates only below the age of 18. Our near neighbour New Zealand—which many people admire—has a ceiling of 19. Why is it that in this country we think it is acceptable to have 22 as an age of discrimination? So, of 20 OECD countries with minimum wages, seven have no junior rates, seven define it as less than 18 years, four define it as less than 20 years and only two define it as over 21 years.From what I have heard of the remarks of the Hon. Bob McMullan today on these issues, he seems to be trying to mislead the general public about the difficulties in applying such ceilings in Australia. In reality, they could be introduced with ease and would be very sensible. The shoppies union—this is your union, Senator Collins—said in its submission to the Industrial Relations Commission:The retention of junior rates for workers aged below 21 years is illogical in a society which, for all other purposes, regards a person as an adult when they reach 18 years of age. Moreover this is particularly so when the junior rates system has not demonstrable logic or common approach to it.I agree with the honourable Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, on this—it was a sensible statement by the shoppies union.Now the shoppies are furious with the ALP. Why? Because their amendments actually make it harder, not easier, for the shoppies union to get junior rates for workers over the age of 18 years abolished from their awards. That is for several reasons. First, Labor's amendments place an onus—a heavy onus—on the applicant to prove their case. Second, that onus will be measured against the criteria of the need to protect the competitive position of young people in the labour market; the need to promote youth employment, youth skills and community standards; and the need to assist in reducing youth unemployment. So, to ensure that young adults are paid at adult rates, the shoppies union have to prove that their application will achieve all of those things. Age discrimination—that fundamental principle that Labor supported ending—does not come into it. That has been precluded as a consideration, because junior rates are deemed not to be discriminatory. So Labor is saying that it is all right to discriminate against somebody who is 22 years of age.Third, Labor adds into those criteria `community standards'. What does that mean? Does that mean that awards have to reflect the prejudiced community standard that is out there that young people are lazy, hopeless and should be paid less? It is open to an employer to argue that that is the community standard. Fourth, Labor has failed to define, to attempt to define or to give the IRC an opportunity to define what a junior rate is. There is no definition—no age limit, no guidelines, nothing.We are sympathetic with the shoppies union. The Labor amendments have made a tough government anti-worker bill—we think it is an anti-worker bill—even tougher. It will be almost impossible for the shoppies union to win an adult rate for 18-year-olds under these amendments.I cannot believe that these very capable senators—Labor Senators Collins, Hogg, Campbell and Bishop—have moved so far from the workers they used to represent that they could possibly put their names to these amendments. Because of their past positions and statements I can only conclude that their hearts are not in it; they have been told by their caucus masters to do the unconscionable. Nothing can disguise the fact that this is a sell-out. It is appalling.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—I raise a point of order on your behalf, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think I have to ask the senator to withdraw his statement that you are a member of the SDA.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator George Campbell)—There is no point of order.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I know exactly what Senator Campbell is a member of. I quoted him earlier in the speech, if you had followed, Senator Quirke. I had suspected Labor might do a deal on junior rates and I would have had no objection at all to a sensible one, but I never suspected that you would go lower than the ACTU's bottom line compromise of an 18 years ceiling as the maximum. I had hoped that the Leader of the Opposition would deliver what he said he would but, in that, the union movement, Australia's 200,000 young workers and I were to be disappointed. (Time expired)10:38:008208Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise very briefly to set a few facts straight with respect to this debate. It has been very interesting listening to Senator Murray and his colleagues. Of course, he tried to slur the current chair by including him as a member of the SDA. Senator Allison was quite erroneous—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I raise a point of order on inaccuracy, Mr Acting Deputy President. On the Hansard record I clearly quoted you in your former capacity and your views on youth rates. I merely included you in that list of Labor senators as one of those who had expressed a very clear position on the issue of youth rates. And by the way, I compliment you for both your speech and your previous position.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Murray, but there is no point of order.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Turning to what Senator Allison had to say in this debate, Senator Allison tried to concoct the opinion around her that there were former officials of the SDA in this place. I just want to point out for the benefit of the Democrats that there are three current serving officials of the SDA in this chamber, as those who are bright enough well know. They are: the President of the Tasmanian branch, Senator Brian Harradine; the President of the Queensland branch, me; and the President of the Western Australian branch, Senator Bishop. So there are three officials of the SDA—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Paid or unpaid?7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Unpaid officials of the SDA in this place.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Doing a John Morris.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—No. Senator Alston, I take your interjection. No, definitely not that, but definitely so that people understand who is whom and where they come from. There are also three people in this chamber who are on the national council of the SDA: Senator Brian Harradine, Senator Mark Bishop and me. I point that out because that was an erroneous statement by Senator Allison in the first place. Then we have had the litany of speakers from the Democrats coming in here and throwing rocks. They are the last people in the world who should throw rocks. As a matter of fact, if you look at them, not even Benji and Lucy would roll over as often as the Democrats do. Senator Murray knows exactly who Benji is and those who listened to Senator Greig's first speech yesterday know who Lucy is.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—They don't throw rocks; they throw marshmallows.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I will take that interjection too.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Was that interjection from the chair? I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I call on the chair to withdraw his interjection.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I make the point, Senator Murray, that I did not interject.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—What we have here is people who come into this chamber and feign conscience, feign equity and feign justice. That is what they come in with as their mantra. And they desert their mantra when it suits them. Look at when they have rolled over in recent times.Senator Murray interjecting—7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—They rolled over on the first wave—and you did it very well, Senator Murray. They rolled over on the GST and did it very well, Senator Murray. You rolled over on the environment, Senator Murray, rolled over on the preamble and, from what we hear, you are rolling over on the second wave as well. You have form on the board, Senator Murray. You are well known in this place for rolling over, being scratched on the tummy by the government and enjoying it. What we have in the Democrats is people who have no principle, who feign equity and justice for their own political ends. I am here today to point out to you people that, before you come into this place and start to throw rocks, you should look at your own behaviour.10:42:008209Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I think Senator Hogg was a bit hard on Senator Murray. We are all pretty fond of Senator Murray around here. We all know that Senator Murray is basically a decent chap who has a number of problems in life, not the least of which is his own caucus. At the end of the day, Senator Murray came in here and put on a reasonably straight face on this. Let us be straight up and down about this debate. This is the Democrats attempting to get even for all of the stuff they have had to wear this year. Now that you have made it clear, Mr Acting Deputy President Hogg, that they did not do their homework—or indeed that Senator Allison did not do her homework about the present positions of people—I think it would be fair to say that the Democrats must have been smarting. They must have been smarting about all of the deals they have done, all the times they rolled over—I think they were the words you used—for the government. Indeed I was somewhat surprised at the Democrats and I am not normally a person who gets surprised very often. Most times I am a reasonably cynical person about political motivation. However, even I was shocked at the Democrats' behaviour during this year.In fact, I think the GST debate was probably the one which shocked me the most, because they did a deal with the government which they got nothing out of. I want to single out Senator Allison for this, because I commented in a speech earlier this year that basically the Democrats at the end of these benches were a bunch of fairly odd people with some very odd views. I now regret that because, in fact, what the Democrats got out of it was a pea and thimble trick with diesel fuel. I do not have any great problem with that, but it seems to me that somebody went around to the Democrats and told them that diesel was bad. I do not know who it was who told them that; I am not sure whether one of their few members even went and told them that diesel was bad. But somebody told them that diesel was bad, so that became the big issue of the day—that is, how to make sure that farmers, miners and a few other groups could not get cheaper diesel.We did not support any part of the GST package, so any concessions or whatever they got out of it are up to them, but I made the comment in here yesterday that what they got out of selling out the taxpayers of this country was the legislative equivalent of 20 Rothmans. I was wrong; I was very wrong. I do not know whether Rothmans come in 10-packs these days, but if they do, that is all these people got out of it. They rolled over for nothing. In terms of the first wave of industrial reforms, it is the same story.I would have thought the environment was something that these people would have stood firm on. After all, we come in here and listen to them one after another get up and tell us, `We can't have Jabiluka, we can't have this and we can't have that.' There are many senators who agree with them. We listen to Senator Allison come in here day in and day out asking ministers questions on this environmental issue and on the other. Now they are upset about the RFAs. I suspect that one of the things they are upset about is that they have still not been able to do a deal with the government on RFAs. But I do not think it will take very long. We are going to be here pretty late tonight dealing with the RFA Bill; that is all right, we will get it over and done with. It will save the Democrats doing a deal next week. That is the way the whole thing goes. But on the environment, I would have thought that they would have held the line. Did they? They couldn't get into bed quick enough with this government. Anyone would think they were ladies of the night swinging their handbags down in Oxford Street, or wherever it is in Sydney.1X4WESTSenator West—Not Oxford Street!ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Sorry, I withdraw that; I just realised what I said. One of the streets down there—I am not sure where it is—where the ladies of the night swing their handbags.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—And the gentlemen.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I have no knowledge of that, but I must say that these people jumped into bed so quickly with the government that even Mr Howard and his friends were shocked. What did we get yesterday from a few of them? Senator Allison was probably the most aggressive of all the senators. We had Senator Murray, who is a good-hearted fellow, who tried to put a reasonable face on kicking the ALP. That is what he wanted to do—kick the shoppies and, sadly, kick a number of officials of the shoppies union here. But Senator Murray does not kick too hard. He does it fairly softly and he apologises afterwards, so we are quite fond of Senator Murray for that.I also want to declare an interest: I am a member of the shoppies union myself. And before the minister interjects, no, I have never received a dollar from them. I just happily pay my membership to one of the best, if not the best, unions in the country. If anyone wants to get a membership form they can do so. Senator Allison said, and I read from the Hansard: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.It is a bit rich for Senator Allison to be talking about policy free areas. What is the Democrat policy? The Democrat policy is to go out to the community, tell them impossible things that are absolutely unrealisable in a real world, make people feel good about them and then go around to the Prime Minister's suite and sell them out. That is their form. And that is the form they have adopted here over recent years.At the end of the day I suspect they are very upset because this was shaping up as something they could bottle up in some sort of deal on the second wave of industrial reforms. I will make the prediction here that the Democrats will probably sup tea at the Prime Minister's table again on the second wave. I could be wrong; I do not want to pre-empt that debate. They may say, `We wouldn't even consider it.' But I suspect that is exactly what they are going to get up to. Somehow or another they are going to go around to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is going to say, `You beauty; I can see a mug coming.' He can see a mug coming at at least 400 paces, which is what it is from here to his office. That is what happened on all the other issues: he saw a mug coming. Could he see a mug? And did he get one? And did they help him in the process? They even came in here and gagged the debate for the whole process.What we find in Senator Allison's address, if we extricate the stuff where she is obviously painting the ALP as a bunch of people who sell out, roll over and twist, is that she tells us that their opposition to this particular proposal is well founded, has principles and has a number of other things going for it. In fact the Democrats have none of these principles. We will be looking very closely at the amendments that they are going to move because in the industrial area the Democrats are well known around the trade union movement, around here and in the ACTU for what they did several years ago.I think we have had a number of Democrat senators come in here and say, `We are going to test the ALP out on some of our glorious amendments.' I have got to tell the Democrats that when we do a deal we stick, and that will be seen to be true as the day unfolds. We do a deal and we stick to it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Are you authorising a policy in the chamber?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—It is a policy that I have always followed, as most people would know, in my political career. This is not my deal but it is a deal that is done by the people I voted into their positions, so we will stick with it.I will toss one back to the Democrats, and I look forward to their picking up this challenge and running with it. I want to know whether they are going to vote down the second wave of Mr Reith's industrial reforms. I want to know exactly what they are going to do about it. Are they going to come in here and say, `Look, we have had enough deals for the year; two or three good big deals are enough for us,' or are they going to continue on in this de facto relationship that they have with the coalition in this country? That is what it is: a de facto coalition with the coalition parties in this country. That is what will be delivering next year to taxpayers the 10 per cent GST. That is what is going to be delivering to the environment movement a result which would never have got through here had the Democrats decided that they would stick to the principles that they avow every day, day in and day out, here in this chamber.I do not want to be here tonight any later than I have to be. I think these debates need to be finished. I just want to go back to a few remarks that were made yesterday. I think that ostensibly speakers on this side made out a good case for supporting this particular arrangement. In 1996 the Labor Party lost government and we have been for one term, and now two terms, dealing with most of these so-called reforms from the opposition benches. As a consequence of dealing with them from the opposition benches, we also have to cut the best deals for the people we represent out there. In fact, that is what this arrangement is.I want to finish my remarks today by saying that one of the more curious arrangements that I have come across has been the deal that has been done between Mr Reith and the Labor Party on this issue. It is as if Mr Reith did not want the deal. I cannot understand it, really. He has spent weeks now bagging it. He has postulated that we are going to break it. He has postulated that in fact we are not going to stick, that we are going to get mugged on the way down here to the chamber or that we are going to get our arms and legs broken by our constituents. Our constituents understand very well that we are in this process to pull out the best arrangement we can for them. But it does not make doing deals easy. When you get an arrangement that is mutually satisfactory, you actually go out and sell it. You do not go out and start bagging it and bagging those people who joined in on it. I think that the debate should proceed. I am sure that most workers in this country will understand the necessity for our use of our vote here in the Senate to achieve the best possible outcomes we can for the people we represent.10:56:008212Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I begin my remarks on the second reading of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 by picking up one point from the comments of the previous speaker, and that is a defence of cutting the best deals. As my honourable colleague Senator Bartlett said in his contribution yesterday, the Democrats are not opposing the fact that deals are done in this place. We would just like to see better deals done—not a deal that has given to Peter Reith not only ostensibly what he was after from day one, and that is the indefinite retention of junior rates in federal awards, but also the possible extension and expansion of junior rates to those other 44 per cent of federal awards that do not have them. So, if you are going to cut a deal, cut a better deal.It is with a great deal of sadness and anger that I am speaking on this legislation today, in the knowledge that yet again, as my colleagues have pointed out, young Australians are being treated as quite expedient and are being betrayed by their parliamentary representatives, and in particular the two `L' parties. This legislation is one of the greatest attacks in a long line of continuing attacks on the rights of young people, and in particular young workers. It is sending a very clear message to young Australians that their rights can be ignored and compromised for so-called economic gain, that they can be discriminated against on a daily basis and that their strident opposition will count for nothing in convincing those people who might be bent on achieving certain political or economic ends.We have heard a lot in this debate today about the GST, the preamble, diesel and processes—a whole range of predictable attacks on my party, which has been one that has actually stuck to its principles and has spoken out in particular against this Labor sell-out of young people. But we have not heard many substantive or actual justifications or reasonable defences as to why the Labor Party have gone back on a presumably long held position, certainly from 1996 until a couple of weeks ago, that they do not support discrimination on the basis of age.I thought for once we might get through a speech by Senator Quirke without a sexual metaphor, a sexual analogy. But, no, yet again the Democrats were targeted in sexual terms. I am only thankful that in this contribution he did not call us whores like he did in the last one. Perhaps he would like to come back at some stage and defend the deal that has been struck for young workers without talking about sexual positions or prostitutes for once. I would have thought this parliament had moved beyond that kind of rhetoric and commentary that we have seen for many years.This legislation is the latest in a line of legislative changes spanning over a decade and two governments. In his contribution, Senator Murray made the point that the Labor Party could have done something about youth wages in the 13 years that they were in office. Of course, in 1996 we had a heated debate in this chamber, debating in particular the Labor Party's opposition amendments that at that stage sought to end discrimination on the basis of age. Yesterday I heard from an honourable senator—one of the right-wing Labor senators—that Labor `joined with the Democrats'—and I will correct that if that is not so—in sending this issue for analysis to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. I am glad that they have decided that they actually supported that move.It was a bold and clever move by the Australian Democrats at that time. Of course, some of us would have liked to have seen the instant abolition of junior rates but we understood this needed examination by the Industrial Relations Commission, so we agreed to that. In fact, we were the only people that bothered to put in a submission from a political party: only the Australian Democrats put on record their perspective, their views and their policy on this matter.We have seen a long line of legislative changes that discriminate against young people in this place, legislation usually supported by both parties, from the raising of the age of independence for Austudy by the Labor government to the raising of the age of independence for the youth allowance by this government. The old parties are deeply wedded to the notion that young people are adults when it comes to their obligations in society but they are children when it comes to society's obligations to them. Both parties are very keen to expound the virtues of mutual obligation but it is a one-way street for them: all obligations seem to rest with young people.The last occasion that the opposition colluded with the government to impose a policy on young people designed to scapegoat them for their lack of employment opportunities was their backflip over work for the dole. Here we have another backflip from Labor on young people's pay rates. Young people were not forgiving then and they are not forgiving now. But not only young people have been outspoken, along with the Democrats, about this deal between Labor and the Liberals; the unions have too.I must put on record some of the concerns of some of the youth representative and advocacy organisations as well as, of course, those of the ACTU representatives, union representatives and youth affairs councils around the place. Perhaps one the best expressions of concern was that of the President of the Young Christian Workers Movement, Tim Gill. He is the head of an organisation that has long sought equity for young Australian workers. Tim said:Wages are the lifeblood of a young worker. They provide and determine a standard of living, enable independence and provide the main opportunity to participate in society. Young workers have less bargaining power in the workplace anyway. Their casual job offers no security or predictability, yet they have the same needs as older workers. Young workers are as about cock-a-hoop about this decision—he is quoting the Prime Minister's comment there—as you would be if someone put laxatives in your Bonox.I think that describes it quite perfectly. The National Union of Students is similarly strident, and with good reason. Its National President, Jacob Varghese, said:It is no wonder that young people are increasingly disenchanted with politics when politicians in Canberra can so glibly decide to continue discriminating against them.Even Young Labor condemned the federal party for the deal and they have committed themselves to ensuring that the discrimination now entrenched in federal awards will not be extended to state awards. I congratulate women like Stephanie Key, who speaks up on youth affairs issues in South Australia in the Labor Party, for also stating how inappropriate this deal was. So Labor on a federal level are being condemned by state counterparts, by their youth wing and by us.Much has been made of the opposition by unions to this deal, and rightly so. The whole rationale for union support of the Australian Labor Party is to ensure federal representation of the interests of workers. This bill before us today undermines that very objective. The Labor Party have perpetuated the furphy that wage reduction leads to more employment opportunities. How they intend to restrict this capitulation to junior workers and maintain that adult employment levels are not affected by wage elasticities escapes me. So the unions have every right to be worried and to be angry with a party which seems to have completely reneged on a large part of what it stands for.As my colleague Senator Bartlett stated earlier in this debate, the ALP have come a very long way in a short time to clinch this deal and support this legislation. How some members of the opposition are reconciling their earlier comments with their actions last week is a complete mystery to all of us. How they will explain their support for this legislation to their constituents and at up-coming preselection contests is also a mystery. I have to exempt Senator George Campbell from that particular difficulty. He put, with great courage, his views on record yesterday, certainly explaining his concerns with this deal. I look forward to seeing him and other people who may share his concerns about discrimination on the basis of age crossing the floor, just as they urged me to do in 1996 when they put forward their amendments to the industrial relations legislation.I understand that some unions have wanted to direct some members of the Labor Party to do that. That would be very interesting to see. In fact, it reminds me of Senator Sherry's quote from 1996. He exhorted me to cross the floor to support his amendment, and I challenge him to do the same. We might even move it to give him the opportunity to do that. Perhaps he will support an amendment along the lines of replacing junior rates with competency based wages. Perhaps he would simply like to come down here and explain what has happened on this road to Damascus, what has made him completely change his mind to completely contradict views that he put forward so stridently in this chamber in 1996.That 1996 debate was heated; it was enraged. I was amazed at the level of invective and vitriol that was directed at my colleagues and me in this chamber, in particular from Senator Nick Sherry and, of course, Senator Lundy, who is the voice of youth. She is the youth spokesperson for the Australian Labor Party and even in March this year she referred to youth wages as a reflection of generational elitism, a charge she must now also bear. She spoke of her experiences as a young worker in making that comment.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—For Senator Collins, I will actually quote from Senator Lundy:As a 16-year-old I was able to enter the work force on adult wages. This provided me with an opportunity to participate in society with economic independence. . . I find myself in this place defending this simple notion of dignity for young people in the work force, defending this simple and fundamental right of young people to be able to get a job and be paid wages that are not discriminatory.That is a great quote from Senator Lundy.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—She's not in this place now.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I will take that interjection, Senator Bartlett. Senator Lundy is not in this place now but I am sure that, in her role in this place of assisting the shadow minister for workplace relations, she will come down and speak to this legislation, which I do not think she could possibly be happy with, because I know there are certainly many members in the opposition who are not happy with this particular deal. Perhaps Senator Sherry is busy right now comparing notes with Senator Lundy. They are both absent today, certainly in sharp contrast to their behaviour on this issue in 1996.But, given the vacuum of information from the Labor Party defending this deal, I will explain why the Australian Democrats not only will oppose this but will not sell out on young people. We know there is no doubt that youth wages are discriminatory. No-one has disputed this fact. They contravene article 7 of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which we are signatories to. The existence of youth wages relies on an exemption from the antidiscrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, and this situation will be perpetuated indefinitely, thanks to the Labor Party.Youth wages—and this was put forward by Senator Campbell yesterday—are a historical accident in our workplaces. They emanate from a time when young people's incomes were determined according to the needs principle. They were never designed as an employment enhancement measure but because, in the words of the Argus newspaper back in 1926:Boys only a few months from school in many walks of life are receiving wages which not many years ago were those of men with family responsibilities, while business, factory and shop girls in their teens are remunerated upon a scale which is a standing temptation to extravagance, thoughtlessness and irresponsibility. These words appeared almost three-quarters of a century ago and, despite massive social and economic changes that have taken place in the interim, this is still the message which the old parties in this place are sending to young workers—this week in particular. The old parties have run a mile from the notion of comparative wage justice, leaving behind all the people who have supported them, forsaking the words they were uttering so boldly and proudly just two weeks ago, let alone almost three years ago during a comparable debate on this matter. No; the ALP is now content for young people to continue to be the only participants in the labour market who are paid according to their personal characteristics, not their skill, experience, expertise or education but their age—a discriminatory factor.Much of the blame for the failure to expand wage based contractual training arrangements in Australia lies with inadequate wage structures and this bill, as my leader, Senator Meg Lees, has said, is a lost opportunity to improve young people's access to workplace training. Since the mid-1980s, no other OECD country has offered its young people fewer opportunities to acquire recognised vocational qualifications at the point of labour market entry than Australia. Current junior rates do not contain structured training or skill development components. As such, they provide the employer with a strong incentive to use the young employee merely in a productive capacity rather than as a learner and rather than allowing for training provisions. But minimal training provisions now are the legacy of this country as a consequence of these wage arrangements.The ALP capitulation on this legislation precludes us from inserting training components into award determination provisions. Not only are the government and the opposition happy to condemn young workers to pittances of pay rates for work of equal value to their older colleagues; they are now preventing young people from accessing training opportunities while they are actually earning that pittance. Of course, many young workers work in low skilled occupations: 49.4 per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds work in the retail sector, 8.8 per cent in manufacturing, and 8.6 per cent in cafes and restaurants. Even more startling is the fact that the three large companies responsible for approximately one-third of youth employment are Coles Myer, Woolworths and McDonald's, company and franchises. They are responsible for most of the youth positions in the work force in this nation. I would be very interested to hear from the members of the opposition, hopefully, or government. Maybe they could try to argue that work in these companies under junior rates is highly skilled or that 15-year-olds are less proficient at making hamburgers or operating a supermarket checkout than 19-, 20- or 21-year-olds. Certainly Senator Andrew Murray has put on the record that there are examples of people up to 22-years-old being paid junior rates. How is it that we can possibly define a 22-year-old in our society as not being an adult, as being essentially a child, a junior?I will put this on record once again for the Democrats, as we have done many times in public, in the chamber and in our submission to the IRC: we do not oppose the concept of differential wage rates and never have. We just believe that the determining factor in how you are paid should be your skill, your competency, your experience, your education, not your age, which is a discriminatory factor. This hot little deal that Senator Quirke is so proud of not only entrenches, indefinitely retains, junior wage rates in federal awards as they currently exist but, thanks to the case by case provisions, allows the extension. So the ALP is perpetuating, allowing, the notion that discrimination on the basis of age is okay. What a great message to send to not only young workers in our community but older workers. If they have really fallen for this correlation between wage rates and employment opportunities, what is to stop the ALP, in a deal with Mr Reith, capitulating once again and allowing reduced wage rates for older workers in order to allow for so-called employment opportunities?I was interested to hear the response of the minister the other day to my question without notice on the issue of the need to protect small businesses through the retention and extension of youth rates. That is what his response was. The government has used the Productivity Commission inquiry into youth wages in support of its contention that low wages equal job creation. Yet this study excluded small business from its consideration although, perhaps, it counted McDonald's franchises, which sometimes, somehow, qualify as small businesses.At this juncture, it might be useful to actually add some real evidence to the debate. The government has relied on four studies to support its position: the 1983 Bureau of Labour Market Studies study on youth wages and employment levels; the 1997 report of the Productivity Commission; the Australian Retailers Association survey of members; and, of course, the report of the IRC into junior rates of pay. The first three studies do not bear up particularly well to scrutiny. The BLMS report made no allowance for dynamics or different levels of technology in different workplaces and the impact of these factors in hiring decisions.In addition to the aforementioned criticism of the Productivity Commission report of last year, it confuses male adult, adult female and junior data sets in its elasticity estimates. It does not discuss the relationship between changes in minimum wages for juniors and consequent changes in youth earnings. Even more interestingly, the Productivity Commission report manages to conclude on the one hand that there is no relationship between youth employment and youth wages, by finding that adult workers are complements rather than substitutes for youth in employment, and that adult employment will fall with any rise in youth wages. However, it also manages to find to the contrary as well, as expounded on many occasions by Peter Reith, who obviously did not read the rest of the report. Perhaps page 67 was the only page he read.In the committee stage of this legislation I will expand on some of the difficulties with those other reports, identifying in particular the IRC report, which identifies the twin objectives of equal opportunity for young job seekers and equal treatment of employees, and concludes that age discrimination is a poor means of resolving these. I am sure we will hear many more examples and excerpts from the IRC report as we continue in this debate. But the Democrats have always favoured—and we are not ashamed of this—a case by case analysis to undertake the development and implementation of alternatives, those very alternatives that the commission was precluded from doing so.On this matter, young people are not going to be sold out by the Australian Democrats on this issue, but they sure have been by a combination of the government and its dirty deal with the opposition. If you are going to defend doing deals, do better deals, but do not do deals that not only indefinitely retain youth wages in the 56 per cent of federal awards to which they already apply but then give Mr Reith exactly what he was after, and that is the opportunity to extend and to expand junior rates of pay to the other 44 per cent of awards that currently are not affected. It is a dirty deal and one that the constituents of the ALP, their members and their backbenchers are not going to forget. (Time expired)11:16:008216Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In 1996 Senator Stott Despoja said in regard to the notion of discrimination on the basis of age:There is breathtaking hypocrisy in here this afternoon.I think little has changed in 1999. We have to make it clear that in 1996 it was the Democrats who gave the numbers to the Reith-Kernot deal to extend the laws discriminating against young people and to keep youth wage discrimination on the statutes. That in turn has led to the situation where Labor can join with the government to keep the discrimination going.What the Democrats did in 1996, Labor is doing in 1999. In 1996, former Senator Margetts from the Greens (WA) said:Two years ago I thought the whole aspect of youth wages was based on the NIMTO principle—that is, Not In My Term of Office principle.She noticed that that was continuing. She said:It is time we bit the proverbial bullet.She also said:We finally have heard that it is not the Democrats preferred position—that is, to keep youth wages going—and it is basically to avoid a double dissolution that they are going against their own preferred position.Senator Margetts went on to say:This is no basis upon which a good decision should be made in the Senate.I concur. So, of the parties in this place, only the Greens, right throughout this decade, have stood against the discrimination in wage fixing in this country against people on the basis of their age.I agree with the content of the speeches of Senator Stott Despoja, Senator Murray and the other Democrats senators that we should not discriminate against people on the basis of their age. Wages should be fixed on the other parameters that have been so cogently put forward. But we cannot get away from the fact that this opportunity to keep the discrimination going is built on the basis that the Democrats established in this chamber in 1996. People who are aggrieved against youth wage discrimination continuing in this country are aggrieved because of the actions of the Democrats, and now the Labor Party, and always the coalition. Let us have that straight.A fundamental argument is that we need to take money off some young people by not paying them adequately to create employment and training opportunities for other young people. It is a specious argument. There is a rapidly growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country. This legislation is an effort to keep in place the discrimination against the have-nots in our young working population.Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to move a second reading amendment, which has been circulated. I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute "this bill be not further proceeded with until separate legislation has been enacted to prevent corporations, which employ young people at rates less than those given to other employees who do similar work, from providing to any person a remuneration package in excess of $1,000,000 in any given year".If we are going to take money from one lot of workers to create jobs or training for other people, surely we must start with the workers who have the most money. We are in a situation in Australia where there are now dozens of chief executive officers taking home more than $1 million each year in their package.Let me refer to an article by Jody Scott in the Australian of 9 August this year headed, `Fat cats grow fatter as they roll in their options'. There is a chart in that article labelled `Top of the tree' which lists Australia's highest paid chief executives. I will read from that chart:. Frank Lowy, Westfields Holdings, $6.44 million—this is in one year—. George Trumbull, former AMP chief executive, $4.95 million. Paul Batchelor, new AMP boss, salary yet to be settled. Dennis Eck, Coles Myer, $3.3 million. Rob Ferguson, Bankers Trust, $3.25 million. Robert Kirby, Village Roadshow, $3.2 million. Allan Moss, Macquarie Bank, $3.1 million. David Morgan, Westpac, multi-million dollar salary plus proposed $32.49 million share options performance package. John McFarlane, ANZ, $2.77 million—and on it goes. We go right down to Gerry Harvey at Harvey Norman who is on $250,000 but owns a 33 per cent stake in the Harvey Norman empire worth $1.03 million. I am not for a communistic principle which says, in the worst of enforced dictum, that everybody shall get exactly the same amount. I believe in free enterprise.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—A huge concession.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—You've come out on this one.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—We are getting some government input to the debate now. They might be able to bring up some of these matters with President Jiang Zemin, the communist leader they will be entertaining next week.However, in the meantime, the Greens believe that everybody should get a guaranteed adequate income which makes sure that they have an opportunity, in particular, to be in the work force. What we do not accept is that we should be here locking in discriminatory wages against young Australians while doing nothing about these obscene income packages going to a handful of super-rich people. We are in a world where 535 individuals own as much of the wealth as the 1½ billion poorest people on the planet. That is out of control. That needs legislative action. That needs politicians with guts. That needs a government with principle. I find that the prospect of locking in here again discrimination against young people, who are getting very tiny wages compared to these packages, with no mention—except for a Green intervention—of these people because of the influence that they have over the political domain in this country, is quite extraordinary. We will see how we go with that amendment.Senator Murray has made it abundantly clear why we do not have a desperate need to get this legislation through here today. We do have ample time to adopt this Greens amendment and look at least at balancing legislation. After all, the amendment which the Greens have moved will affect far fewer Australians than the legislation we have before us now. It will be a restraint on wages for far fewer people in Australia than would be the case under this legislation. So, whatever argument might be put about the discriminatory nature of it, it pales into insignificance when compared with the number of people that this discriminatory legislation we have before us will affect.I oppose the legislation. I hope Labor will reconsider. I accept the contributions from the Democrats as genuine. It is a pity, however, that the Reith-Kernot deal occurred when it did. It is a blot on the historic record as far as the Democrats' avocation to ending discrimination in the workplace is concerned. But we cannot ignore it because, without it, we would not be here today enabling this discrimination to continue.11:27:008218Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It has been a fascinating debate. I must say that I think a number of senators have actually risen to the bait. What the Democrats seem to fail to under stand is that the reason the Labor Party has rolled over on this is not so much because it just thought that it had to do something different for a change; it is because it had nowhere else to go, because all the logic takes you inexorably in this direction.Rabid zealots like Senator Brown—who regard international conventions as ends in themselves irrespective of the consequences for ordinary citizens, let alone young people—will of course never countenance any compromise on these issues. But the fact is, however, that, if we look at the situation in the UK, we see that the UK Low Pay Commission concluded that:Those in the youth labour market—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—They don't want the UK, do they?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Well, it is a nice, friendly Labour government over there.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—No; I said, `They don't want the UK, do they?'LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Well, of course; they don't want anything except zealotry. The UK Low Pay Commission concluded:Those in the youth labour market or trying to enter that market are among the most vulnerable in the work force. Above all else, they need work, and they need work which will allow them to acquire basic skills to enable them to develop. In any case, of course, low pay is a transitory experience for most junior employees. Under the junior rates system, employees can expect to progress to higher paid jobs every year providing they remain in employment. When they develop the skills and experience, they can compete successfully for jobs that are paid at adult rates.I was intrigued to hear Senator Stott Despoja rabbiting on about the right to be not discriminated against. But, of course, what that UK report says so eloquently is that they have an even greater right, and that is a right to a job. They would much prefer to have money in their pockets and food on the table than to have some sort of high-minded principle when in the dole queue.What is very difficult for the Democrats to come to terms with is that they pushed long and hard for the very inquiry that has now come down and comprehensively rejected their position. The series of amendments that they have proposed were all considered and rejected by the AIRC. Indeed, the whole notion of a competency based wage system has been comprehensively rejected by the independent umpire. The commission found that none of the non-discriminatory alternatives to junior rates put to it were feasible. Competency based classifications were not even the best of the bunch of options available. They said that there was an indisputable relationship between junior rates, their possible abolition and the employment prospects of young people.The Democrats' proposal is that the replacement of the age based structure with a competency based model should not be on a lowest common denominator basis. They argue that young people must be given the same wage as an entry level adult would expect to receive. This would mean that the cost of employing a 15-year-old, employed under typical junior rates, would increase 150 per cent; for a 16-year-old, 100 per cent; for a 17-year-old, 67 per cent; and, for an 18-year-old, 40 per cent. I do not think there can be much doubt on any of those numbers that no employer in his or her right mind would regard the fact that someone happened to be 15 and not deserving to be discriminated against as a sufficient reason to pay those sorts of premiums.Quite clearly the whole notion of age does equate with experience. We all know that in our own lives. The AIRC recognises it, as do young people. Of course there are professional industry advocates who want to run the line that somehow young people support ongoing discrimination against their right to work. But as to this notion that is being trotted out by the Australian Democrats that somehow 22-year-olds do not deserve to be discriminated against, the fact is that only one federal award of nearly 1,700 surveyed by the AIRC has a junior rate for a 21-year-old. So the bill leaves the ages to which junior rates apply to be determined by the commission on a case by case basis.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—It was 22, not 21.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—There is only one for 22. Okay, my note is wrong, but that is consistent with the proposition I am advancing. I defer to that.I understood that the Democrats—at least Senator Stott Despoja, who presumably does not speak for the Democrats on many of these issues—were nonetheless arguing that the Democrats supported a case by case assessment. If that is the case, it is quite extraordinary that the very report which they called for for so long and which comprehensively rejects their position should only be touched on with the merest feather by Senator Stott Despoja. You can throw around terms like `sell out of young people' as much as you like, but the fact is that what the Labor Party has done is actually to stand up to the trade union movement. It is only for five minutes. It is only a tactical retreat. No-one for a moment thinks that this signals a new era of independence. They still remain wholly owned subsidiaries. We only had to see this parade of people jumping up to demonstrate their union credentials to show—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Where?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—We had Senator Campbell, Senator Hogg—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Two.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Who else was there? Senator Quirke.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Three.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—That is three out of probably five people in the chamber at the time. Senator Campbell was not able to speak because he was in the chair. They are falling over themselves to demonstrate that they have not lost faith with the cause. It is pretty clear what the union movement expect for their investment, for putting all these people in parliament. They expect some return and they do not think they are getting it.`I cannot understand why the ALP would be embracing a key element of the deregulated labour market agenda of the Liberals' is about the only statement of principle I have seen. Your beloved Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association national secretary said, `I think as a union we have got to review our relationship. This goes to show you cannot rely on the Labor Party to represent your point of view in parliament.' In other words, what he is saying is, `They have always been in our back pocket. We have always been able to rely on them 100 per cent, but now there is a bit of a doubt.' In other words, `Gosh, maybe they are not the mouthpieces that we paid them to go into parliament to be.' I can understand why he is very concerned. He will be wanting his money back at the next preselection round, probably so he can come in and have a go himself. It would probably be a pay increase.There is a whole litany of unionists who are very, very annoyed. Jennie George—and I suppose Senator Stott Despoja thinks she deserves a seat in the state parliament of New South Wales but I doubt that many people on the Labor Party side do—is here again claiming that union leaders—and I suppose the feminist network does, do they, Senator Collins?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—What was that?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—They think that Jennie George should get a seat in the upper house in New South Wales. GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—No idea.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No? No idea. No comment.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—No idea.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No idea? That is even worse—not interested.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—She would make a first-class parliamentarian.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—This is very worrying, Senator Murray. You have obviously been spending too much time with the ACTU.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Minister, it might help if you directed your remarks to the chair.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Of course, she expressed the claim that, `Union leaders had unanimously expressed deep concern and disappointment. The unions were very angry at the ALP. We are supposed to be on the same side.' But of course Mr Crean reassured them that this was only really a little blip. He said, `These things will heal. What we have to do is try and find a position that can actually get the numbers in the parliament and then ensure an agenda that the government was hell-bent on introducing is not carried out and that we succeeded in.' I am not quite clear what he is saying there. `We are supporting junior wage rates until we get the numbers in parliament when we will do what you ask us to do and repeal them'? Not very inspiring stuff. If this whole backflip strategy is designed to enable Mr Beazley to go out there and say, `Look, I stood up to them; I am not the wholly owned doormat you thought I was. I am not simply trotting out to everything that the union movement asks us. I have taken on the full raft of our employers,' it is sending a mixed message, isn't it?I suppose the answer to all that is that Mr Beazley says one thing and Mr Crean says another. We are happy to regard that as healthy competition. Senator Campbell has made it plain with his actions in recent days. He has got nowhere else to go, and I suspect a lot more people will be going in that same direction. The union movement lives in hope that Mr Crean will get up and reverse this deal. But for the time being at least, we applaud the Labor Party's morality on this issue.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Have you read Mr Crean's statements on this?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes. I just quoted one of them. He said to the union movement, `Don't worry. As soon as we've got the numbers, we'll fix it up for you.' That is probably sufficient for our purposes.I do not have anything more to say on the subject. The evidence is overwhelming. Anyone who reads the AIRC report will understand that there is no way to approach this issue other than to put the rights of young workers to a job ahead of any other consideration. We are delighted that at least the Labor Party acknowledges that.11:38:008220Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—In relation to Senator Brown's amendment in the second reading stage, I want to put on the record that Labor does share Senator Brown's concerns on the issue of executive salaries, but it is ludicrous to link that issue to junior rates. On that basis, we will not be supporting this amendment.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the bill be now read a second time.11:43:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)43Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.O'Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.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.Bill read a second time.8221The bill.11:47:008221Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I rise to speak to the first amendment I am putting, on sheet 1524. I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 10), at the end of paragraph (aa), add "while seeking, as far as possible, to eliminate discrimination in pay rates on the basis of age".This amendment affects the principal object. It seeks to ensure that the objects of the act give full weight to parliament's desire to ensure that discrimination on the basis of age is inappropriate. Unless the objective of this paragraph is clearly made apparent—that it is about balancing youth employment issues and age based discrimination—then this objective would, in our view, be in direct conflict with objective (j) of the act.The Democrats regard the issue of age based discrimination as a fundamental threshold for this chamber to consider. Right at the heart of this issue is the view which we hold and which Australians share that people should not be discriminated against on the grounds of age, race, sex, gender, religion, disability and so on. The government's riposte to that is that it is appropriate to discriminate against young people on the basis of age with respect to jobs because without it they would lose those jobs. That case has not been proven. Even if it were accepted as a legitimate view and even if the Australian population as a whole accept the idea that 15-year-olds should be paid at a lower rate than adults—and that is what the Australian population believes—the Australian population does not accept that age based discrimination is appropriate with people once they achieve adult status.Minister, you made the remark that in my public commentary I have been deliberately referring to the extreme—namely, that there are people in awards aged 22 who are discriminated against in terms of youth rates. I believe that in your response at the end of the second reading debate you indicated that that was only one of thousands. I do not know if it is only one of thousands, frankly, because I have not checked every single one. I do know that in the junior rates inquiry No. 33985 of 1998, in an attachment to the joint government submission, was a list of 100 federal awards which had been surveyed for the purpose of that inquiry. In that survey, they identified that those 100 broke up as follows. There were nine awards at age 18, two between age 18 and 21, one at age 19, two at age 19 and 20, 10 at age 20, eight at age 20 and 21, 43 at age 21 and one at age 22. I do not know whether that is the one you are referring to or whether you are referring to what is in the thousands of awards. The point I want to make is really expressed in those figures. Of all Australian awards that have junior wages provisions—and, according to that survey, three-quarters of all federal awards have junior wages provisions—70 per cent are from age 20 to 22 and nearly all of them are at the age of 21. That is behind the resistance of the government to lowering the ceiling and that is behind the resistance of the Labor Party leaders to lowering the ceiling.We think it is unconscionable that adults of 21 and 22, who form the bulk of the people in junior rates awards, should be paid youth rates. It is unjustifiable discrimination. It ranks on the same level of discrimination, in our view, as those age-old beasts that we have largely defeated: that women should be discriminated against, that Jews should be discriminated against, that black people should be discriminated against—that people who are different to us should be discriminated against. The very arguments—we say this every time and it is refuted every time—used to preserve youth rates at an unacceptably high level were those used in the debate about women having equal pay.This is not an argument about jobs. In our view, it is an argument about unjustifiable discrimination and whether adults should be paid adult wages. Every quote we produce from the unions and from the Labor Party has that view. I am fairly certain, given what the Liberal Party referred to as the broad church of their views, that there are people within their membership as well who hold that view.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You don't believe that.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I do believe it. I will argue that it is appropriate to have youth rates for 15-year-olds who do not have the skills and experience necessary. I accept that argument. I accept the argument, and I have done so publicly on behalf of the Democrats, that it is appropriate for the Industrial Relations Commission to consider these issues on a case by case basis. I have said so. Section 143(1)(E) of the act specifically permits that. I have said that it is appropriate for the commission to develop relativities because it is clear that very young people do not have the competencies, skills, experience and abilities of adults with respect to their particular employment level. That is not the issue for us. The issue for us is that you want to pay adults youth rates.The survey I spelt out says that 57 per cent of the three-quarters of all awards that have youth rates are at the age of 21. It is an anachronism, it is old-fashioned, it is old-time. We are out of touch, we are out of kilter, with the rest of the OECD on this. This isn't some kind of freaky argument. This is an argument that has been accepted throughout the OECD. Only two countries—the Netherlands and Australia—permit youth rates to go to the age of 22. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Even New Zealand, the bastion of free market economic rationalism, sets a ceiling of 19. That is at the core of this argument and the core of this issue. That is why we feel strongly about it. We feel it is unjustifiable discrimination on unjustifiable grounds, like when people are Catholics or Jews or black or females. How can you possibly discriminate against a 21-year-old? How can you say that a 21-year-old is not an adult? Frankly, I feel like I am speaking a foreign language. I cannot comprehend how Australians and Australian parliamentarians, holding to the values and culture and truths and decent values that they do, can contemplate paying 21-year-olds kids' rates.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Because they are being trained.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Oh, please! We have training legislation which covers that. I have no objection whatsoever to somebody who is in training being paid a lower wage. Of course that is right. If I go to learn to be a nuclear scientist tomorrow and I am in year 1 of my course, even though I am in my 50s, I will accept that I should get a lower wage. Of course I accept that. The Democrats are not arguing that. They are arguing that, where a trainee scheme does not exist and where people are doing adult work, they should be paid adult pay; that's all. It is very simple. That is what lies behind our approach.The government say—and I understand this—that they are afraid that, if they shift the ceiling down, people will lose jobs because their wages will go up. We answer: that is what you said about women, and it did not happen. We answer that the federal legislation is one of six legislative jurisdictions, that the percentage of young people affected by this legislation is relatively low and that you can afford to start to lower that ceiling.Anyway, back to this matter of discrimination and pay rates on the basis of age. The coalition has held a consistent view on this, but Labor's view was different. Labor was moving towards our position. In Working Nation in 1994—five years ago, so it is a long held position—the white paper, which I understand was largely written by the very capable Simon Crean, said the following:The government supports the transition over time to competency based arrangements from the current system of age based wages for young people.I think that is a very straightforward, sensible statement. This has continued to be Labor policy for the last five years. In December 1998, when Peter Reith, the minister, started his push to repeal the provisions he had agreed to two years before, Mr Beazley endorsed the view of the 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.Mr Beazley said that that view was a sensible position. On 10 February 1999, his 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—which incidentally, as an aside, the Democrats do not disagree with—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.That is what Mr Ferguson said. He went on to say:I am not prepared to stand by and allow employers to discriminate against young people . . . That is what he is doing. I am in complete agreement with his former remarks, but now he and the rest of the leaders of the Labor Party are forcing Labor members and senators to agree to a position which I know many of them cannot in all honesty and integrity support. Our amendment here seeks to ensure that in any case by case analysis the age discrimination issue is given equal billing with the youth employment issue. It seeks to ensure that new objective (aa) reads comfortably alongside existing objective (j) and that discrimination on the basis of age is permissible only to the extent necessary to promote youth employment.If I understand those within the government ranks who have a moral view of these things, that is what they say to me. They say they only want discrimination to the extent necessary to promote youth employment. I might disagree with them on the empirical basis of that argument but—if that is their argument and that is what moral coalition speakers feel—our amendment allows the IRC to make that appropriate adjustment. That is the right and proper basis on which case by case analysis can proceed and, in our view, it would assist the IRC to fulfil its duties under the case by case provisions.12:01:008223Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I am going to make a fairly brief contribution to this debate—in part, at least, in response to the comments made by Senator Stott Despoja and a number of others. I will point out for the record that if I sound a little less than enthusiastic it is not because I am not enthusiastic. As I explained to Senator Stott Despoja, I have a fairly bad case of the flu.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—You stay far away then!ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—You are far enough away. That is why I am not going to get as impassioned as I did when I spoke on this matter in 1996. I have not followed the entire debate to date, but I noticed in the Hansard record that Senator Allison did make a reference also to my comments in 1996 on this issue of junior wage rates. For the record, I should point out to Senator Allison that I was not a former official of the Miscellaneous Workers Union. Prior to entering parliament I was a member of what was commonly known as the liquor and allied trades union.I would also like to say to Senator Stott Despoja that, whilst the criticisms I made of the Democrats in 1996 were strong and firm, I do not think I was unnecessarily personal. I hope you will accept that. I do recall making a comment comparing Senator Stott Despoja with Boadicea; I think that is as personal as it got. Frankly, within the range of exchanges we have in this chamber, I think that was fairly restrained. Senator Stott Despoja does know the limits which I exercise in terms of making personal criticisms of people making contributions in debates.The reason we are here today, of course, is that the position and the arguments advanced by Labor in 1996 that we should remove junior wage rates were rejected by the Australian Democrats. It was the Australian Democrats who entered into an agreement with the government on the first wave of industrial relations—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Led by Cheryl Kernot.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It was the Australian Democrats. They agreed on a package that Labor vehemently disagreed with—not, I might say, just in respect of junior rates of pay but in respect of a range of other changes that were made to the industrial relations legislation at that time. We are back here today debating this issue of junior wage rates because at that time the Australian Democrats did a deal with the government, a deal that I had—and still have—strong views about. Indeed, as I recall, it was the Australian Democrats who proposed the compromise that the issue of junior rates of pay should be referred to the Industrial Relations Commission for examination and report, and that is what has happened.What happened as a consequence of the Democrats-Liberal government deal of that time? The commission heard the evidence— and, apparently, it heard a direct contribution from the Australian Democrats—and it rejected the proposition. I think it is particularly unfortunate that the commission has rejected the proposition that there should be a unilateral abolition of junior wage rates. It rejected it. I do think that is unfortunate. It is not a view that I would hold, but that is the position.I will get to what is even more pertinent. Since 1996, in the first wave we saw the beginning of the stripping back of the independence of the commission in a number of areas. The second wave of the industrial relations legislation takes that even further with the continual stripping back and with restrictions being placed on the independent Industrial Relations Commission. That is a very important issue, and certainly in my view it is the most critical of issues. It is the independence of the commission that is continually being challenged and restricted. I think that if the coalition stays in government long enough we are going to have a third wave—and perhaps a fourth wave—where we effectively will not have a commission at all. For a whole lot of reasons, which I will not go into detail about today, I think that would be enormously detrimental to the future of Australian workers.So it is that principle of the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission and the preservation of the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission that I think is the most important issue now—at this point in time—in this debate. As a Labor senator, if I were to support a proposition that we unilaterally abolish junior wage rates—I think you have to consider that issue—that would be counter to what I think is the central and most important principle at this point in time: the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission and maintaining a strong Industrial Relations Commission that does have the power and authority to act across the entire front of industrial relations. For that reason I think a great deal has changed since the original debate in 1996, including the role of the Industrial Relations Commission. Regrettably, the commission has taken a view that the proposition advanced by the Australian Democrats should be rejected. I am one of those who take the view, `You may not like the umpire's decision but that is the decision the umpire has given us since 1996.'Of course, there is a big difference now with respect to the government's position. Minister Reith was originally advancing the proposition that junior rates should unilaterally be imposed on every award in Australia, presumably those industries where you do not have junior rates of pay—from memory, a couple of them are the construction industry, the transport industry and even my old industry, the hospitality industry. Minister Reith was effectively advocating, for example, that people who serve liquor should be paid junior rates of pay. The relevance of that is that in the liquor industry, the hospitality industry, the commission determined that if you were serving alcohol at the age of 18 you would be paid adult rates of pay—and I think the commission took a very sensible position. Yet the position of Minister Reith was that if juniors are serving alcohol, they should be paid junior rates of pay and that even adults between the ages of 18 and 21 should be paid junior rates of pay to serve alcohol. I think that would be absolutely absurd. And I think that is one of the reasons why issues on junior rates should be left to the commission to look at on an industry by industry basis. We had Minister Reith advocating that you insert junior rates of pay into every award in the country. I just think that was absurd.What is the position today? Minister Reith was quite wrong yesterday—and I will not use the sort of language that will be ruled unparliamentary—in grossly misleading the Australian public and the parliament about Labor's position. Labor have accepted the reality of the situation we find ourselves in today. We have accepted that reality. Circumstances have changed since 1996. We now have a commission report with appropriate recommendations. The legislation we are dealing with will leave it to the commission to determine the position of junior rates of pay in awards—award by award. That is a very significant difference from the proposition being advanced by Minister Reith—publicly at least—until a couple of weeks ago.There is one other point I would like to make about junior rates of pay. There is an element—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Are you going to ask a question?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, of course. As I recall, I am just following Senator Murray's particular contribution, which was not ruled out of order. So there is an element of duplicity and double standard in the Democrats' position—I say that without it, I hope, being taken as too personal—because they are arguing very angrily about junior rates of pay, but in fact what the Democrats have been doing to our industrial relations system in the first wave and the second wave, by the changes they have been agreeing to, has been slowly but surely weakening the bargaining position of workers vis-a-vis the employer. That is the outcome of the particular changes that they have agreed to with respect to the first wave—and I certainly hope they do not do so with respect to the second wave.Who is the most disadvantaged as a result of these outcomes? Obviously all workers are disadvantaged to some degree or other. But it is in fact younger people who are disadvantaged as a result of these changes, because it is younger people—and I am speaking here only generally—who do not have the level of industrial knowledge that perhaps someone who is older would have and their bargaining position is considerably weakened as a result of that. So the Democrats are putting forward a position about junior rates of pay which is very inconsistent with the position that they have been adopting with the government in weakening the bargaining position of Australian workers, because it is younger people who will be most disadvantaged as a result of the weaker bargaining position of Australian employees.It is not my intention to speak any longer. I wish I could. We had two weeks on this issue and on industrial relations changes in 1996. Despite what may at times be provocation from Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Murray, they do well know that we have a time limit on this debate—and I just point that out to the chamber. They well know that my Senate colleague Senator Collins—and I watched her very effective and knowledgeable contribution yesterday—is handling the legislation for us. So, regrettably, I will have to restrain my contribution if we are to deal with this matter in a reasonably timely way and get on to another piece of legislation that I am also personally quite anxious about: the RFA legislation, which we will be hoping to finish tonight as well.With those remarks, I do accept that from time to time within the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement there will be differences. I do not resile from that. I was a former trade union official, and I reject the comments from Senator Alston that we are the lap-dogs of the trade union movement. That is wrong. When you come into this place you have a different political master, and that master is the Australian public and the Australian Labor Party. That is the reality, Senator Alston, and I have explained my position.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Will you be circulating your remarks to all the relevant unions?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I was just about to say, Senator Alston, that I have had a number of trade union officials contact me about this. I have explained the position to them. I have explained why the Australian Labor Party has taken a particular position and I have explained my view on the matter. I do not resile from that, and hopefully they respect my view. I do not always agree with former trade union colleagues. In any organisation with a reasonable level of democracy you just have to agree to disagree at times. We do not always do what the trade union movement want, but we respect their contribution and their views. On many occasions our views will be similar, but it does not always happen. That is healthy in a democracy and it is certainly healthy in the Australian Labor Party. I have said that privately and I say it publicly now to the extent that this debate is public. (Time expired)12:16:008226Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The amendment moved by Senator Murray on behalf of the Australian Democrats seeks to ensure that the objects of the act give full weight to parliament's desire to ensure that discrimina tion on the basis of age is inappropriate. I would like to respond to a couple of comments from the minister and from members of the opposition in relation to the AIRC's report. People have used terms such as `comprehensive rejection' in relation to the possibility of determining feasible alternatives to wage rates determined by age. I refer honourable members to the relevant chapter, chapter 7, of that inquiry report. In particular, I will read from the summary of that report, which I do not shy away from. I think that to suggest that it is comprehensively rejecting the notion that there should be an alternative to wages based on age is quite a misrepresentation. Point 2 of the summary of that report says:The essence of our report is that none of the identified non-discriminatory alternatives most closely examined by us were feasible.Those alternatives put to the inquiry were not considered feasible. I do not dispute that. The report continues:We give our reasons in Chapter 7 in the body of the report. We do not close off the possibility that there are feasible alternatives.That is very different from a `comprehensive rejection' of the notion of alternatives being available or being able to be developed.We do not close off the possibility that there are feasible alternatives.The report goes on to say:We explored the possibility of developing our own proposal but did not persevere. We were already persuaded that in the design of replacement of junior rate classifications no one size fits all.I do not think there would be an argument from anyone in this chamber—certainly not from the Democrats—on that notion, and that is why the Democrats have said that we support the idea of case by case assessments and assessments on merit. The summary continues:The fit of an alternative is a matter of attention to detail and the merits in particular circumstances.Indeed. It continues:The industrial parties and other interested parties would need to be involved, and that procedure—and here is the clincher—fell outside the statutory limits of our inquiry. It is very wrong for this chamber to conclude that the IRC have comprehensively rejected the notion of alternatives or said that alternatives are not feasible and cannot be developed. They have not said that, and it is a blatant misrepresentation of the inquiry's findings to suggest otherwise.I am sure that members of the government and the opposition know that, but I have found the government's analysis of the AIRC report into youth wages to be continually flawed. It has obviously been a convenient justification and defence of not only this decision but also the previous position of the government, to which Senator Sherry referred. He was quite right in denouncing the original proposal put forward by the minister responsible, and that was the notion of mandating in all awards that the junior rate should apply. Had members of the old parties read beyond the bold type in that report they would have discovered that the possibility of developing feasible alternatives was never closed off, but that the IRC concluded that the statutory limits to its inquiry precluded it from developing its own proposal.As I mentioned briefly in my earlier remarks, the report identifies the twin objectives of equal opportunity for young job seekers and equal treatment of employees, and concludes that age discrimination is a poor means of resolving these. The commission finds against an immediate or general removal of junior wage rates, but not against their gradual replacement.The report refers to—as indeed have the Democrats—case by case analysis to undertake the development and implementation of alternatives that the commission was precluded from doing. We recognise that this process may be lengthy and unwieldy, but the Democrats believe that the injustices caused by age based wages, such as an hourly wage rate of just $3.06 under the graphic arts interim award, must be redressed. We recognise that it is going to be complex. We recognised in 1996 that it was going to be a long process, but we all thought that there was a commitment along the road from a variety of groups in this place and in the community to developing some form of alternative. The evidence gathered to support the contention of the Australian Democrats, young people and unions that higher wages for young people do not lead to increased youth unemployment is quite overwhelming, and people would be familiar with that evidence. Junankar and Waite found that the youth labour market is not an auction market, that once people find work they tend to stay there despite wage relativities, and that changes in economic environments lead to changes in wastage and hiring of new staff—not firing.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—What did the commission find?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, Senator Collins was not here when I was reading various responses from the commission to that issue. Her adviser was, and nodded accordingly, so I hope that perhaps she will be filled in subsequently. The OECD Employment Outlook of 1998 found that any negative employment effects for young adults are `generally close to or insignificantly different from zero, and are relatively insignificant in terms of explaining the large decline that has occurred in the teenage employment ratio in some countries'. The Johnson and Mangan study said that, overall, wages do not appear to be a major factor in determining youth employment numbers. Card and Kruger, which is the United States study, finds that increases in the minimum wage were actually accompanied by increases in employment. Other studies back up these findings. There is Katz and Kruger, The effects of minimum wage on the fast food industry , 1992; Spriggs and Klein, The minimum wage: a new assessment of its effects , in 1993; Card, Do minimum wages reduce employment: a case study of California , in 1992; and Dickens et al., Minimum wages and employment: a theoretical framework with an application to the UK wage councils , 1995. The evidence is overwhelming.So what people seem to fail to realise is that not only are youth wages unfair, unnecessary and anachronistic but also many young workers earning youth wages have had far more responsibility on the job than ever was intended when youth wages were conceived on a needs basis early in the century. Their justification for this legislation and for the entrenchment of discrimination on the basis of age is based on unsubstantiated claims that young people might be less mature or less productive than older workers. There has been no sociological or psychological evidence to support this, and it is something to which Senator Murray referred in his earlier remarks. Most young workers are employed in industries which are low skilled and highly casualised. Their flexibility and their quick learning ability make them a perfect work force for these sectors. There is certainly research to prove that. They should be remunerated for the work they do, not according to their age.I appreciated Senator Sherry coming forward to put his position and the reason that he has voted for this. I am sorry that some other members either were conveniently paired or, to use Senator Ray's expression, did the chicken walk. I end this contribution with a quote from Senator Sherry from November 1996:I remind the government and the Democrats that junior rates are discriminatory. 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. We are opposed to junior rates, and we thought the Democrats were too.Boy, how times change.12:25:008228Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Could I intervene briefly in this debate to indicate to the committee that I am supporting the amendment. I think, however, it is a bit rich for some of the Australian Democrats to reflect on Senator Collins or other honourable senators who have been spending years and years, very often at personal cost, in support of young workers. Coming from a group which supported the first wave of industrial relations intervention—I will not call it reform—by Minister Reith, again it is a bit rich. I do hope that this indicates that the Democrats will not be supporting—I would like to hear this—the second wave of Minister Reith's actions to take away effective protection not only of young workers but also of all workers in Australia.I do apologise for not being here at the last division, but I was in a crucial situation in a committee and I had information that it was not the second reading division. Had I been here, I would have voted against the second reading of this piece of legislation. Again, the outcome of this does not depend on my vote. I am, of course, disappointed that it is likely to get through unamended, and I see no point in expressing my deeply held views under those circumstances. In view of that, I have another committee hearing at half past 12, and I would hope that this committee of the Senate will excuse me for that meeting.12:28:008228Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Senator Murray and Senator Stott Despoja, I am very sorry that you lost your case in the commission. You set up this commission inquiry—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Direct your comments to the chair, please, Senator.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I am very sorry that Senator Murray, Senator Stott Despoja and the Australian Democrats feel that they lost their case in the commission. The comments made earlier by Senator Alston are quite accurate. We accepted back in 1996, after the first wave inquiry, that we had to accept the position of the independent umpire. We were outside the deal that the Democrats negotiated with the government on the terms of reference for that inquiry, but we accepted, by the decision of this parliament, that we had to deal with the decision of that independent umpire.It is now obvious, by these amendments and by what has gone forward in the last few weeks, that the Australian Democrats and, to varying degrees, various trade unions did not like that decision. But we indicated—back on 24 June, when we outlined in the House of Representatives our position—that we would ensure the framework that was necessary to implement the commission's decision in its report. So that is the benchmark that Labor is applying, as has earlier been indicated, in our negotiations with the government to rectify its first bill and also in engaging the amendments that have been put forward by the Democrats.That is the benchmark which I do not think these amendments by the Democrats meet. There are many reasons for this. I will go through some of them as I may not be able to deal with them all in the 15 minutes before we get to non-controversial legislation. My comments will also more accurately reflect some of the commission's report and I will drop in a few words that Senator Stott Despoja dropped out because they were inconvenient.Firstly, let me go back to a bit of history and then I will comment generally on Senator Murray's amendments. I am sure he will not mind me dealing with the matter in this way as I was handed these amendments only when I was on my feet in the second reading debate. In recent weeks the government has agreed to amend its original bill to reflect the Labor position—the only position—which was to support the independent commission's report, the terms for the inquiry having been framed in the deal between the government and the Democrats. So let us go back to that dirty deal.Our amendments require the commission to consider both skills, which are critical to this debate, and community standards. Let me answer Senator Murray's question to me of yesterday by stating that we—Labor—believe that age 18 constituting an adult is a widely accepted community standard. That is what we believe is a widely accepted community standard—that is the answer, Senator Murray, to your question of yesterday.We support the view of the SDA that age 18 is a widely accepted community standard. Where we differ is in the process for implementing that standard. We have accepted—this goes well back—that the commission's decision should determine that framework. That is why we negotiated the outcome we did with the government.The Australian Industrial Relations Commission inquiry into junior rates, as I have said, was initiated by the Democrats. We have consistently argued that we would take on board what the commission had to say. The fact that we have accepted the broad position proposed by the commission is testament to the value we place in it as an independent umpire. I hope that Senator Murray appreciates the right that the Democrats had to appear in that commission inquiry. I have some recollection that, in the first wave of Reith reforms, attempts were made to limit intervention rights in the commission. I hope Senator Murray appreciates that you are going to need to argue those intervention rights if you want to run some of these arguments on a case by case basis in the commission, and I hope you will not compromise them in the second wave.We believe an independent commission is fundamental to Australian industrial relations. It is fundamental to protecting the position of those who are vulnerable in the labour market. The Labor Party is the only party that respected the independent role of the commission in all of this. The government continued to try and ram through the blanket insertion of junior rates—Minister Alston, that is in response to your earlier comment—and we opposed that with respect to this bill and still do, in line with the commission's report.The Democrats' response is even more interesting. They say they will do one thing and then do another. They are obviously a bit confused and that confusion is reflected in these amendments. They are the ones that have done the backflip. They are the ones that instigated this inquiry. They are the ones that do not like the result.As a general principle, we will not be specifying an age. To accept a particular age is to accept that it is okay to discriminate below that age. Senator Murray, my question to you in relation to most of these amendments is: where is the argument from the commission's decision that supports the insertion of an age? There is no argument in that commission report. I will be interested to see how you try to scrounge one up. Any argument that I have heard in the second reading debate so far has been an argument that was presented to the commission; it was not an argument that the commission accepted.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Oh, yes, but we do have wonderful evidence in our support.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I have not seen it yet. In addition, no consideration has been given to the possible disincentive to young people to undertake training such as apprenticeships. A 17-year-old school leaver could undertake a four-year apprenticeship leading to a qualification that will hold them in good stead for the rest of their life. However, consider the difference if a 17-year-old could leave school and undertake unskilled work and, after 12 months, be paid more than a final year apprentice. Isn't this a disincentive for young people? Isn't this the issue the commission needs to consider more closely on a case by case basis, unrestricted by a legislative standard on a particular age?We will not be supporting these amendments. We have our position. That is all I have to say on these amendments, other than to highlight at this stage one issue in respect of the first amendment. As Senator Murray has indicated, this amendment is about a presumption, which we argue is already there. I referred yesterday, pending some preliminary advice from the department, to a section in the report, at page 129, which says:The desirability of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives is implicit in the Act.In respect of the department's role in this matter, let me say that I appreciate their very timely advice following a request I made yesterday. They have gone out of their way to cooperate with the process that the government had established, and any criticism I made yesterday should be clearly directed at the government rather than at the department.Let me go back to the presumption. I want to go back to the full quote that Senator Stott Despoja referred to. Let us go to page xiii of the commission's summary and what the commission thinks is the task ahead. The commission thinks:The task is to get right the balance between classification options and two objectives:. equal opportunity taking account of the competitive disadvantage in employment of school-leavers, teenagers and young employees;. equality of treatment in employment for all employees taking account of skills, responsibilities, experience and performance.But here is the crux of the matter: that is not an easy task. I think that is what your common man in the street would expect to be the situation on junior rates. If you looked at any polling, you would probably say that most people would see that balance is important. But the quote from the commission's report states further:That is not an easy task. It goes to the substance of pay rate classifications, whether age discriminatory or non-discriminatory in form. Age discrimination measures—which is the word Senator Stott Despoja missed—present an ill-suited process for that task.Not `age discrimination', Senator, but `age discrimination measures', and there is a world of difference in the meaning.Let us look at age discrimination measures, because that is part of the critical problem that the commission's report deals with. In fact, it was so substantial in that report that, rather than reading bold sections of the report, Senator, I suggest you actually go to the appendix, where Justice Munro deals with the critical issues on the matter of discrimination—the critical issues that the commission has big problems with and which the commission says to us that we need to deal with. We need to deal with this problem because the meaning of discrimination as translated in this act is unclear. We need to deal with this crucial matter, senator, that all of your amendments ignore.Let me deal with the amendment to the act proposed by the government and to the Democrats' amendment. There is nothing in this bill that changes what the commission finds to be the task ahead. It does not change the passage I referred to, which comments that `age discrimination measures present an ill-suited process for the task ahead' for equal opportunity and young employees. That does not change. That is implicit in the act and that survives, Senator, in its full meaning, once you quote it and refer to it fully.My second question, I suppose, to the Democrats is: why do your amendments not deal with the commission's concern on the meaning of discrimination? The government's amendments do—or the bill does. Why don't the Democrats' amendments deal with that issue? That is the one issue where the commission sought parliamentary guidance. Why don't you? One of the reasons you do not is that you do not like the commission's report and you do not like the measures that various Australian states, and New Zealand, with similar industrial regimes adopted originally. You simply do not like it. You did not convince the commission of your argument, but you do not like the result. They were your terms of reference, negotiated with the government. That was your deal.In conclusion, let me just clarify in relation to this first amendment—and I will make some brief comments in relation to further amendments—that we believe that the presumption you are suggesting is already implicit in the act. I have indicated the support that exists for that argument in the commission's report. That will be a matter of record for the commission. So we will not be supporting, in particular, this first amendment or the rest of them, because they really do not do much.12:42:008231Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Two points I think need to be made. One is that Senator Stott Despoja seems determined to misuse the English language and the logic behind it by arguing that, because the commission somehow did not rule out the possibility of there being some justification or some other way of approaching the issue, the commission itself was therefore endorsing the Democrat amendments. Nothing could be further from the truth.The Democrats' submission to the commission proposed that junior rates be replaced by a competency based wage system and, I say again, the independent umpire comprehensively rejected the Democrat position. So Senator Stott Despoja can twist and turn as much as she likes, but she would be much better off spending less time on undergraduate celebrity humour and a bit more time on a quick course on logic and understanding that it is no justification at all for the Democrat amendments to say that, somehow, the commission was not prepared to rule out the possibility of there being some other feasible alternative. The fact is that the commission found that none of the alternatives to junior wage rates put to it were feasible. Senator Stott Despoja's party had every opportunity to put forward everything they could possibly regard as feasible. Those proposals were rejected. On that basis, I think it is abundantly clear that the Democrats simply have no logical defence to the proposition that they were the ones who wanted the inquiry. They got a result they do not accept and they simply want to have it both ways. So next time they come in here telling us to accept the umpire's decision we will have a very jaundiced view of that proposal.The other thing I wanted to mention relates to some figures that I want to correct.Progress reported.Bills8231r7818231Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:45:008231Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The opposition supports the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 and the amendment to be put forward by Senator Brown, on the understanding and in the hope that it will help improve the provision of services and programs for indigenous peoples.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8231The bill.12:46:008231Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 33), at the end of section 18, add: (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not: (a) the works or services are provided or funded exclusively in respect of Indigenous persons; or (b) the financial assistance is applied exclusively in respect of Indigenous persons.This amendment seeks to ensure that the commission's assessments are not confined to exclusively indigenous spending or money which is exclusively for the indigenous people. There is a big cross over there, and it is an unnecessary confinement. This amend ment simply improves the bill and makes more clear its intent. Let me point out that the word `indigenous' in my amendment should be spelt with a capitalised `I'. I hope that it will appear in the Hansard as such.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Brown, I have been advised by the Clerk that that depends on the consistency with other acts.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—This is my amendment, and I would hope that the capitalisation will remain.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—My advice is that we cannot make a comment on that point.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Then I will make the point and presume that the `I' will remain capitalised.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—My advice is that it will be recorded in our records as a capital, but we do not know whether that is the way it will be printed in the bill.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.8232Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills8232r8988232Debate resumed.12:49:008232Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I welcome the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries and others) Bill 1999 into the Senate today and the government amendments which passed through the House of Representatives earlier this week. Although I commend the government on the bill, which finally provides full payment to the workers from the Oakdale mine, I am also disappointed at the amount of time and the events that had to transpire before they were forced to take that action.It is well known that Labor have been advocating for the protection of workers' entitlements for a number of years. Labor introduced bills into both chambers in the last parliament. In this parliament I introduced the Employment Security Bill 1999 [No. 2] in May this year. Had the government been willing to work with us on the issue then, and had they been willing to work towards protecting the livelihood of normal Australians, many Australians would have been saved from financial and emotional hardship.When there was still no action from the government after I introduced the Employment Security Bill 1999 into the Senate, I wondered how much more prompting the government needed. Unfortunately, it took an event so large and so outrageous to the Australian community that it forced the government to do something. The event I am referring to is the closure of Oakdale Collieries.Back in May this year, the workers of Oakdale Collieries turned up to work only to find that their jobs had disappeared. Their company went into liquidation and they were left on the unemployment scrap heap. Under a government more interested in cost cutting than assisting people, they had limited access to adjustment assistance. The tragedy of job loss—the tragedy that affects a quarter of a million workers every day—is bad enough. Like most workers in such a predicament, they knew they would not be able to rely on the government to assist them in transition to their next job. Unemployment can be demoralising, but it is particularly so when you know you have to go it alone.But for the workers of Oakdale, like many others, the story gets even worse. The entitlements that they had accumulated over years of hard work, worth a total of over $6 million, had also disappeared. They were told that these entitlements, which they had always thought were secure, provided the firm with working capital at a cheap rate. Some people even had the audacity to tell them that these entitlements were not actually theirs; that they had knowingly loaned them to the company and, it had just so happened, that the debt went bad. This is not just a distortion of reality; it is a moral outrage. Who asked them whether their money could be used in unscrupulous operations?It was for this reason that, when the jobs of 125 coalminers were terminated without access to their long service leave, their annual leave, their sick leave or their redundancy pay, the public began to focus on the problem. The workers at Oakdale, like those at Cobar and Woodlawn before them, had to fight for what was theirs. Their union, the CFMEU, campaigned strongly to protect the interests of these workers, and I am pleased to say that they did so with the full support of the Labor Party. With the weight of public opinion behind these workers, the government was forced to back down. The government has now agreed to pay these workers from the coal industry's long service leave fund.This legislation provides for full payment to the former employees of Oakdale. In taking this step, the government has acknowledged that these moneys are entitlements. I trust that whatever scheme the government develops to deal with the broader issue will maintain that principle. There are already concerns associated with capping in the current proposals. That may mean problems for the government when you consider that, in the case of Oakdale, the employees will get 100 per cent entitlement but a future regime may mean something different. It may mean something different for workers who, under this current scenario, would have access to 100 per cent payment now it has been extended to situations which may occur between now and the end of the year and not just the Tasmanian example that was originally canvassed.As I said, Labor supports this bill, particularly as the government has made amendments to provide for the payment of entitlements to the eight coal workers from Maryvale in Tasmania and, I believe, any other employee who may be affected by the closure of a mine before the end of the year. Let us hope that miners after the end of the year will attract as attractive entitlements. This bill is a sensible short-term response to this issue, but is only a short-term response; and it is a belated response because this issue has been around for many years.Australian workers in small TCF companies have been losing their entitlements for many years. The number of medium-sized companies that have gone bust over recent years is on the rise. They go bust owing workers substantial amounts of money. This is a very worrying trend, particularly with the government's agenda of further weakening the powers of regulation that exist that usually regulate these matters for workers. It is a trend that peaked, of course, with the Patricks debacle. The most worrying element of that trend was that the government was actually caught up in that matter. The government willingly conspired in the Patricks debacle. As a consequence, there were problems associated with employee entitlements very similar to those that were faced by the Oakdale workers that the government has now been forced to accept it has to meet.Patricks was a situation in which a company deliberately restructured its finances to strip money out of parts of its organisation and put it into other sections of the corporate structure. This was done deliberately to ensure that workers would be denied their entitlements—denied any claim to accrued entitlements of annual leave, sick leave, redundancy payments and long service leave. They did this because they intended to sack them and they did not want to pay them a cent. It is bad enough that a company actually thought to do that with no regard to the effects it would have on so many of their employees and their families, but what is worse is that the government and, in particular, Minister Reith knew about it—they supported it; they assisted it.This government is on the record endorsing that practice of Chris Corrigan and his company of asset stripping to ensure that workers would not get access to their funds. We cannot go into too much detail because there are still some legal cases floating around about that. One day, though, those legal cases might get to court, and won't it be good for the Australian public to see the full disclosure in court of the sordid details which many of us in this place know about but are con strained from talking about. That is the history of this government's approach to employee entitlements.You would have thought that, by the time we got to the Oakdale dispute—with the public support that the Oakdale miners clearly had and with the concern that was palpable in the Australian public about this problem—that the government might have been a little more sensitive, but it was not. No less a person than the Prime Minister was hitting the airwaves—and I seem to recall a particularly astounding interview with Alan Jones—defending the right of companies to take their workers' money and use it for whatever they wanted.The assumption that everyone can look after themselves is a dangerous one for both the individuals concerned and for society as a whole—just ask the Oakdale miners, their families and their community. They thought they had provided for themselves, thought their own hard work would help provide for them, only to find an unscrupulous employer ready to rip their entitlements out from under them and only to discover a government that, until now, did not care about looking for ways to preserve employee entitlements.I would like to add here one matter that the government may well raise. I have heard many times the argument that Labor did not do anything about this over 13 years of government. It is a common response, but unfortunately it does not actually represent the facts. The fact is that, historically, this problem occurred in small TCF companies where often the amounts that workers had been denied were nowhere near as significant as, for instance, in the case of Oakdale. Notwithstanding that problem, Labor has done things over the years to try to preserve employee entitlements. That is why we no longer face this problem in the area of superannuation. People might recall that the genesis of the debate about superannuation was to ensure that companies were not `misinvesting' employee superannuation funds. Now we move on to one further step of reform: we want to ensure that employers are not `misinvesting' other employee entitlements.It is not good enough for governments to treat people we claim to represent in the manner that they have on this issue. The Howard government elected to wait it out in the hope that they would not have to budge. While the government waited it out, and then while they ummed and ahed about whether they should give the workers the money they had earned, 125 miners from Oakdale and their families suffered great financial hardship and stress.The hard work of the CFMEU and the Labor Party, and the decency of ordinary Australians in their response on this matter, made the government change their position. It reminds me of the position of ordinary Australians on the decisions of the government post Patrick. It was a pity that Mr Reith did not actually realise that that was the sort of response he would get to his behaviour before the fact; we might not have had that debacle.When working Australians are next under the hammer, I do not expect to see the government standing up for their rights; in fact, I do not know if I have ever heard John Howard or Peter Reith utter the words `workers' rights'. On the contrary, this government is hell-bent on destroying the rights of Australian workers, a prime example being the second wave of Reith legislation that is currently before a Senate committee. The government will not get away with it, because Australians do have a sense of fairness; they will deny legitimacy to any government proposing to do to Australian workers what the Howard government wants to do. In some cases, like this one, the Howard government will eventually realise that the weight of public opinion is such that it cannot do it.The broad issue of employee entitlements is not a simple one. Let us be clear about that. However, it starts with a relatively simple premise that people work their butts off, accruing entitlements along the way; they work hard, with one eye on keeping their heads above the water, and the other eye looking to the future. When that future is suddenly taken away, the effect is quite deep. The capacity to feed, clothe, house and entertain not just ourselves but those for whom we are responsible is suddenly jeopardised, and that is despite the fact that we have worked for that future. When we work for our future nobody has the right to take it away. Strong government must recognise this. It is not a costless exercise, but the issue at stake is a threshold one: it is about protecting those who play by the rules. In the end, it is about accepting shared responsibility as a basic statement of the sort of society we choose to live in.I think I will skim over my concluding remarks and, with the government's acceptance, once they look at them, incorporate them, for the sake of brevity. In this non-controversial legislation I am keen to allow all of your agenda to pass through. I will just briefly refer to a couple of comments I have with respect to the revised explanatory memorandum that Minister Alston circulated in the chamber a couple of hours ago.I note the change with respect to options in that revised explanatory memorandum. It was a point I was going to make. I was going to query whether you were going to amend the explanatory memorandum in light of the amendments, because this bill is no longer about a one-off example; it is about whatever examples of similar cases occur between now and the end of the year. A query on that relates to the fact that I am assuming that there are no workers who have access to this fund who have been in similar circumstances and have received only a partial payout who may equally feel they have some claim on the fund. I am not aware on the spot of examples that would fit that category, but I understand from some limited advice that that is not the case.The explanatory memorandum also, I believe, on a quick look, adds an option, option 3, which refers to matters pertaining to the government's discussion paper. I am somewhat amused that it is presented here as an option. I assume that is in response to criticisms in the House of Representatives about the fact that this is only a partial solution and that we need a broader solution into the future post next year. But given the way it is expressed here, my query is: is this really an option? We look, for instance, at the discussion of impact on government—benefits and costs—that would be assessed in decision making on the national scheme. Fair enough, but, if you are not going to say anything, why bother presenting it as an option?My other query on the explanatory memorandum is with respect to the costs associated with option 1, where we talk about the costs and the impact on government, and the comment there is `Nil'. I suppose you can argue that on a very narrow meaning of option 1, but I would have thought the potential consequences of the government's decision to go down this path in relation to Oakdale were much broader: they are as broad as the costs and benefits associated with the discussion paper that we will be considering, and on various scenarios they could be quite considerable.But the government have established, I believe, a worthy precedent on this matter. I think it will be difficult, on the basis of the Oakdale decision, for them to then argue that a national scheme should be tightly capped, and I direct that point also at Senator Murray. It is going to be a very difficult argument for the government to run that Oakdale miners are entitled to get 100 per cent of their payments and that mine workers in the future, when a mine might suffer a closure, should get only, for instance, $20,000. That will be a very difficult argument for the government to address, I believe, in the future debate.But, as I said, I am seeking to keep my comments brief in order to facilitate the process of non-controversial legislation so that we can get through as much business as we can today. I was going to seek leave from the Senate to incorporate my remaining concluding remarks but that is no longer necessary.13:07:008235Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator Collins, I am interested by your view of brevity when it comes to non-controversial legislation. I think you saved us three minutes out of 20 and I am quite sure your whip will be reminding you of the fact. Whilst I am addressing this bill, with your leave, Mr Deputy President, I want to acknowledge the presence in the government advisers box of Mr Anderson. I want to formally place on the Senate record my appreciation, and I hope Australia's appreciation, for his outstanding work at the Geneva conference on the convention of child labour. He carried Australia's flag very high. I was fortunate enough to witness his work, and you have the compliments of me and my party for your efforts, Mr Anderson.Turning to the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries and others) Bill 1999 itself, I am always somewhat surprised by the nature of the remarks opposition parties and coalition parties exchange over legislation such as this. I would have thought this was a time to be gracious and congratulatory, because this is genuinely a bill which is warmly welcomed by the Australian Democrats and by many of the Australian people. I think it meets a need that really had to be met. Senator Collins is quite right in that the government were resistant to going down this path originally, but they were never resistant to the idea that the coalminers at Oakdale should have an accommodation of some sort or the other. You might ask why I know that. I know that because I have been pursuing the general issue of a national entitlements scheme with the government and with the minister, and he at all times has made it clear to me in those discussions that if Oakdale miners could be accommodated the government would wish to do so. On the record, I do wish to acknowledge that they have wanted to do that.But far more important in this debate is to commend the CMFEU, whose strong advocacy and passionate defence of their workers' needs turned the public relations tide, turned the media tide and was able in the end to persuade the government to overcome the employers' rejection of going down this route. They deserve some warmth in this debate. Plainly, too, the Labor Party and the Democrats fully supported this mechanism, and therefore I have to express our pleasure—on behalf of the Democrats—that this has happened.I should also make a remark on Senator Collins's remarks about corporate restructuring. In 1988 a recommendation was made as to how to deal with corporate restructuring processes which result in bad outcomes for creditors and employees. That was from the Law Reform Commission during the time of the Labor government. Finally, when we had had enough of all that, we moved an amendment—in 1996 or 1997; I cannot recall the exact year off the top of my head—to fix the corporate restructuring problem. Labor supported us, the amendment went down to the House, the government rejected it, it came back here, and Labor did not insist on it. In relation to all that stuff about Patrick, restructuring and so on, it would have been helped if you had insisted on the amendment which you had already supported in the first place.In closing, Parliamentary Secretary, I give the thanks of the Australian Democrats for producing this bill, for meeting the needs of those workers, and I look forward to the government developing a national employee entitlements scheme which will relieve much of the pain so many workers have felt for decades from being unprotected in this area.13:12:008236West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I rise briefly—and I will be brief, unlike my colleague—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Oh—1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—I am sorry, it was a very good speech by Senator Collins, and Senator Collins has actually made a number of the points that I wished to make so there is no need for me to do that.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—That's never stopped you before.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! This is non-controversial legislation.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Senator Quirke, that is not warranted.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—They are fighting amongst themselves.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—We are not fighting. Senator Collins's contribution was excellent, and the point that she made was an important point—the fact that Labor, when we were in government, had undertaken to overcome a number of the anomalies and problems that were being wrought in relation to employees in this country by unscrupulous employers, particularly in relation to hopping into the superannuation funds of the employees and raiding those so that people were left with no superannuation.But whilst the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries and others) Bill 1999 covers those who work in the coal industry and are covered in the coal industry it does not cover those who are in other metalliferous mines, those in the TCF industry, those in building, those in child care, or those in the abattoirs or the meat industry. That is just to name a few areas where I am personally aware of employees who have lost their jobs because their employer has gone into bankruptcy, for whatever reason, and have lost quite considerable amounts of money.We still know very clearly about the Cobar miners, who are still probably five to 10 per cent short of their final payouts. They have been waiting now for about 20 or 21 months since they were made redundant. The Woodlawn miners have received nothing. We have had the abattoirs at Grafton go belly up.Yesterday I was talking to some textile workers from Melbourne and they outlined to me that they had lost their jobs. One of them had 10 years service and was going to get nothing; in fact, he had worked the last week of his employment for free, because at the end of that week they were not paid. He not only lost his 10 years of entitlements because of being made redundant; he also lost a week's pay. He was able to outline to me very clearly some of the shenanigans that the employer, the owner, had indulged in, changing and swapping around companies and items within various companies and moving assets around within his companies. In fact, the receiver had been called in, and he alleged that the receiver that he had used was the accountant in one of his other companies. One has to question that, and I am sure that that will be done through the role of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.I am also aware of another company that was picked up as having insolvency problems only because the Taxation Office, at the end of the 12 months, asked them where their employees' compulsory superannuation was, as it had not been paid in. That company went into liquidation and a number of the employees lost their superannuation entitlements. Those employees were on the list of creditors but were not advised of the final meeting for creditors. So there are lots of these examples happening within these business failure regimes where the employees are being ripped off.We only hear about the Oakdales and the Woodlawns and the abattoir at Grafton because there are large numbers of employees involved. We do not hear about the small ones with five, six, 10 or 20 employees because they fail to make the headlines and get the coverage that is needed. Often, of course, these small places also have non-unionised work forces so that they are really on their own battling to get some redress of their justifiable grievance.I think it is very good that we are able to provide the Oakdale miners with the rights that they are entitled to, along with the miners from Tasmania and the others in the coal industry, by the end of the financial year. But there are a lot of employees out there that have been made redundant because their company or their boss has gone into receivership or liquidation and they have received, and will receive, nothing.This opposition has been pushing for some considerable time now to close that loophole. I know that some members of the government say, `But you had 13 years.' Senator Collins has already advised of one of the number of measures that we took to close the loopholes, but the employers have moved on to try to exploit another loophole. This government is almost halfway through its second term and it is about time that it did something more constructive than just talking about possibly introducing some legislation to overcome the problem for employees other than those in the coal industry.13:17:008237Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I preface my remarks in supporting this bill by informing the Senate that I do have mining interests. In speaking in support of the bill for Oakdale Collieries, I would like to speak briefly on the rights of those miners. The issue that we have before us today involves wages that have not been paid to those miners, annual leave entitlements and sick leave entitlements.I believe that we are adapting the Aspro analogy to a problem. We are giving these miners something that will take away the pain temporarily but will do nothing to solve the problem. I believe we need changes to legislation that will give security to workers for their entitlements. We need further amendments to legislation that will guarantee the moneys that are accrued by these workers being held in funds, not available to the employers, to secure those rights for those miners. If we look at the wages, the annual leave entitlements and the sick leave entitlements, that money morally belongs to those workers.If we look at payments in lieu of notice and severance pay, I believe that, for an initial period, if they are not met by the company they should be met by the government. In setting up legislation that would allow for that, we would also need to give the government some real teeth. Having paid those entitlements to those workers, the government should have the ability to go out and get the money from the individuals and stop them hiding behind these pseudo companies.There would be two problems if we levied industry to cover these payments. Firstly, it would give anybody who wanted to manipulate the problem an out. A person could say, `It will be all right; the government will pick up the tab.' Secondly, the good guys would be paying for the irresponsible operators, and I believe that that is unjust as well.There is another source that we could look at from which we could pay for these entitlements. I believe we could look at our overseas aid and assess the merit and need for some of the projects in relation to the needs of the workers of Australia—and I would refer to some of the appropriations that have been used for military purposes in the Asian area. I believe that the rights of the Australian workers should come before giving aid to an Asian area for military purposes, and I do not think there would be too many people in this chamber who would disagree with that.I commend the government for this step in appropriating for Oakdale Collieries but I would recommend to the Senate that we need to look at the actual problem and find a realistic outcome for it.13:22:008238Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I will be brief, as I understand we have other legislation to deal with at this time of day. I support this legislation and put on the record my strong support for an ongoing process of legislative amendment that will protect all of the rights of workers, particularly their wages, conditions of employment and accrued leave entitlements.I spent many years in the union movement prior to coming to this place pursuing employers for unpaid wages and entitlements when employees were terminated or resigned and also when companies closed down with very little notice and left workers stranded. In all of that time, I cannot recall the Liberal Party, in opposition or indeed in government in the states, doing anything at all to support the rights of workers in those situations. Indeed, in all of those years the position was that the coalition opposed every single national wage increase for workers, particularly for low paid workers.This is probably the first time I can recall when anything has come out of this government that actually provides some positive benefit for workers. But a lot more needs to be done. The fact is that it is only through the controversy over the Oakdale situation and earlier situations such as those Senator West has mentioned at Woodlawn, Cobar and Grafton that action has finally started to occur.It is because of the efforts of the trade unions that these issues are taken up. I ask the government to pause and consider the rhetoric they often use, particularly the minister in this chamber, in attacking the role of unions. I do not have to defend them, but I think it needs to be acknowledged that they are often the only recourse left to workers in this situation to try to pursue rightful payment.As somebody once said to me, it is often better to be in a union and not need its assistance than to not be in one when you need it. I pay tribute to the CFMEU, to the AWU and to the other unions that have continued to pursue the rights of workers, particularly unpaid entitlements, in this indus try and in many other industries. They will continue to do so, and they are entitled to the support of the parliament of Australia to ensure that those entitlements are paid.13:25:008239Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their contribution. I particularly thank Senator Forshaw. He was a man of his word when he said that he would be brief. I also want to thank Senator Murray for his comments in congratulating Alexander Anderson. So many times people who are behind the scenes do not get the praise they deserve, and I think congratulations are very appropriate. I am sure he appreciates the comments that Senator Murray made at the beginning of his speech.Senator West asked a question. I think it was: what will the government do for employees receiving part payments? If this is not the question Senator West asked, I am sure that the minister will look carefully at the Hansard and ensure that the answer is given. But I believe the answer to her question is that, if any employee was dismissed before 31 December 1999 when the employer went insolvent after 1 January 1999, that employee will receive any entitlements not paid by the employer direct from the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund. I have been advised that the only known cases are at Oakdale and Merrywood.With respect to the issues that Senator Collins and Senator Harris raised—and I also acknowledge and appreciate the support for the legislation from the opposition, the Democrats and Senator Harris—the Oakdale bill is not a precedent for a national scheme. A discussion paper has recently been released which proposes a safety net of fair and reasonable protection. As honourable senators know, the coal issue is different because an industry fund already existed to cover the period until a national scheme was introduced. But of course the government is concerned about those people who were not covered by this, and that was raised by honourable senators here. That discussion paper addresses that, and I am sure Senator Harris and Senator West will take an active part in the debate on that discussion paper in order to make it fair and equitable for people who are in employment where their employer is declared insolvent or bankrupt. I thank honourable senators and commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills8239r8408239Consideration resumed from 28 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills8239r8558239Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:31:008239Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 is merely housekeeping legislation. Because the Howard government increased its cabinet from 15 to 17 after the 1998 election, and because of the differential pay rates between cabinet ministers and non-portfolio ministers, the bill seeks to remedy the financing of that. It is true to say that every new government always makes a mistake in its composition of cabinet. In 1983, the first Labor cabinet left the finance minister in the outer portfolio. In the first Howard cabinet they left the Attorney-General out. Both of those ministers are absolutely critical to cabinet deliberations, but that is soon remedied by experience.The great pity of this bill is what it does not do. It does not make provision for the payment of parliamentary secretaries. We currently have 12 parliamentary secretaries undertaking a range of responsibilities and a substantial workload for no reward—unless someone can put a figure on psychic salary. In the history of the Australian federal parliament, different terms have been used to cover parliamentary secretaries. They have been called assistant ministers, permanent undersecretaries and parliamentary undersecretaries. The terms have varied throughout history.There have been a variety of experiments with parliamentary secretaries, often with differing responsibilities, some inside the Executive Council, some not. For instance, the first major experiment in the use of these positions was in 1921-23, then in 1932-36 and then again in 1938-39. In 1942, two honorary assistants—J.J. Clark and Alex Wilson—were appointed to help the then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. Wilson, of course, was an Independent and not a member of the government parties. Also, R. James, C. Morgan and D. Watkins were appointed to work with the then Minister for Labour and National Service. As I understand it, Prime Minister Menzies continued to experiment with those positions until the mid-1950s. In 1971, Prime Minister McMahon appointed six assistant ministers, or parliamentary secretaries as we now know them. Among them, of course, were Michael Baume and John McLeay. None of those six, however, were members of the Executive Council.The next major move forward in this regard was by the Hawke government in 1990, which appointed four parliamentary secretaries. Prime Minister Keating, in his first government, appointed eight and, in his second government, had 11 such appointments. The current Howard government has 12 such appointments.The concept of parliamentary secretaries has occasionally been discussed in parliament. In a parliamentary debate on 25 June 1941, Maurice Blackburn—during one of those periods in which he was in the Labor Party and not expelled, which seemed to be year in and year out—stated:The Lyons Government tried the experiment of appointing parliamentary under-secretaries. I never understood why the system was abolished because to me it seemed to be a great convenience to Ministers and Members of Parliament.At the time, many doubted whether it was constitutionally possible to pay these people. Crisp, in his authoritative work in 1949, quoted Menzies as saying in regard to the payment of parliamentary secretaries:. . . that cannot be done without first amending the Constitution, because those gentlemen, not being Ministers of State, would hold an office of profit under the Crown.Menzies went on to say:The system of having Assistant-Ministers is not altogether satisfactory. I have felt myself since becoming Prime Minister, and I am quite sure some of my predecessors must have felt the same thing, that it is desirable that everybody who sits in Cabinet should sit in Cabinet as a Minister of State with specific responsibility for some department of state with accountability to parliament for the way in which he administers that Department.The payment of parliamentary secretaries was subject to substantial legal evaluation in the mid-1950s by some of the best legal minds in Australia: Barwick, Nigel Bowen, Tom Hughes and a whole range of eminent legal minds. I might say that they were on the conservative side of politics—the conservatives were in government and they were the ones who were thinking about it—but they gave thought to the payment of parliamentary secretaries. Each one basically said, `Be cautious. Don't risk incurring the provisions of section 44 of the Constitution.' This matter was also considered in detail by a very capable Senate committee which reported in 1981. I think it had Senators Evans and Durack and many others on it. They also urged caution in thinking about paying parliamentary secretaries.All those bodies were of the opinion that the legal impediments which inhibit paying parliamentary secretaries were not easy to overcome. But I am sure that, in terms of modern day legal thinking, a route can be found through this particular impasse. Following the Hawke government changes in 1987, in which you had portfolio ministers and associate or junior ministers, a lot of legal consideration was given at that time to making sure that that regime was valid, and I think the same validity can be passed over to parliamentary secretaries. It is also clear that, when we finally get around to reforming section 44 of the Constitution—which is a day coming closer, I think, because of other problems—we should address this area because it was not really meant by our founding fathers, as office of profit under the Crown, to inhibit the payment of parliamentary secretaries or their like. It simply was not, but that is a consequence of historical interpretation.Why have parliamentary secretaries? Firstly, the major argument, which I agree with, is workload. The demands on both cabinet and non-portfolio ministers is such that parliamentary secretaries play a major role in easing that workload. Secondly, parliamentary secretary positions are seen as effective apprenticeships before moving on to the ministry and to cabinet.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Hopefully!UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—There are many classic examples where this has occurred, though not for everyone. Nevertheless, it has been a very good training ground—and I do not say that patronisingly—for people to move from the backbench of parliament eventually to cabinet rank. I do not think we have had a parliamentary secretary yet who has become Prime Minister, but we await developments in that regard.The third reason—to be a little cynical—is that Prime Ministers use parliamentary secretaryships as a means of assuaging the pain of their colleagues who have not yet been seen as suitable for immediate promotion to ministerial rank. There is nothing wrong with that. There would be if parliamentary secretaries were just a title, but because they have such a heavy workload it does not matter whether a Prime Minister of any persuasion is being cynical about it, you have to evaluate the end result.Most parliamentary secretaries are given real responsibilities. They are not just people put in to sign letters or be a general factotum to a minister. I remember when I was Minister for Defence—it is hard now, it was a long while ago—that I did give one of my parliamentary secretaries responsibility for emergency services in Australia, a distinct area that you could carve easily out of the ministry, and had someone give it a lot more attention than a minister had in the past. I found that worked very effectively. I have seen it in both persuasions of government. You really should give a parliamentary secretary a real area of responsibility, not just use them as a general dogsbody. I think that has been our experience in the parliament, that they have been given real responsibility.We have seen evolving since 1991 a tendency in this chamber to give a parliamentary secretary the responsibility of Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I might just inform the Senate of how this occurred. I was manager in June 1991. Most people would remember we had a leadership disagreement in the Labor Party at that time. I went to the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and suggested that Senator McMullan would make a good parliamentary secretary as Manager of Government Business. He snarled at me, `Why should I promote him? He did not vote for me.' I said, `No, but I did.' The lesson of that is that I wanted to get rid of it.From then on a parliamentary secretary basically had responsibility for managing business, and I think it has worked very effectively. The problem with a minister having that role is that they are constantly pulled out of their office to deal with matters. That interrupts meeting schedules and other particular work, whereas a parliamentary secretary can concentrate on a matter. So it has worked reasonably well.I would say that, at the very least, a parliamentary secretary performs at the level of a first assistant secretary in the Public Service, plus they do another job. They are a member of parliament with all its full responsibilities. But for all this they receive no remuneration whatsoever. They do receive extra travel rights. But who in politics wants to travel any more than they have to after the first couple of years? They do get additional staff—and that is certainly justifiable with the workload—and they are reimbursed up to $10,000 a year for expenses. That is the sum total of what they get. My view is that parliamentary secretaries should at least receive a salary increment of $20,000 a year for performing the tasks of parliamentary secretary. The total cost to government in a year would be something like $220,000. Of course, no-one would be happy with that, but in the overall budget within DOFA and within this parliament it is a minuscule amount.People may ask: why didn't the Labor government address this during the period 1990 to 1996? I may be wrong in this, but we judged at that time that we would not get support in this chamber. That was our judgment. It may have been correct, it may have been incorrect, but that is why we never attempted to do it. The fact is that if you think an opposition is going to be opportunistic about this, or you think the minor parties are going to demand staff increases as a pay-off for their support, of course a government would not tackle this particular issue.I have no idea, if the government progressed the proposal to pay parliamentary secretaries, what the Labor Party attitude would be. All I can say in this chamber is that I will do everything possible to convince the Labor Party that they should be paid. I am sure those who served as parliamentary secretaries in the Hawke and Keating governments would also support any attempt to resolve this particular situation.The ideal time, of course, to address this is just before the next election. Unless there is an absolute clear-cut matter—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Oh, straightaway!N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Straightaway.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I will take those interjections and come back to them. The only reason I say that this is the ideal time is because you are more likely to get it through then because, in reality, even though we are all confident of our own chances, no-one is actually certain who is going to form the next government. So it is fair for everyone. It also means that coalition parliamentary secretaries would have gone ahead unpaid for six years. Guess what? That equates with the previous Labor ones. But if I had my druthers I admit I would pay them from tomorrow.We have our differences across the chamber, we have our spats across the chamber, but one thing I do at least recognise is that parliamentary secretaries do not, in my view, bludge. They have a substantial workload yet at the same time they have the example of people like me who chair committees. I am getting paid more than Senator Patterson because I chair a committee, and so do a lot of her colleagues and a lot of my colleagues on this side. They have less responsibility, we have to admit. Committee secretaries get an increased salary—and I am not going to knock mine back—but parliamentary secretaries do not get a cent.In modern society they do not do the task for the money. No-one can tell me that a parliamentary secretary is putting up their hand to do this particular task for the money. Even if we remunerated them, it would not motivate anyone an extra degree to the work level. But you have to recognise that in our parliamentary system there are some pay rate differentials. Of course the Prime Minister gets paid the most, and of course the Treasurer gets paid virtually the next most, and so down the list.I certainly think it is time to cut the Gordian knot, to again look at the legal consequences and the way through on this particular issue and move as soon as possible for the payment of parliamentary secretaries. If the Labor Party opposes it, at least the coalition can blame the fat Indian up the back here and quote me and assuage any political damage that will be done by it.13:45:008242Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 . We accept the reasons for the increased appropriation and we regard this as essentially a housekeeping item.I will, however, accept the opportunity that the bill presents me with to draw attention to the hypocrisy that has been displayed by government speakers on the last occasion that a very similar amendment to this bill was debated. That was way back in May 1996, after the time when Senator Ray would have had much fonder and better memories of being Minister for Defence. At that time, the amount appropriated for ministerial salaries was increased from $1,615,000 to $1,640,000. The then Minister for Administrative Services, Mr Jull, pointed out that this increase was required to meet increases in salaries for ministers under the previous Labor government. He said, on the other hand, that the Howard government was going to reduce both the size of the ministry and the sum required in future years. He said that this would go down from $1,600,000 as from the 1996-97 financial year.Madam Acting Deputy President, what happened? John Howard was no sooner re-elected for a second term than he increased the size of the ministry to 30; he increased the size of the cabinet to 17; and he is now increasing the appropriation for salaries. You have to wonder whether it is a surprise at all that we greeted his promises of frugality, probity and higher standards of government with the scepticism that we did. The point is that our scepticism again has been vindicated.I want to make it quite clear: we are prepared to support the passage of this bill. But on this occasion, as we deal with the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 , let us not have the hypocritical posturing that we had in May 1996.13:48:008243Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—May I say something about what was said by those senators who spoke in this debate. Firstly, Senator Ray gave a thorough assessment of the situation in relation to parliamentary secretaries. The government will take on board his comments. The comments made by Senator Ray have not gone unnoticed—perhaps I can take it no further than that.In relation to Senator Faulkner, can I say that this is a housekeeping matter. It results from the inclusion in the cabinet of Minister Ruddock. If the Labor government had stayed in power, this amount today would be $1.78 million because, unlike the previous government, there is a differentiation between ministers' pay in cabinet and out of cabinet. That was not something which was in the previous government.We reject outright any statement or allegation that we have increased expenditure in this regard in relation to the previous govern ment. In fact, we have not. Let us not make more of this bill than needs to be made. It is purely a housekeeping matter and no more. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8243The bill.13:50:008243Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I would like to ask the minister at the table a question in relation to Mr Jull's claims back in 1996 about reducing the size of the ministry and the sum that would be required in future years. I suppose he was just wrong, was he?13:50:008243Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the time he was absolutely right. The situation is that this ministry is no larger than the former ministry, if that is what Senator Faulkner is trying to say. It is not. As I said, if the previous government were still in power, the figure that they would be asking for would be $1.78 million as opposed to the sum that is being sought today.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.8243Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills8243r7848243Debate resumed from 11 August, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:51:008243Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Labor will be supporting the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . We think that the primary goal of the bill is an important one for the Australian defence legislation. That primary goal is to implement a process for urine drug testing of Australian Defence Force members who are involved in combat or combat related duties as well as established associated disciplinary measures by amending the Defence Act 1903.The ADF has had a no drugs policy for many years. The policy requires the relevant service authority to initiate disciplinary or administrative action against any member of the ADF found selling, possessing, dealing in or administering an illegal drug. The administrative sanctions include termination of appointments for officers, discharge from the service for non-officers or reduction in rank.In July 1995, following trials that had been conducted since September 1993, the Chief of the Defence Force directed that a urinalysis testing program be implemented across the ADF. The proposal entailed a UTP, for narcotic substances, of samples from randomly selected ADF members. The testing process was going to have an emphasis on personnel from operational and basic training establishments.The initiative was supported by the then Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Ray, and the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Senator John Faulkner. However, it was not able to be implemented without legislation, following concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner and the Attorney-General's Department. That same year, the Labor government commenced work on drafting legislation to implement the UTP, but it was not able to be introduced into parliament prior to the 1996 general election.The Australian Defence Association and the Armed Forces Federation of Australia support in principle a drug testing program but do not have any specific position on this bill, I am advised. A general view expressed by the ADA and the Armed Forces Federation of Australia is that any drug testing program should apply equally to all uniformed personnel, irrespective of their duties, considering that in time of combat all ADF personnel may be in combat or combat related areas.It is a matter of balancing OH&S concerns with civil liberties of ADF members. Like the initiative launched under the previous Labor government, this program would specifically focus on combat and combat related personnel. Labor will be monitoring how the program is conducted, and will be consulting with the relevant organisations over the coming years to ensure that this program is achieving its goals, but at the same time is protecting the natural justice balance for ADF personnel.The other measures in the bill, such as allowing senior ADF personnel to directly transfer to the reserves at the end of their service contracts or appointments, are issues that we also support, particularly in these times when the government is increasing its demands of the reserves. We believe that maintaining the skills of the experienced personnel is crucial. The opposition will be supporting the bill.13:55:008244Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I am delighted that the opposition supports the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . I thank Senator Mackay for her contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills8244r8258244Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Senator Heffernan:That this bill be now read a second time.13:56:008244Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I commend the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills8244r7948244Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.13:57:008244Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I commend the Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Questions Without Notice824582458245Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to Senator Macdonald, the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of evidence given to the Senate transport committee last Friday by Patrick's Chairman, Mr Chris Corrigan, that the Howard government never sought a commitment from the stevedoring companies to lower their rates in response to a significant cut in their operating costs directly funded through a government guaranteed loan? Can the government confirm that this statement is in fact accurate?8245Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The question that I heard was: was I aware of the evidence given to the committee last Friday, and the answer, Madam President, is no.8245Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Just to reiterate the question for the minister, is the minister aware that Chris Corrigan has alleged that no commitment was sought by the government in terms of the lowering of stevedoring rates as a result of the operating costs directly funded through the government guaranteed loan? Mr Corrigan is alleging that the government actually never requested that commitment of him or of any stevedoring company. If the key purpose of the waterfront reform strategy was not designed to cut stevedoring charges, which Mr Corrigan is alleging, just what was it designed to do?8245Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Again, the answer is, regrettably, no, I was not aware of the evidence Mr Corrigan gave.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Do you know anything about the issue?8245Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I am answering your question, Senator. I just do not make a speech and hope that it covers some of the things you might have wanted it to. The answer to your question is no. Senator, you are the shadow minister for local government, for territories and for regional services. I do not think I have had a question from you on those matters since I have been minister. Perhaps one or two.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—I take a point of order, Madam President, on relevance. I asked a question in relation to the government's policy on stevedoring charges and I would like some semblance of an answer from this minister, who represents Minister Anderson.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Government senators will cease interjecting. Senator Macdonald, I thought you had answered the question. I think, from the point of view of relevance, perhaps stick to the question if there is anything further you want to add on that.8245Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Madam President, Senator Mackay may have wanted to ask something else, may have wanted to ask about the policy, but her questions were simply: did I know what was said at the Senate committee hearing, or was I aware of Mr Corrigan's evidence? The answer to those two is no. If she meant to say something else, then that is her problem, it is not mine. I cannot ask the question for her and then answer it for her. I would just appreciate, perhaps even now and again, a question on regional services, a question on the territories or a question on local government.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, that is not responsive to this question.82458245Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Will the minister advise the Senate of the functions undertaken by the Australian Federal Police in East Timor?8245Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Ferguson for his question. As senators will no doubt be aware, the Australian Federal Police have a long and very distinguished history associated with United Nations missions, including Cyprus, Cambodia, Mozambique, Haiti, Somalia, Namibia, Bougainville, border relief camps on the Thai-Cambodia border, and of course now in East Timor.At the United Nations Assistance Mission in East Timor, the commissioner of civilian police is in fact Commissioner Alan Mills, a recently retired AFP officer who had a long and distinguished career in the Australian Federal Police. He was reappointed to the Federal Police to undertake this important international role, and his acceptance in that role is recognition of the very high calibre of Australian police officers and their international standing in these types of duties. He is supported by a multinational force of which the Australian Federal Police have contributed 50 members. These members deployed to East Timor on 22 June and have made a significant contribution to the United Nations mission. This initial deployment is, of course, due to commence rotation with a further contingent of Australian Federal Police commencing later this month—that is, that 50 will return and a further 50 will be sent over in a staged deployment.Their function is to advise the Indonesian police in the discharge of their duties and to supervise the escort of ballot papers and boxes to and from the polling sites. It should be noted that these men and women from all over, but especially from Australia, do not have recourse to police powers in East Timor and undertake their functions as unarmed civilian police.I would certainly like to take the opportunity to put on record the government's appreciation and the appreciation of the whole Australian community of the efforts of these very brave men and women. Many of these Australian Federal Police officers have been in isolated communities with little or no outside contact since their first deployment. It is clear from media reports, and reports from the Australian parliamentary observer delegation, that many booths were attacked by militia, both armed with firearms and using rocks and stones.In Gleno, in the Ermera region, the Australian Civpol contingent were caught up with other UNAMET workers and local UN workers in the militia blockade. Through the efforts of Civpol, led by Australians, the local workers working with them, the ballots were kept safe and taken out in convoy to Dili, where they finally arrived on Tuesday night. There is some very significant and perhaps more colourful newspaper coverage of that event that I would draw senators' attention to which highlights very clearly the kinds of risks that Australian Federal Police undertake when they undertake these duties.In Maliana—expected to be one of the most volatile regions—Australian Civpol dealt with in excess of 3,000 voters at a single polling place and managed a very effective polling day in what could have been an extremely dangerous environment. So I just take the opportunity to put on record the appreciation of the Australian government, the Australian community and, lastly, but not least, the Australian parliamentary observer delegation for the support that they received recently from the Federal Police officers in East Timor and particularly from the two officers that accompanied them on their journey.82468246O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Macdonald representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. What is the minister's response to the evidence given at last Friday's hearing of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee by Dr Greg Feeney, the government's most senior maritime policy adviser, that there is a possibility that stevedoring rates might very well increase rather than fall as the government claimed at the time of the waterfront confrontation? How does he respond to reported comments by the Chief Executive of the Liner Shipping Service, Mr Llew Russell, that shipping lines servicing the Australia-South-East Asia trade have already been hit by dramatic increases in stevedoring rates? How do these statements sit with the government's stated objectives at the time it provoked the waterfront stoppage?8246Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The government's waterfront reform initiatives are already delivering real benefits to the industry and to users. Restructuring within the steve doring industry has already seen quite dramatic improvements in productivity. Patrick is now moving up to 100 per cent more containers per shift per man under its new enterprise agreement with the MWU. P&O is expecting to achieve comparable outcomes when its restructuring program is fully implemented. The productivity improvements are being complemented by increased service reliability within Australia's container terminals, derived from the government's workplace reforms and the terms of the new enterprise agreements that have been negotiated under the Workplace Relations Act. So it is a good news story.This new-found reliability on Australia's waterfront is enabling more shipping lines to move to fixed day service schedules and to improve services for shippers. When P&O has completed the introduction of its restructuring program in the next little while, it will again be operating with a comparable cost structure to Patrick and it can be expected that market forces will then come into play so far as stevedoring prices are concerned.Generally speaking, the government have a good record with this. We are proud of the increase in productivity and we are proud of the new-found optimism on the waterfront. I am sure my colleagues opposite would also be very happy with and welcome the increased productivity and the increased enthusiasm of the workers on the waterfront and will encourage the government with the reforms.8247O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that stevedoring rates are now increasing rather than falling, despite reduced costs in the stevedoring industry, will the minister concede that the only real winners out of the whole waterfront fiasco have been the shareholders in Patrick, or Lang Corporation, and P&O? So much for a so-called good news story.8247Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—No, I would not concede that, Madam President. The real beneficiaries are the people of Australia. I am interested in the Labor Party's new freedom and liberty which they seem to have come across in the last day or so. Now that they are not constricted in any way by policy or policy formulation, I am interested in just what their thoughts on these ideas might be. You will all remember Senator Bob Collins telling us he would resign on some date—I forget what the date was—if he did not fix the waterfront. Remember that? It got worse each year. Senator Collins did not resign, bless his soul. But the Labor Party in government never did anything for the waterfront and never did anything for Australians who rely on shipping to get goods across the waterfront. The real winners from the reforms we have brought into play are the Australian people.82478247Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I have a question for the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, ask it.4L6Senator EGGLESTON—I will. Would the minister inform the Senate of international recognition of the Howard government's efforts to protect and restore our natural environment? Would the minister also indicate what role Australia will play in celebrating next year's World Environment Day?8247Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for that important question. It was interesting to listen to the opinions expressed yesterday by Dr Thomas Lovejoy, the chief adviser to the World Bank on biodiversity issues. His comments contrast sharply with the hysterical claims and allegations that we are used to hearing from the ALP, the Greens and some of the old wing of the environment movement in Australia. These groups continually attempt to smear Australia's reputation, both at home and abroad. In doing so they denigrate the efforts of tens of thousands of Australians who are involved in the hands-on work of protecting and restoring our environment. The picture from Dr Lovejoy, an internationally renowned biodiversity expert, is somewhat different. Dr Lovejoy told the Press Club:I take real heart in some of the things I have ran across on this trip, namely the new biodiversity law, which may not be perfect but goes a long way to addressing some of the things that need to be addressed. I hope you take note, Senator Bolkus. What a pity it is that the Labor Party, Senator Brown and some of the old guard Green groups chose to attack this new law so savagely, simply for political purposes. Here we have a world export saying that the government is on the right track. Dr Lovejoy went on to say:I think some of the work that Australia is doing in looking at the marine environment, strict protection and management way out into the zone of economic interest, are probably leading efforts globally. You also have, I think, the leading activity in the world in Landcare in restoring degraded lands.So that is a big tick for the Howard government's new oceans policy and a big tick for our increased support for Landcare made possible through the Natural Heritage Trust. Dr Lovejoy also said:Australia is clearly a world leader in the science of biodiversity, including the work of the Australian Biological Resources Study. If there is any country that is going to be there generating excitement at the age of biological exploration, it will be Australia.The ABRS was, of course, established by the Fraser government. In this year alone, we are committing almost $4 million to its continued work. It is therefore clear from the words of such people as Dr Lovejoy that Australia's environment efforts are world class and the international community is showing its recognition of our strong performance.Next year, Australia will host the 50th meeting of the International Whaling Commission and continue our push for a global whale sanctuary. We will host an international Landcare conference in Melbourne in April of next year, which will be a world first and enable us to project leading environmental matters to the international community. As further proof of our high standing, next year we will host the World Environment Day celebrations under the banner of the United Nations Environment Programme, which will give a unique opportunity for Australians to project their fine international standing in this area. There will be the opportunity for Australians to join together to project to the international community what we are doing so well in the environment and to show the international leadership what we seek to do.82488248Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to Senator Macdonald, the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Of course the minister would agree with Mr Feeney from the Department of Transport and Regional Services that the Howard government has in fact failed to get anywhere near the stevedoring productivity benchmark, which it set itself in April last year, of a national five-port average of 25 crane movements per hour by April this year. Of course the minister would agree with the statements of Mr Feeney from the Department of Transport and Regional Services that the government has in fact failed to meet its target of 97 per cent of ship calls finding a berth within four hours of the scheduled time by April this year. Given that the government has in fact failed so badly to meet its own first set of waterfront reform benchmarks, can the minister advise the Senate whether or not a second set of benchmarks has been set? If so, what are they?8248Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I can tell Senator Mackay that productivity and good reforms on the waterfront are infinitely better under the reforms of this government than they ever were under Labor. Senator, your government regrettably never had the courage to take on the wharfies union, because many of you, I guess, are in the Senate by kind favour of the wharfies union. You were never game to take them on. But we have in fact not taken them on; we have worked with them. We have worked with the waterfront companies to get a better outcome for Australia.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise in the chamber is unacceptably high.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I understand Senator Faulkner interjected and called the MUA `hired thugs'. I do not know that I would have gone that far. There are certainly many allegations around. Some of the wharfie unions would fit that description that I understood Senator Faulkner gave them.We have been seeking waterfront reform in our country for a long time. It has been holding Australia back. Even the Labor Party recognised that reform was necessary. As I mentioned in the answer to my previous question, Senator Collins was one I particularly remember who understood—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Former Senator Collins.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Former Senator Collins. I am sorry. It was not Senator Jacinta Collins; it was Senator Bob Collins, who has gone on—I understand—to bigger and better things, using his talents much more productively these days. He understood the problems on the waterfront. He committed himself to doing something about it, but he was rolled by the unions who control the Labor Party, and particularly by the waterfront unions. He understood that reform was needed, but the Labor Party were never able to do it. Mr Reith and the Howard government generally were determined to do something positive about it. They did something, and the waterfront is a far better place for it. The Australian community is far better for it. Our exports are far better for the work that we have done. It is not perfect. We will continue to work. We will continue to try and improve it. Things happen. But it is infinitely better than it was under the previous government. We will continue working to make it better and we will achieve that.8249Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The question actually related to a number of benchmarks that the government itself set and that it in fact has failed to meet. Given that stevedoring charges are in fact going up and shipping charges are also likely to go up and given that the government—on the admission of its own department—has failed to meet any of its key waterfront reform benchmarks, will the minister now concede that the government's claimed waterfront reform strategy was nothing to do with good public policy but was all about smashing organised labour on the Australian docks?8249Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In spite of the preamble, the question was: will the government concede that our reforms were nothing about public policy and all about smashing organised labour on the waterfront? Again, Senator, I will not concede that because it is patently wrong. There is a real public policy and a public benefit policy involved in the reforms of the Howard government. Those policies, working towards reform of the waterfront, will continue.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You are not meeting your own benchmarks.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator, you keep talking about benchmarks. Have you had a look at the benchmarks under your government? The benchmarks were atrocious and productivity kept going down under your government. We have arrested that and things are looking better. We still have some way to go; I concede that. But we will continue working on it and we will continue to do the right thing by Australia, something your government, regrettably, with its huge union influence, was never prepared to do.82498249Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is the minister aware of an article that was published earlier in the week in the Christchurch press which indicated that 14 of the 15 Australian Navy Fremantle class patrol boats lost vital navigation systems when the global positioning system time system was reset on 22 August? Can the minister please confirm that the GPS navigation systems on the 14 of the 15 Fremantle class patrol boats failed on that date as reported? Could the minister please explain why and how this occurred, given that lengthy advance notice of the problem was available to the Australian Navy? How has this happened?8249Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am delighted to see that Senator Stott Despoja is taking an interest in defence matters. I only wish more members of the parliament did. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I read the Christchurch gazette. I have enough trouble trying to read the ones from Australia. I would be very happy to get the senator that information from the Minister for Defence.8249Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps if the minister is taking that on notice—and I should acknowledge that this has been reported in the Australian media, as well, including the AAP wire service—would the minister also come back to the Senate with the following: given that some of these failures were anticipated by the Defence Assistant Secretary, what other failures are we anticipating in relation to the Australian defence forces as a result of the Y2K bug? In short, can the minister give us an assurance that the Australian defence forces are really prepared for the year 2000?8250Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—If Senator Stott Despoja wanted information on Y2K in terms of defence, I can give her some information about that. But now she has given me one minute to do it; I could have given her four minutes worth before. So I am sorry about that. The eighth year 2000 quarterly report to cabinet will report defence assessment at 100 per cent complete and over 99 per cent of mission critical functions as Y2K fit for purpose. Defence has completed a detailed assessment of all assets, both operational and administrative. No adverse operational impacts or public risk exposure is expected. Weapons systems have been cleared and will continue to function. It is estimated that Defence will be spending $253 million in total on assessment and remediation of its business critical and other important systems. A portfolio risk management plan has been prepared to provide a planning framework within which Defence groups can manage residual risk associated with the year 2000 project. (Time expired)82508250Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to the minister's answer on Tuesday this week regarding whether GST input tax credits will form part of small businesses' assessable income. The minister's response was:The government is aware of this debate . . . this is a matter that the government will look at and it will make sure that the issue is clarified.Has the minister clarified this matter for himself? Can he, therefore, confirm whether or not the current GST legislation is flawed and that GST input credits are assessable income, as highlighted by tax expert Mr Geoffrey Lehmann? If the minister is not able to answer this question, why shouldn't we conclude that this is just another sneaky attempt by the Howard government to tax small business by stealth?8250Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As I have pointed out many times in this chamber, tax reform will provide very substantial benefits for small business, medium sized business and big business. So I think the idea that somehow we are bringing in tax reform in a sneaky manner is absurd. There has been no public policy area in my time in the parliament which has been so relentlessly exposed to the public in relation to tax reform.The senator did mention on Tuesday that there was an issue which had been covered in the press, as to whether input tax credits would form part of assessable income. I did point out to the senator that the government was aware of this issue, was aware of some concerns that had been expressed in the community. I mentioned to the senator that the government was looking very closely at this issue to make sure that it could be clarified. Senator, I can inform you that the public policy position on this matter is that they are not part of assessable income and that the government will be looking at ways in which we can make sure that the legislation is appropriately clarified.8250Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. When will you be clarifying this for small business? Will it require some legislative change to do so?8250Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Part of the problem is that supplementary questions are written down before the answer is given. I think that was the problem. You didn't actually listen closely to what I said, Senator, because you had a supplementary written down. You should listen to the answer. The answer was very clear. The answer is one which you should read carefully. The government is looking at amendments which may be needed to clarify the legislation. The government will always do things as soon as possible and practicable.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I call Senator Allison.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I take a point of order, Madam President. As you will be aware, question eight stage is for the Independents and Greens. I have a very important question to ask about the impending sale of the Ok Tedi mine from BHP to China. I ought to be able to ask that question at this time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. I call Senator Allison.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I take a point of order. You have made a ruling—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have not made a ruling, Senator.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—which has given the question to the Democrats in front of the Greens at this stage, against years of practice in this place. I ask you, President, to give me and the Senate what information you have about this deal between the Democrats and the government which has changed the practice of the last three years to cut me out of this question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Matters about arrangements for questions can be discussed by senators outside of the chamber. It is the prerogative of the President to call based on fairness. I call Senator Allison.82518251Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. I refer to the minister's answer to my question yesterday in which she mentioned the Paralympics and said: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.Is the minister aware that Sydney needs at least 400 wheelchair accessible taxis for the 4,000 Paralympic athletes and that so far there are just 38 on the road? Is the minister also aware that the $10,000 per vehicle in federal sales tax on the modifications is the main reason that taxi operators are not taking up licences? Will the government now, as a matter of urgency, waive this tax?8251Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am glad that Senator Allison came back to this issue, because I ran out of time yesterday when I was trying to advise the Senate about the letter to the Sydney Telegraph from somebody who is writing a tourism booklet for people travelling to Australia and around Australia about the access that is currently available. It was a pretty scathing letter which did, in fact, refer to the difficulty of getting taxis. It referred to the number of times that he tried to get a taxi and, as I recall it, to the unwillingness of taxi drivers to answer a call for a specialised cab. That is something which I have heard around the country for quite a while.I do not know whether the figures that Senator Allison gave were accurate or not; I could not comment on that. Transport is not my portfolio, nor is tax or tax reform, so in the case of the modifications and in the case of any federal sales tax issues I do not feel that she has addressed her question to the correct minister. I do reiterate what I said yesterday, though. It is a serious matter if people with disabilities are denied their opportunities as citizens to travel—on road, by air or by whatever means—to be entertained, to have holidays and to buy goods and services.The Gold Medal Disability Access Strategy is, very importantly, focused on improving what is already happening now, because businesses do have it within their grasp to do a lot better for themselves as well as for people with disabilities. I think the strategy is a very important initiative in terms of trying to sensitise people in the private sector to lost and missed opportunities, to future benefits for them and, at the same time, to doing good by those in Australia who need to be treated as equal citizens, and I am very glad that you are giving it the attention you are.8251Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. As I understand it, the minister is responsible for services for people with disabilities, and her answer yesterday would tend to confirm that. I ask her again: given that responsibility, will she now do something for the paralympians who are coming to Australia next year? Minister, yesterday you told the Senate that $1.2 million was being spent on gold medals and public relations. I ask: how much will your government have to spend on public relations when Australia becomes an international embarrassment because it leaves athletes with no way of getting around for the Paralympics?8252Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I noticed the press release that Senator Allison put out about the money being spent on the disability access strategy, and I did say to her yesterday that I would get her some information, which I have available here. I will now advise the whole Senate. The information activities are estimated at $370,000. The launch, which includes events in all capital cities, involves $80,000. A symposium series to cover the country comes to $430,000, and the Prime Minister's awards are estimated to cost $225,000. The total estimate is—1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The minister is answering my question from yesterday. There is a time and a place for doing that. I wonder if the minister could be directed to address the question that I asked today.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I just remind you of today's question, Senator Newman.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The senator did refer to the $1.2 million strategy, and I think it is very important that people do know how that is spent. Nevertheless, she once again asked me a question which I believe is more appropriately directed to the transport portfolio.82528252Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the minister endorse the comment of Mr Costello, who on 1 February 1995 said:I mean, look, my analysis is this . . . My analysis is that this is a Government that has completely failed Australia on the current account deficit and produced the highest current account deficit ever, which is a total failure of economic policy. That's my analysis.Applying the same analysis to goods and services trade, is it not true that on a trend basis over the last 12 months the Howard government has presided over a deficit of $1,250 million per month, which is three times the average over the last 12 months of the Labor government? Isn't Mr Costello's analysis even more correct now in relation to the Howard government's performance on both the current account deficit and the goods and services trade deficit?8252Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We could have a frank exchange of quotes. I have some quotes here of what you have said over the years.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Not his famous quote?WW4Senator KEMP—No, the quote which is most relevant to this debate is Senator Cook's third most famous quote.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—`Wake me up before 10 o'clock'?WW4Senator KEMP—No, that is his fourth most famous quote. Senator Cook's third most famous quote was:The current budget—this was on 23 November 1995, sourced from Hansard —the budget we brought down in May this year, put the budget into surplus—and not just a surplus this year but also a surplus next year—without there being a contribution to that surplus by asset sales.What was the end result? Not a surplus, Senator Cook; a major deficit, Senator Cook. That is why, I might say, Senator Cook is often referred to in an affectionate sense as `Senator Cook the books'. Senator, you were not only wrong; you were absolutely dead wrong.I now turn to the Treasurer's comments. The Treasurer was quite right to point to the disaster of the Labor years, to the fact that virtually every feature of the economy was out of whack and that this economy was being very poorly managed. When this government came in, we very soon faced the worst financial crisis in the world economy really since 1945. As a result of its reforms, as a result of the way it has managed its own books, this government was able to make sure that Australia withstood the downturn in Asia, the downturn in a lot of our export markets. But it is not surprising, in the context of having such a downturn as we have experienced in the Asian region and of having a recession in some of our export markets, that this will have an effect on the balance of payments. As many other observers have pointed out, the fundamentals in this Australian economy are very sound. They point to the fact that this economy has enjoyed strong growth. The levels of unemployment are falling. The levels of employment are rising. Senator, as we are having a fairly frank exchange of quotes, perhaps I could refer you to the Governor's foreword in the Reserve Bank annual report. He said:For Australia, it was a good year; although we were caught up in some of the early instability in world financial markets, it was not enough to deflect us from another year of strong economic growth, falling unemployment and low inflation. Australia's performance over the two years since the Asian crisis began has attracted international attention and improved our standing in the international marketplace.I think that about says it all. This economy is being exceedingly well managed. Senator Cook, when you are faced with a major downturn in your markets, of course that has an effect on your exports. As I said yesterday and the day before—and I will keep on saying it, I suspect—this Australian economy is the envy of many countries around the world, and many independent observers have pointed to the fact that this is an exceedingly well-managed economy.8253Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, Mr Costello and Mr Howard both said that they had fireproofed the Australian economy from the Asian downturn. You now say it is the reason for a $1,250 million deficit per month. Who is right? Mr Costello and Mr Howard? Or are you right and they are wrong? How does the minister explain that for nine months in a row under the Howard government Australia has been running a goods and services trade deficit at more than $1 billion per month?8253Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You do not have to take my word for the performance of the Australian economy; you do not even have to take the Treasurer's word. But I think you would take the word of the Governor of the Reserve Bank on how the economy has been well managed and how this economy—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Tell us what he said the other day.WW4Senator KEMP—If Senator George Campbell wants to ask me a question, I think he is quite entitled to ask me a question and we would look forward to a question from Senator George Campbell. What I would say to you, Senator Cook, is: if you don't take my word for it, read what I said in answer to the first part of your question and the comment of the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Senator, I think you should take that as a very sound endorsement of the way this economy is being managed.82538253Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Ellison. The minister would be aware of reports regarding Abstudy take-up rates. Would the minister advise the Senate of the Howard government's strong commitment to indigenous education?8253Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Tierney for that important question and acknowledge at the outset his longstanding interest in the education area. I refer to an article in yesterday's Australian , headed `Abstudy take-up rate rises', in which it was noted that demands for Abstudy for tertiary students in the first quarter of this year rose to 16,265 compared with 15,441 for the same period in 1998—that is, for the quarter January-March of this year, there was an increase of 824. In relation to applications, the article noted that in 1998 these rose to 57,985 compared with 56,692 the year before—an increase of just under 1,300. This is good news. It shows that the figures are trending in the right direction, but of course there is much to be done, and the Abstudy Income Assistance Scheme is just one of the many ways that the Howard government is supporting the achievements of educational quality for indigenous people.We have revised Abstudy to improve the targeting of assistance to those students in most need and to open up more opportunities for indigenous students to access a wider range of assistance to obtain improved educational outcomes. There is a record number of indigenous students undertaking tertiary study—in fact, some 7,789 students and a record number of indigenous students involved in traineeships. In addition to the successful Abstudy Income Assistance Scheme, the Commonwealth government currently supports a number of other supplementary programs, including the Higher Education Support Program, VET sector funding arrangements, the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Program and the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program. In all, some $388 million in funds is being provided under these programs in this financial year.One of the key aspects of indigenous education relates to literacy. Under the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program the Commonwealth provides supplementary funding to education providers to address education disadvantages of indigenous students, and in relation to this literacy is a key aspect. This government has reached agreement with the states that all students in years 3 and 5 be able to read and write at the set appropriate standards. By ensuring that indigenous students read and write at appropriate levels, the government will be improving their opportunities to partake in education at senior and post-school levels. This has a direct relevance to the take-up of tertiary education.In another article in the Australian this week, it was Noel Pearson who stated:In fact the survival of indigenous culture and knowledge in the long term is going to depend on one thing: literacy.In relation to that, this government is on track. The former Senator Collins has undertaken a review of education in the Northern Territory, visiting some 44 schools and talking to students, parents and teachers. He himself has stated that the government's initiatives are on track. At the MCEETYA meeting in April this year, state and territory governments agreed to assist the Commonwealth develop a strategy in this regard and endorsed education for indigenous students.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Why doesn't the Northern Territory government pull its weight, then?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Shouting like that is totally out of order, Senator Carr, and you know it.9X5Senator ELLISON—It is interesting to hear these interjections. (Time expired)82548254Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Can the minister confirm that her department has threatened the peak organisations that it funds, such as Aged Care Australia, the Australian Early Childhood Association and the National Council on Intellectual Disability, with removal of funding unless those organisations `work collaboratively with FACS and provide early warning for all controversial issues planned for media coverage and which might attract public comment'? Can the minister confirm whether she or her staff played any role in having this attempt to stifle criticism from peak bodies inserted by her department in funding conditions? On this occasion, will the minister blame Mr Anthony, her junior minister, as she described him yesterday, or will she perhaps blame her secretary Dr Rosalky, as she has in the past? Just whose fault is it this time, Minister?8254Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I will not blame anybody; in fact, there is nobody to blame. It is a very good process that has been going on in my department with my encouragement to achieve better rationality between all the community organisations.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You could teach Jeff Kennett a trick or two, couldn't you?BE4Senator NEWMAN—If the Senate would like to hear the answer to the question, I am very happy to give it. In the establishment of this new portfolio after the last election, programs from a variety of portfolios came together. It was assessed at that time that they were all being funded on a very inconsistent basis. Some were paid substantially more than others, and the conditions on which they were paid were very different and varied quite a lot from how they were treated in other departments again. So there was real room for reform. As a result, there were consultations with the organisations concerned and a new rationale for how they would be funded was proposed. There were pretty reasonable conditions on funding, in my view.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You don't want to pay the critics, do you?BE4Senator NEWMAN—I think the senator may be referring to the fact that it was reasonable that, if they were being funded and were working in a position of trust with the department as a result, the department be given a reasonable warning if the issues they had been working on were going to become a matter of public controversy by way of press releases, et cetera. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing; nobody is going to try to censor them.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Of course you are—you don't like criticism.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, you have been interjecting too frequently in this question time and I draw your attention to the standing orders.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I know that most people would regard ACOSS as an organisation which has frequently spoken out over the years in support of ALP measures, and from time to time it speaks out in support of measures of this government—I am glad to say increasingly so as it sees important welfare reforms being introduced for Australians through this government's reform effort. ACOSS has said that it thought it was reasonable for that sort of requirement in exchange for government funding. I think taxpayers would think it was reasonable too.8255Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. If these organisations do not comply with this euphemistic `outcome measure', will the government abolish their funding, as it did with two other groups who stepped out of line—the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, and the Youth Policy and Action Coalition?8255Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Neither of those organisations have been funded by me at any time, so I cannot help you on that.82558255Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Would the minister please inform the Senate of any recent initiatives which serve to recognise the contribution made by the people of regional Australia to our national life, heritage and economic development?8255Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Lightfoot raises a very important issue. Regrettably, many of the achievements of rural and regional Australia go unnoticed by the broader community. It is not surprising, because in 13 years of Labor government the special needs of country Australia were ignored and the magnificent contribution that regional Australia makes to our economy and to our natural culture was marginalised.I am very proud to say as a regional Australian myself that the same tenacity that allows country people to prevail over natural disasters has allowed them to survive the disasters that Labor inflicted upon them in the bush. So today I applaud a particular initiative that builds on the efforts of a dedicated group of country people to have the year 2002 designated as the Year of the Outback. I say that this initiative is driven by the people of the outback themselves and so it has a lot of very good ideas. I want to specifically recognise Mr Bruce Campbell MBE, who proposed that a year should be designated as the Year of the Outback to promote the outback and its contribution to the nation's economic, social and cultural life.I am very pleased that the Prime Minister has become an ardent supporter of this, and Mr Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister, and a number of my coalition colleagues joined in approaching the Prime Minister to ensure that the year 2002 was designated as the Year of the Outback. In fact, I understand that this initiative has bipartisan support in Queensland, so senators opposite might actually like to take the Queensland lead and hopefully join in and support this. Some could perhaps make a first visit to some parts of the outback. Perhaps you can do that in 2002 if you do not get around to it before. Now that the Labor Party are free and liberated, not concerned or constrained by policy development these days, you will have the whole next 18 months to look at your diaries—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, your remarks should be addressed to the chair and not across the chamber.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—So the Labor Party will be able to work on their diaries for the next 18 months; they have got nothing else to do these days. I urge Labor senators to remember that the year 2002 will be the Year of the Outback. We have decided to endorse plans to make 2002 an official Australian Year of the Outback and we will be helping with some funds to develop plans for this proposal.This initiative just adds to the other initiatives of the coalition government and achievements for the bush. We have provided $70 million for rural transaction centres; we have provided $20 million so far for providing basic information and Internet assistance through the Rural Communities Program; and we are providing $16 million for regional tourism programs to help country tourist destinations attract more tourists. My colleague Senator Alston and the government have provided $250 million to Networking the Nation, to provide telecommunications additions for people in the bush. We are providing a new mobile phone service. You might remember the old analog service that the Labor government cancelled as of this year. Senator Alston, his department and Senator Campbell in that area have given an alternative to people in the bush that the Labor Party simply ignored. We have provided money for multipurpose centres; and so the work goes on. This government is interested in rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)82568256Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. I refer the leader to the fear campaign generated by the Minister for Employment Services over the eligibility of British subjects to vote in the forthcoming referendum on the republic, particularly his comments that this amounts to ethnic cleansing and vote rigging. Isn't the minister wrong in suggesting that there is a threat to these subjects' right to vote? Rather, isn't the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison, correct when he says that all political parties are of a view that it would be `unfair to disenfranchise British subjects who are already enrolled'? What steps will the Prime Minister take to counsel Mr Abbott against such irrational conduct and to ensure a careful, temperate consideration of the issues?8256Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think Senator Bolkus is confused in his question. As I understand the matter, another individual said that these particular individuals should not be entitled to vote and Mr Abbott said they should. In this instance I agree with Mr Abbott.8256Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I think it is fair to anticipate the Leader of the Government trying to fudge this issue and dodge it, but the fact of the matter is that it was Minister Abbott who made comments about ethnic cleansing and vote rigging. Will the Leader of the Government agree that Mr Abbott's comments are intended to generate fear? Don't they also offend many Australians who have been the real victims, or their families have, of ethnic cleansing? Shouldn't the minister also apologise to these decent Australians for his intemperate behaviour?8256Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I might say it was a typically colourful expression used by Mr Abbott. There may have been a better expression, but on the other hand the substance of what he was saying was quite reasonable, and that is that these Australians born in Britain should be entitled to vote.82568256Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Given that this year the Howard government's indigenous specific funding is at a record high of $2.2 billion, can the minister please explain what are the expected outcomes of this major socioeconomic investment in Australia?8256Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question and for her continued interest in this portfolio.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Give us a quote.VW4Senator HERRON—I hear the other side asking me for a quote. Yes, I am happy to give a quote to the other side. It is a quote from the Courier-Mail 's political editor, Craig Johnson, who said this week:Labor's philosophy towards Aboriginal policy remains little changed from the days of Hindmarsh Island and the hapless Robert Tickner.You asked for a quote, Senator Campbell, and I give you one. I give Senator Campbell one, Madam President. It must be fairly obvious to everybody that the Labor Party have lost touch with the indigenous community and the indigenous leadership. The most recent example of this has been Labor's churlishness in the past fortnight. Instead of looking to the future and moving forward with the united Australia, the country has witnessed Labor doing the time warp. This is Labor at their worst, as they cling to the bad old days, promoting the same old political rhetoric. They are lost but they are freely lost, as the cartoon in today's Canberra Times says.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, it is out of order to be showing pieces of paper like that.VW4Senator HERRON—They said they are lost, and I understand they are lost in Aboriginal affairs too.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is out of order for senators to be making so much noise and shouting across the chamber.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Take the New Zealanders out!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I have just drawn senators' attention to their behaviour.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, your behaviour is unacceptable.VW4Senator HERRON—Instead of thinking about the interests of indigenous Australians, Labor is playing the role of the spoiler and the newly liberated opposition leader has confirmed this stance in today's press with his comments that Labor is prepared to `die in a ditch' on issues.There has been a sea change in indigenous affairs in this country in the past 3½ years. There is a convergence of views moving in time with the government's policies of focusing on the key areas of health, housing, education, employment and economic empowerment. There can be no question that indigenous Australians are among the most disadvantaged in our community and, while money alone is not the answer, we are committing record levels of funding to specific programs that will address that disadvantage. Seventy per cent of the $2.2 billion budget this year is going on health, housing, education and employment programs for indigenous Australians.Labor provided a great deal of funding but had little or no interest in outcomes. Labor was happy to perpetuate welfare dependency, while we are determined to remove the welfare shackles that have bound indigenous Australians for far too long. We are beginning to see substantial improvements in many of the key areas of disadvantage. For example, four years ago there were just 800 indigenous Australians doing apprenticeships or traineeships, and today there are 4,800. Twenty years ago, only 8.6 per cent of indigenous students stayed at school until their final year; today over 33 per cent finish school and that figure continues to rise. A decade ago, there were 1,600 university students; today there are almost 9,000.The indigenous infant mortality rate is of great concern but even in this area things are improving. Twenty years ago, the indigenous infant mortality rate was more than 20 times that of the wider community; today it is three to four times higher. This is an area we will continue addressing, particularly in remote communities where there has always been a lack of antenatal care, and over the past three years we have provided 35 additional Aboriginal medical services, mostly in remote areas. Indigenous health funding has quadrupled over the past decade.There are some on the other side of this chamber and in the community who are determined to continue playing politics with indigenous affairs. If all the resources and energy that have gone into politicising indigenous affairs in recent years had instead been directed towards addressing the problems of disadvantage, we would be so much further along the road to equality than we now are.In closing, I want to commend the repartee of the Democrats' spokesman in relation to Mr Beazley speaking about the cock crowing three times and the Democrats being irrelevant. The Democrats' spokesman said that the Labor Party would not hear it because they would be all asleep in the garden of Gethsemane. It is fairly obvious, Madam President, that not only are they freely liberated; they are freely liberated and asleep. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous8258825815:03:008258Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, on 31 August Senator Gibbs asked a question about whether the accommodation charge is indexed and whether it will increase. I seek leave to incorporate the reply from the minister in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—INDEXATION OF THE ACCOMMODATION CHARGE—(60)ISSUE:Senator Gibbs (ALP) has asked whether the accommodation charge is indexed, and whether it will increase (Senate Hansard 31 August 1999)TALKING POINTS;. Protections for residents who pay the accommodation charge for nursing home accommodation are set out in the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 .. This Bill was to be passed in June this year, but was delayed by the Opposition.. When the Bill passes through the Senate and is proclaimed, it will enable a regulation to be made to provide for an indexation mechanism for the accommodation charge that will ensure that the maximum accommodation charge does not rise in real terms.. Indexation of the accommodation charge will occur in July each year, in line with indexation of other accommodation payment amounts, such as retention amounts for accommodation bonds, and Commonwealth residential subsidies.825815:03:008258O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald) to questions without notice asked by Senators Mackay and O'Brien today, relating to stevedoring charges.We saw yesterday in the House of Representatives Minister Reith misleading the House and causing uproar in question time over the alleged role of senators in relation to refusing to deal with legislation now before this chamber. But, frankly, one only has to look at the record of Mr Reith to see that he has been a serial misleader. In relation to the stevedoring levy, when Mr Reith held a press conference on 8 April 1998 to announce the levy and the benchmarks that he had set for reform in the waterfront industry, he was asked, `Mr Reith, can you say that stevedores won't pass on the costs of the levy?' Mr Reith said, `I've got it in writing from them.'Of course, when we held the first hearing into the stevedoring levy bill, the bill that was subsequently passed by the Senate, both stevedores—Patrick and P&O—absolutely denied, categorically denied, that they had given Mr Reith any commitment in writing that they would absorb the stevedoring levy. But what did we find out at the hearing last Friday into the proposed amendment to the stevedoring levy bill? We found out that not only did he not get the undertaking from the stevedores that he said he had in writing in relation to the absorption of the levy but also he did not even seek, either written or even orally, an undertaking from those stevedores that they would—given the enormous support from the taxpayer through Mr Reith's discredited waterfront strategy and given the enormous pain that strategy had caused the whole of the community—pass on part of their cost savings to shippers.The evidence that we had from Mr Corrigan last Friday and certainly from the department was not only have cost savings not being passed on; Mr Corrigan said absolutely and categorically that there had been no such request from Mr Reith. Given all the pain that the community went through, given the costs that were incurred by parts of the shipping industry, given the costs to the community of that discredited dispute, why wouldn't the minister seek from the stevedores, who are getting substantial benefits from this government and this government's strategy, some assurance that there would be some immediate benefit?Indeed, Mr Reith said the benefits would be apparent within six months. We are now near enough to 18 months out from that strategy and there are no benefits in terms of financial ones. Whatever the so-called productivity benefits, there are no benefits to shippers. From what we have seen, the likelihood is that the costs of the shipping companies will rise, that their charges will rise, and that stevedoring charges are unlikely to fall in the next seven to eight years. That is the evidence from Mr Corrigan. What Mr Corrigan is saying now is that the dispute cost him $70 million and he wants to recover that and another $30 million in so-called `opportunity costs' before he will consider passing those cost savings on.In relation to the question asked about the benefits flowing through in share prices, you have only to look at the Lang Corporation's share price and compare it with the share price before the reforms were announced to see just where the benefits are. Those benefits reflected in the Lang Corporation's share price were at $1.50 before the measures. Today, in the Financial Review, the share price of Lang Corporation is shown at $5.35. So all the benefit is going to the shareholders of the Lang Corporation.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Good!8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—If Senator McGauran agrees with that, and that is the form of this government, then what he is saying is that they are happy that the only beneficiaries of this so-called reform will be shareholders of the Lang Corporation, not the shippers, the farmers or the manufacturers—no-one, unless they hold shares in the Lang Corporation. The government may think that is a good thing, but I will tell you that Mr Frank Beaufort said of Mr Corrigan that Nelson's arm would grow back before Corrigan lowered his prices. (Time expired)15:08:008259Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—If you listened to the Australian Labor Party during question time and if you listened to Senator O'Brien in this debate on his motion to take note of answers given by Senator Ian Macdonald during question time today—Senator Ferguson interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—and if you listened to the interjections during question time, Senator Ferguson, you would think that the Labor Party wanted to move to the situation we had on the waterfront prior to the introduction of the reforms. One would expect the Labor Party to suggest that the process of that reform was not the way they would do it. We saw how they would do it: they had a distinguished former senator, Bob Collins, the minister at the time, who said that he would resign if they did not achieve it within a year, or whatever it was.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—He did—eight years later.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—He retired of his own volition eight years later. I do not think it had anything to do with waterfront reform; I think he was sick and tired of sitting on aeroplanes.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—You're struggling and you are only 30 seconds into it.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It is very hard for Senator George Campbell to contemplate reform in any workplace. So when you have a substantial reform of an Australian workplace that sees productivity levels go through the roof, where good Australian workers have lifted their productivity massively because of sound reforms from a coalition government, it must really hurt Senator George Campbell. So what the Labor Party say is, `If you don't have significant reductions in stevedoring charges, why was it worth it?' The fact that you can get a ship in and turn it around at double the speed that you could do it a year ago is, apparently, no good for Australia. The Labor Party would rather have the ships lined up off Australian ports—the good old Labor days when you could drive down past Fremantle and look out across Gage Roads and see dozens of ships anchored there. Or you could look out off Newcastle and see dozens of ships queuing up, or dozens of ships off the port of Sydney, off Cairns or off any of the ports around Australia, waiting for the latest strike to be over.Those were the good old Labor days; those are the days that Senator O'Brien and his comrades yearn for. Let us get back to good industrial relations where we have two or three times the number of people you need per job. Let us have crane rates in single figures not double figures. Let us shift containers at the rate of one or two an hour, or nine an hour if you are lucky, or double figures if it is a really good day. What did we do? We set a benchmark of 25 containers an hour, and they say, `How dare you? You can't do that. Twenty-five containers in an hour, how could you ever do that with half the people?'Madam Deputy President, you know where the Labor Party stand on this; they do not want the reform process to succeed. But the reality is that poor old Senator O'Brien opposite cannot even get his facts straight. He said that crane and stevedoring charges are going up. He is misquoting Senator Corrigan—UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Oh, yes, Senator Corrigan!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—He would make a much better senator than Senator O'Brien does. I have never had the great pleasure of meeting Mr Corrigan. I would love to meet him because I think he is a truly great Australian. The Democrats might even try to get him to be a candidate. As to the evidence he gave to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 27 August last, which I think Senator O'Brien referred to, I am informed that Mr Corrigan said:The facts are that our stevedoring charges have declined.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Over the last 12 years, not now.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—That is what he said: `The facts are that our stevedoring charges have declined.' Let us just put that aside. Let Senator O'Brien and Mr Corrigan have an argument about stevedoring rates. What the Labor Party says is that if stevedoring rates go down, you have not had improvements for Australia. What the Labor Party is saying is that if you can double the crane rates, turn the ships around, ensure that international transport firms, shipping companies and exporters and importers know that they can come into Australian ports with far more confidence—that is, get in, get the cranes going, get the containers shifted and get out again—that is not good for Australia. Of course it is good for Australia. We are a trading nation. We have to be a trading nation and we need an efficient waterfront. We need the productivity increases, and that is what has been achieved, absolutely regardless of stevedoring costs. Of course, the government does not and will not accept Senator O'Brien's affirmation that he believes stevedoring charges have gone up. There have been significant productivity increases. That is a big win for Australian importers and, very importantly, it is a big win for Australian exporters. (Time expired)15:13:008260Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I feel a bit sorry for Senator Ian Campbell because he got handed that brief very late in the piece by the minister who represents Minister Anderson, Senator Ian Macdonald, and who scarpered out of the chamber at double time. I think Senator Campbell did have to rely on a bit of the old class warfare rhetoric from the government in trying to pad out the five minutes. I think it would have been reasonable for the representing minister to have stayed and used the briefing notes himself and to have responded to some of the questions raised by the opposition considering that he seemed, as we now see, to have had those briefs in his folder, to the extent that he was able to give them to poor old Senator Ian Campbell over there.I think it is extraordinary that it took Senator Macdonald until about the third question to find the brief, and the brief that he used was the general brief, not the one that dealt with the legislation hearing which was held last week. This is not unexpected of this particular minister. I exhort this minister to read the briefs that the department provides him with, because I think he would find them illuminating and he would be somewhat less embarrassed at question time.Senator Macdonald stated in very general terms that the real winners and the real beneficiaries of the waterfront policy were the people of Australia. `They are the real winners.' Nowhere in his response did he defend the government's setting of the benchmarks. Nowhere did he say, `You are wrong, Senator Mackay. You are wrong, Senator O'Brien. We have met the benchmarks.'Senator Newman may say, `Trust me, I'm from the government.' We say that, if you do not trust us, have a look at what the department itself said. Officials from the department conceded that the benchmarks that the government had set were not met. The department has conceded that. I will be interested to hear Senator McGauran's comments on that.Let me go to the comments that Senator Ian Campbell made when he was very hurriedly rushed in to respond, and he selectively quoted from Mr Corrigan's evidence at the hearings last Friday. Let me quote what Mr Corrigan said. In a line of questioning from Senator O'Brien as to whether the government ever required the reduction of costs or the productivity gains to be manifested in terms of reduction of stevedoring costs, he said, `No, they weren't.' Senator O'Brien, who clearly could not believe his ears, asked:They have never asked you for any commitments to that?That is, a commitment to a reduction of the stevedoring costs. Mr Corrigan said:No, because otherwise I imagine they might have put it in the seven benchmark objectives.I would say QED. Senator O'Brien goes on, again somewhat incredulous as to the nature of this evidence:I am not trying to put words into your mouth—and he wasn't; I was there—I am asking for the information, Mr Corrigan.Mr Corrigan said:I am sure that as part of the overall improvements in efficiency they had an expectation that that would occur—The government had an expectation. Mr Corrigan continued:It has been occurring for 12 years. Stevedoring charges are less than 50 per cent in real terms of what they were 12 years ago.So much for Senator Macdonald's allegation that nothing happened under Labor. This is Mr Corrigan conceding a major reduction in stevedoring levies. Mr Corrigan continued:I expect that to go on. I am sure they expected it to go on.`They' being the government. He continued:Did they precisely attempt to negotiate with us our stevedoring prices? The answer is no, they did not.That is evidence from Mr Corrigan himself that the government did not seek an assurance in relation to reduction of stevedoring costs.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—So what?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Senator McGauran says, `So what.' Because Minister Reith, Minister Anderson and the Prime Minister said it would happen. At that time, they said one of the reasons this extraordinary action was being taken was so that costs of stevedoring levies to shippers and to the Australian community would be reduced. It has not happened.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—It has.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—It has not happened. Costs have not been reduced in relation to stevedoring, so, QED, the government is wrong on two points. (Time expired)15:18:008261McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Thank you, Madam Deputy President.AW5CARRSenator Carr—This will be good!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Carr interjects first up. Senator Carr was seen backing the MUA at an illegal picket at the Webb Dock, hand in hand with his MUA masters. He was on the front page of the Age . You should be ashamed of yourself, Senator Carr. If I remember rightly, you also encour aged the bringing of children down to that particular picket line. You were up to this strike—up to the disgraceful tactics of the MUA—from day one. You are not free at last, Senator Carr; you are still the master of the MUA. They are still your little icons. Why don't you listen to Mr Beazley? Free yourself, Senator Carr.I have heard many indefensible efforts by the opposition, but this would have to be the greatest job of trying to defend the indefensible I have yet heard from the other side. The opposition come in here and suggest that the reforms that have been achieved down at the waterfront have not been reforms at all and that they have not been worth while. They even suggest we should return to the bad old days, that it has not been worth it. Nothing has been more worth it in this government's reform achievements than what we did down on the waterfront. I would go so far as to say that these achievements have had much to do with sustaining this country's economy throughout the last three months. They have been part of the miracle economy and have helped buffet us against the Asian crisis. Down at the waterfront, we have not had the national strikes that we are so used to.Senator Carr interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Carr, what I did notice about that shock that we all `had to have' down at the waterfront was that the other unions did not go out. That had much to do with this government's returning of the secondary boycott laws. Because of those laws and those reforms, we were able to contain the waterfront strike to just that. We did not have the damaging national strikes where the transport union used to go out in sympathy and tie up this whole country.The opposition comes in here and suggests that those reforms have not brought stability and certainty, which is a natural flow-on effect in itself. We have improvement in turnaround times with the shipping and with trucks. There have been improvements and they all cascade into lower costs.Senator Carr interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—They have. If you are suggesting that we seek more competition amongst the stevedoring sector, we do. We would like to see many more stevedoring firms set up against P&O and Patrick—and so there should be—but no new stevedoring firm was ever going to set up until we brought those reforms in. Within the next five years we will probably get new entrants onto the waterfront to bring competition to Patrick and to P&O. Then you will see even further tumbling. But to suggest that there has been no reduction in the pricing down on the waterfront is absurd. You refuse to look at this objectively. One of this government's great reforms is the waterfront. The winners have been the national economy, the exporters and the importers, and that has a flow-on effect through to every level of our economy, right down to the consumer. Our national reputation has been lifted because we have introduced certainty and we are not getting the strikes that we used to. Even the MUA workers have benefited.84PHUTCHINSSenator Hutchins—What about the workers?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—They are earning more now than they did before. That is the irony of all this. Because we attached the reforms to productivity, you will find that more work is being done with fewer workers, and the workers are working. They are not slaves to the MUA bosses anymore; they have incentive payments. They are as happy as can be, and that is why they are not going out on strike. You tried to bring in reform and you failed. Hawke's late night meetings with the MUA achieved nothing and we wasted $420 million. The seven benchmarks that the government introduced—and time does not permit me to go through them all—have been met.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—They have not.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—If time permitted, I could tick each one of them off. The first one is crane rates, Senator O'Brien. We have achieved the 25 crane lifts per hour. That is the first benchmark. Do you deny that?8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—The Melbourne docks deny that.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Down in the Melbourne docks we are lifting 32 per hour. I do not know why you bring this issue in. You bring it in only because you are trying to re-establish your union credentials. (Time expired)15:23:008263Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I want to make a number of comments in relation to this issue and the answers—or the lack of answers—from Senator Macdonald in respect of the questions asked about waterfront reform. I will start off by addressing the issue of reform, which each of the speakers on the other side of the chamber has referred to—the reform that they introduced and the lack of reform that took place under the last Labor government.What did Mr Corrigan say at the hearing last Friday that belies that issue, that puts that myth to rest? He said in response to Senator O'Brien's questioning that the charges on the waterfront had been falling for 12 years—which in fact was during the period of the Labor government—and the charges have not fallen from when you initiated your great reform process on the waterfront.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Redundancy payments.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—They have not fallen. Charges fell over the previous 12 years down to half of what they were 12 years ago. That is Mr Corrigan's evidence. Let me back that up by informing the Senate of some comments with respect to waterfront reform that were made by another great Australian. They were made at a hearing of the Australian Manufacturing Council back in about the early 1990s when they had a presentation on the reform process that was occurring on the waterfront. The comments were made by Mr John Prescott, who was then the Chief Executive of BHP. He said that he would not, if he had the capacity to do it, take one of his ships through the port of Melbourne because none of the cost savings that had been achieved in the stevedoring industry as a result of reforms instituted by the Labor government had been passed through by the stevedores, and he said, `I know what the savings are, because I run stevedoring companies.' What the stevedoring companies were doing—and what Mr Corrigan is now doing—was using the benefits of the changes that have occurred on the waterfront, which were implemented by the Labor government and almost buggered up by you mob—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please do not swear. Watch your language, Senator.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask that that be withdrawn. In the spirit of the debate, I do not want to waste his time, but I think he should withdraw it.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—If it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator George Campbell.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—They were almost destroyed by the actions of your mob in the waterfront dispute. But the reality is that the benefits that have come out of reforms that have been taking place on the waterfront since the mid-1960s—not a recent event—have all accrued, at the end of the day, to the stevedoring companies. That is evident from what Senator O'Brien said in terms of the share price of the Lang Corporation as of today and before the process started.The reality is that you need something to justify your actions, because what has occurred since 1998 on the waterfront has done nothing other than reinforce the view that was expressed at the time: that your dispute on the waterfront was an ideological dispute. It was an ideological dispute generated by your hatred of organised labour. You had a willing companion in that process in Chris Corrigan. You went to extraordinary lengths—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—And we won.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—You went to extraordinary lengths to try to reform the waterfront. You took people in the dead of night to Dubai to train them. You sent the thugs in with the balaclavas. I want to correct what Senator Macdonald, in response to one of the questions, put on the record about the thugs being from the MUA. The thugs were from Corrigan's Patrick stevedoring company. They were the people who went in in the dead of night with the dogs and the balaclavas and pitched people out of their legitimate employment—and your government acquiesced in that.AW5CARRSenator Carr—They were part of the conspiracy.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—You were part of the conspiracy, as Senator Carr said. You did not win.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address the chair, please, Senator George Campbell.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Madam Deputy President, they did not win. (Time expired)15:28:008264Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I would like to begin my contribution, since quoting is the order of the day, by reading another quote from page 24. The Labor Party have been selectively quoting from page 25 of the hearings, but there is a question on page 24 by Senator O'Brien in which he asks:Without putting on the public record specific numbers, can you tell the committee whether there has been an overall increase or decrease in your stevedoring charges to shipping companies since the beginning of 1998?That is not 12 years. The answer from Mr Corrigan is:In answering that question I would like to avoid relying on hearsay. I would like to avoid relying on anecdotal evidence and I would not be going to a survey of client expectations. I will give you the facts. The facts are that our stevedoring charges have declined.When you come into this place and you selectively quote, as the Labor Party has, you want to be pretty careful about what you are saying because, in fact, the answer is right there which refutes your proposition.Also, at the hearings Mr Corrigan said he would give us an index of the charges over the years. Also, because I asked for this from P&O after the hearing—after they had shown us a graph there—they will be sending us a similar graph which will show a continuous decline for a number of years. I am not sure whether that is 12 years with P&O. It is certainly beyond 1998. But it also shows that, since 1998, in the last couple of years, the falls have continued consistently.There was evidence given to us in information that I have that, in fact, in the Australian shipping arena—and it is in the evidence here—we have cheaper stevedoring charges than in Hong Kong and in America. Mr Corrigan put that on the table. But he also said that, since the time of this reform, we have seen a significant improvement in the turnaround time of ships in Australian ports. He also gave evidence which said that in some instances there were fewer ships doing the run now but doing the same job—that is, carting a similar tonnage of cargo.You must take the whole context. Mr Corrigan made the point that, in the overall Australian scene, a relatively small part of the total costs is involved in stevedoring. The people on the other side of this chamber know this, but they wanted to do a beat-up on one page of the hearings with some answers to some specific questions. If there were a little more honesty with the answers, or more description or more detail, they would paint the full picture. We sat there all day. But they have taken a couple of questions and have tried to do a beat-up on Mr Corrigan. I find that absolutely irresponsible. The facts are different.The failure of the Labor Party's reforms—and I have never said it in this place, and I am not aware of others who have sat on this side of parliament who have said that there were not issues addressed in terms of stevedoring and the numbers and the arrangements—is the failure to address the turnaround time of ships. They failed to address the time they were in ports. They failed to address the number of ships that were tied up waiting to get into port because there was a ship held up. All these things are additional parts of the cost.Finally, I would like to deal with one particular aspect. Senator Mackay—in one of these funny little nitpicking things she gets herself into—chose to have a crack at Minister Macdonald because he was not in the chamber at a particular time. Ministers, like everybody else, are busy people, and he obviously had to go and do something. But it is worth noting that, no sooner had Senator Mackay finished her contribution, she was off from here like a rat up a drainpipe. She was just gone. If you are going to call the kettle black on this side, you had better have a look at the bottom of the pot on your side before you do it. That is a very unfair thing to do in the context of this debate.I say to those on the other side of the chamber that they must look at this against the benchmarks. They must take them into consideration and report accurately what was said. I am surprised that Senator O'Brien did this because it was he who asked the questions, and nobody else. He asked the question, and I will repeat the answer:In answering the question I would like to avoid relying on hearsay. I would like to avoid relying on anecdotal evidence. I would not be going to a survey of client expectations. I will give you the facts. The facts are that our stevedoring charges have declined.Senator O'Brien's question to the company specified the time since the beginning of 1998. That was the whole context of it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees826582658265Motion (by Senator McGauran, at the request of Senator Brownhill)—by leave—agreed to:That the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 20 September 1999, from 8 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999.8265826515:35:008265Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I present the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration entitled Immigration Detention Centres , and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The response read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION REPORT IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTRES INSPECTION REPORTBACKGROUNDThe Joint Standing Committee on Migration (JSCM) undertook inspections of the department's four detention facilities between 30 April 1998 and 17 June 1998. The Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee, Mrs Chris Gallus MP and Senator Jim McKiernan also inspected the detention facility operated by the Australian Fisheries Management Agency (AFMA) at Willie Creek, Broome. The purpose of the Committee's inspections was to provide committee members with an opportunity to view personally detention facilities following criticism of detention operations and practices contained in recent HREOC, ANAO and Ombudsman's reports. The Committee also expressed an interest in inspecting the operation of detention centres following the contracting of detention service provision to Australasian Correctional Services (ACS).OVERVIEW OF THE REPORTThe focus of the report is on providing a description of the physical conditions at immigration detention centres and the services currently provided to immigration detainees. In contrast to the reports issued by other agencies, the Committee's report is overwhelmingly positive. The report comments favourably on the conditions at immigration detention centres and the efforts made by the detention services provider, ACM, to provide appropriate services to detainees.The report contains two recommendations. Recommendation one relates to ensuring the continuing role of the Committee in examining detention operations. Recommendation two proposes that the Committee conduct an inquiry into immigration policy aspects of the detention and removal of illegal fishermen.RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONSRecommendation 1The Committee recommends that the JSCM continue to monitor detention practices and suggests that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs request that the Committee again inspect the facilities during the next parliament. ResponseNoted. The Minister agrees that the JSCM continue to monitor detention practices and will make a reference to the Committee at an appropriate time in the future, to again inspect the facilities.Recommendation 2The Committee further recommends that during the next parliament the JSCM consider conducting an inquiry into the immigration policy aspects of the detention of illegal fishermen.ResponseThe Commonwealth Ombudsman released a comprehensive report concerning the role of the department in the detention and removal of illegal fishermen in 1998. In August 1998 the government announced proposed improvements to current fisheries and detention arrangements to address the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman's Report. These improvements include changes to legislative and administrative arrangements for the detention of illegal fishermen and the implementation of some of the Ombudsman's recommendations including substantial improvements to the facilities for detained fishers at Broome and Darwin.The developments announced by the government substantially address the concerns expressed by the JSCM in their current report. It is not appropriate for the Committee to duplicate work already undertaken by the government.15:35:008266Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.8266826615:36:008266Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I present the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration entitled Working holiday makers: more than tourists , and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The response read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO JSCM REPORTWORKING HOLIDAY MAKERS: MORE THAN TOURISTSRecommendation 1 Australia's working holiday program be maintained because it: (a) enhances the cultural and social development of young people; (b) promotes mutual understanding between Australia and other nations; (c) generates economic benefits; and (d) is an important component of the tourism industry; Accepted. Working holiday makers are important to the tourism industry. They spend around twice as much per visit as the average tourist to Australia. There is widespread support for the program among interested parties. The recommendation is consistent with the scheme's objectives and the way it operates.Recommendation 2 The original intention of the working holiday program be reinforced so that it remains a program which provides an opportunity for an extended holiday with incidental work and is not used either to resolve labour market problems in Australia or as a mechanism by which people can circumvent normal migration processes in order to remain in Australia, particularly in employment related categories; Accepted. The Government regards the three month limit on work with the one employer as important in this regard. The Government agrees with the Committee that: . the use of working holiday makers as a base pool of casual labour or as a primary source of specialist skills, such as language skills, may provide a short-term solution to a particular labour market problem but is not in the longer term interests of either the relevant industry or the Australian community; and . labour market issues such as labour and skills' shortages should be addressed through ensuring that an appropriate workplace relations framework is in place and suitable education and training opportunities for Australians are provided. Recommendation 3 To assist with future decision making on the working holiday program, and in view of the paucity of relevant statistics and detailed research currently available on the program: (a) research be undertaken by government to allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the labour market impact of working holiday makers; (b) the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs seek more detailed information from working holiday makers, including their educational qualifications and occupational backgrounds, to provide a more comprehensive profile of working holiday makers entering Australia; and (c) the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs conduct exit research on working holiday makers to provide information and statistics on their experiences in Australia, focusing on the nature and duration of employment undertaken, as well as the breadth of their travel within Australia;(a) Accepted. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB), in association with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), is in the process of finalising the details for conducting research into the labour market impact of working holiday makers. (b) Accepted. DIMA will investigate how such information can be collected in the most convenient and cost effective way. (c) Accepted. The Government accepts that such information is useful and should be sought. The research noted above will provide some of the information and statistics sought. Further consideration of how best to collect other information may be necessary.Recommendation 4 For the next three financial years, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs continue to set a target for the number of working holiday visas to be issued in a financial year, with that target to be reviewed during the year to allow for appropriate adjustments to be made; Accepted. The Government acknowledges the economic benefits which the working holiday program brings to Australia and the implications of a restricted program for the tourism industry. The possibility of adjusting the numbers during the program year allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach. The Government has approved a gradual expansion in the size of the program over recent years. For example, the targets for 1996-97 and 1997-98 were set at 55,000 and 57,000 grants respectively. It is expected that approximately 65,000 visas will be granted in 1998-99. Recommendation 5 In establishing and reviewing the annual target for working holiday visas, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, through his Department, consult with relevant Commonwealth agencies and relevant employer, industry and trade union representatives; The need for consultation with relevant parties is accepted. In recent years DIMA has consulted relevant interested parties on a range of issues related to the working holiday program and plans to continue to do so. Recommendation 6 The need for a cap on working holiday visas be reviewed by this Committee's successor in three years' time, once more detailed statistical evidence and research on the working holiday program are available; Accepted, but a broader time frame may be appropriate. Monitoring, evaluation and consultation by DIMA will be ongoing.Recommendation 7 The benefit criterion be abolished so that no applicants for a working holiday visa are required to show that the grant of a working holiday visa would be of benefit to themselves and Australia;Accepted. Recommendation 8 Nationals of agreement countries be eligible for a working holiday visa if they are aged between 18 and 30 years; Accepted. Recommendation 9 Nationals of non-agreement countries be eligible for a working holiday visa if they are between 18 and 25 years old and can satisfy appropriate bona fides checks; Not accepted. While the working holiday program caters mainly for nationals of agreement countries (Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Japan, Korea and Malta), nationals of non-agreement countries may apply for working holiday visas if they are between 18 and 25 years old and satisfy the criterion that their entry would be of benefit to themselves and to Australia. They currently make up less than 2 per cent of the program annually (ie just over 1,000 in 1997-98). As the small percentage of visas allocated to non-agreement country nationals indicates, the extent of their participation in the program is dependent upon the pressures within any program year to accommodate nationals of agreement countries. Careful management of the numbers is, therefore, required in the light of increasing interest in the program and consequent pressure on numbers. The proposed growth in the number of agreement countries (recommendation 16) and the abolition of the benefit criterion (recommendation 7) are likely to further increase the demand for places in the program. Given the increasing pressure on program numbers and the importance of reciprocity, consideration will be given, in consultation with relevant Government departments, to no longer allowing nationals of non-agreement countries access to the program. This will help to encourage additional countries to enter into working holiday maker agreements with Australia, thereby enabling young Australians to access a wider range of countries under working holiday maker conditions. Apart from the UK, which allows citizens of Commonwealth countries access to its working holiday program, no other agreement countries allow nationals of non-agreement countries access to their programs. Recommendation 10 An annual cap be introduced on the number of working holiday visas to be granted to nationals of non-agreement countries, with the cap set at five per cent of the overall program number; Not accepted, in view of the response to recommendation 9Recommendation 11 The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs develop strategies aimed at encouraging applications for working holiday visas from a diverse range of nationalities; Accepted in principle. The Government accepts the principle of encouraging applications for working holiday visas from a diverse range of agreement countries. However, as the Committee noted, it is evident from the statistics, which show increasing demand for working holiday visas to Australia, that knowledge of, and interest in, the program are increasing overseas without the need for significant promotion by Australian government representatives. The possibility of extending the range of countries with which Australia has an agreement requires further exploration (see response to recommendation 16).Recommendation 12 The existing application requirement for nationals of non-agreement countries be retained so that they are allowed to lodge an application for an Australian working holiday visa only in their country of citizenship;Not applicable, given the response to recommendation 9.Recommendation 13 There be a uniform application requirement for nationals of agreement countries so that any agreement country national can apply for an Australian working holiday visa from any overseas country;Accepted, provided agreement countries reciprocate in respect of Australians. At present most other countries with which Australia has reciprocal arrangements require Australian working holiday makers to apply from Australia. Recommendation 14 The prohibition on onshore applications be retained so that original applications for an Australian working holiday visa cannot be made in Australia;Accepted. DIMA believes that, if original applications could be made in Australia, onshore applications would soon dominate the program. The Government agrees with the Committee that such a change would lead to a significant increase in working holiday visa applications, thereby placing additional pressure on program numbers, and could alter the entire focus of the program.Recommendation 15 The Australian Government undertake discussions with the Government of the Netherlands with a view to ensuring that the requirements and conditions underpinning the working holiday agreement between the two countries provide genuine opportunities for young people of each country to undertake work in the other;Accepted. The Government accepts that there is an imbalance in the respective benefits offered by the programs in Australia and the Netherlands. While not advocating uniformity in the workings of different countries' schemes, the Government agrees that there should be discussions with the Government of the Netherlands to ensure that the agreement with the Netherlands delivers adequate reciprocal benefits to young Australians.Recommendation 16 The Australian Government actively pursue new reciprocal working holiday agreements with other countries taking into consideration the following criteria: (a) the nature of Australia's relationship with the country, including current and potential cultural, social, trading and tourism links; (b) the extent to which young Australians will have reciprocal opportunities to benefit from a working holiday in the relevant country, taking into consideration the eligibility criteria for and terms and conditions attaching to the grant of a working holiday visa, as well as the opportunities for gaining work; (c) Australia's broad objective of increasing links with its regional neighbours; (d) the overstay rate in Australia of visitors from the particular country; and (e) the likely impact which an agreement with that country will have on program numbers;Accepted in principle, but decisions on new agreements must take into account the pressure on program numbers. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs recently reactivated discussions about an agreement with Greece. Australia is having discussions with or has approached the USA, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Cyprus and Israel, and is considering giving priority to establishing agreements with a number of other countries, including Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong.Recommendation 17 A broadly based working party be established to develop strategies for promoting awareness of the opportunities available to Australians for working holidays in other countries; Not accepted. This is primarily the role of other countries' tourism organisations. Information on the countries with which Australia has working holiday agreements is on the DIMA website and in various information sheets.Recommendation 18 In developing strategies to increase awareness of overseas working holiday opportunities for Australians, the working party identify and seek to address the nature and source of any obstacles which deter Australians from making greater use of such working holiday opportunities; Not accepted. See the response to recommendation. 17Recommendation 19 As part of any strategy to increase awareness among Australians of working holiday opportunities overseas, relevant information be made available on an appropriate web site of the Internet; Accepted. Information is on the DIMA website.Recommendation 20 The working holiday visa continue to allow holders of the visa to stay in Australia as working holiday makers for a maximum of 12 months;Accepted. Working holiday makers can apply to remain in Australia beyond the 12 months on other classes of visas.Recommendation 21 The existing work condition attaching to a working holiday visa be retained so that working holiday makers are not permitted to work with any one employer for more than three months unless written permission is obtained from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Accepted. Retaining the 3 month work limit with the one employer assists in ensuring that work is of an incidental nature. The Government agrees with the Committee that if longer term jobs are available, even if they are of a temporary or casual nature, and if those jobs involve training provided by employers, then the priority should be to ensure that Australians have access to those jobs. Recommendation 22 The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs continue to promote employer awareness of working holiday visa requirements, particularly the work condition, targeting employers in those regional areas which are popular destinations for working holiday makers and backpackers on visitor visas; Accepted. As part of its Employer Awareness Campaign (EAC), DIMA has initiated a campaign called Employing Overseas Workers—Doing the Right Thing and has published information on how to check the work entitlement of non-citizens through the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) publication, the Group Employer Payment Book , which is distributed to all employers in Australia. Similar information is published in other publications distributed to employers. In addition, DIMA regularly places advertisements in backpacker magazines available at no cost to the tourist population. DEWRSB and DIMA are working together to ensure that employers are aware that they are subject to Australian employment law, whether they employ Australians or whether they employ people on working holiday visas. In both cases, employers have obligations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 as well as relevant industrial relations legislation.Recommendation 23 The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs monitor the incidence of backpackers on visitor visas working illegally and working holiday makers breaching the three month limit with the one employer and, where appropriate, launch prosecutions; Accepted. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has announced a review to examine ways to ensure that employers do not hire illegal workers and that people visiting Australia do not work illegally. The review will deal with the issues raised in recommendations 23 to 25. Penalties of up to $10,000 are available under section 235 of the Migration Act 1958 . However, it is normally more appropriate to cancel the visas and ensure the departure of working holiday makers who breach their visa conditions rather than prosecute them. Through the DIMA's Employer Awareness Campaign, the Government encourages employers to check the work rights of working holiday makers and other temporary visa holders. Section 5 of the Crimes Act 1914 makes employers who knowingly employ overstayers or temporary visa holders in breach of their work conditions liable to the same penalty as the employees themselves—a fine of up to $10,000.Recommendation 24 Enhanced investigatory powers be made available to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to enable it to follow up information which indicates that an employer may be employing holders of visitor visas without work rights or working holiday makers in breach of their visa conditions; Accepted. DIMA has commenced the legislative change process in order to introduce enhanced investigatory powers to seek information about non-citizens suspected of breaching visa conditions in several areas, including information from employers and education providers, and is currently discussing the exact terms of the provisions with other Commonwealth Departments.Recommendation 25 Significant financial penalties be introduced and imposed on employers who, after being advised of their obligations by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, employ backpackers on visitor visas who are not entitled to work or continue to employ working holiday makers for longer than the permissible three month period;Accepted in part. As noted above, employers are already subject to heavy fines for knowingly employing illegal workers; however, DIMA has found it difficult to obtain convictions for this offence. Among other things, the review referred to in the response to recommendation 23 will make recommendations on whether employers should be legally obliged to satisfy themselves that the people they employ have a right to work in Australia. The review will seek the views of major stakeholders, including employers and major business groups such as primary producers. Recommendation 26 Ministerial directions be issued which provide that: (a) when assessing applications for a working holiday visa, immigration officers examine carefully any applications where there is a suspicion that the applicant's main intention in coming to Australia is for employment purposes, or the applicant is party to an arrangement which is intended to ensure, or ensures, that an employment position in Australia has been reserved for the applicant; and (b) when assessing applications from working holiday makers for change of status, especially in employment related categories, immigration officers have particular regard to the history of the sponsoring employer's compliance with the work condition of the working holiday visa;Accepted in principle. While care must be taken to preserve objectivity in decision making, the issuing of such ministerial directions is required to deal with breaches of the work condition, especially where employers use working holiday makers as a substitute for employing and training Australians. It must be recognised, however, that such assessments will be difficult to make unless more information is acquired during the application process and more resources are made available.Recommendation 27 A review of health issues relevant to temporary entry to Australia, as recommended in the report on Australia's visa system for visitors by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration of the 37th Parliament, be commenced within the next 12 months, with health issues relating to working holiday makers to be part of that review; Accepted. DIMA will undertake a review of health requirements for working holiday makers. Health issues relevant to temporary entry to Australia will be examined in the review of health processing currently being undertaken within DIMA.Recommendation 28 The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in consultation with relevant Commonwealth agencies and other interested parties, consider requiring working holiday makers to have medical insurance for the duration of their stay in Australia; Not accepted. Such a requirement is not warranted, as there is no evidence that working holiday makers constitute a significant health insurance problem.Recommendation 29 The existing practice of checking working holiday makers' funds on lodgment of their applications be retained; Accepted. There are no convincing reasons for abandoning or altering the current practice.Recommendation 30 The base rate of tax payable by working holiday makers on earnings in Australia be retained at the non-resident rate of 29 per cent; Accepted. The Government does not believe that there are cogent reasons for lowering the tax rate for working holiday makers. The current rate is supported by the ATO and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.Recommendation 31 The Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs continue to pursue a cooperative approach to ensuring that working holiday makers pay appropriate rates and amounts of tax; Accepted.Recommendation 32 The superannuation guarantee charge continue to apply to working holiday makers, but information on the release of benefits be made more readily available to them; Accepted, but see response to recommendation 33. The Government agrees with the Committee that the superannuation guarantee should continue to be applied to working holiday makers so that employers are not encouraged to employ working holiday makers at the expense of Australians. Non-residents to whom the superannuation guarantee did not apply would be cheaper to employ than similarly skilled Australians. Since 1 July 1998 permanent departure is no longer a condition for release of preserved superannuation benefits. Recommendation 33 In the implementation of the superannuation reforms announced in August 1996, consideration should be given to whether working holiday makers who opt to receive equivalent wages and salary rather than superannuation guarantee contributions can receive the money in their weekly wage rather than as a lump sum annually; Accepted in principle. The Government agrees that consideration should be given to this matter but believes that further discussions should take place between relevant government departments before a decision is made. Issues of particular concern are discrimination in favour of working holiday makers over resident employees and the compliance and enforcement problems resulting from the imposition of different requirements on an employer in respect of similar employees. Recommendation 34 The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in conjunction with other relevant Commonwealth agencies, review the information which is provided to working holiday makers to ensure that such information: (a) is written and presented in a manner which is targeted at the age range of working holiday makers; (b) includes a comprehensive summary of requirements which working holiday makers must satisfy while in Australia, including the visa conditions and any obligations, such as taxation obligations, which they will need to meet during their stay; (c) lists appropriate points of contact for further information about Australia; and (d) identifies clearly the relevant authorities or agencies which working holiday makers should contact if they require information or experience difficulties while in Australia, particularly in relation to employment, along with the type of information which can be sought from those authorities or agencies; Accepted, although much of this information is currently available to working holiday makers. DIMA, in consultation with other relevant agencies, is continuously improving its services to clients. In respect of the availability of information on visa requirements, a Client Reference Group has been established to discuss issues and initiatives related to possible improvements in the tourism and travel industries. Membership of the Group includes representatives from the Australian Tourist Commission and thirty State and Territory tourism organisations. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources is developing, in consultation with all relevant portfolios and tourism industry bodies, a National Tourism Plan to provide direction for tourism policy development and industry planning into the new millennium.Recommendation 35 Harvest labour strategies which have proved to be successful in encouraging unemployed Australians to take up harvest work, and which have helped to reduce dependence on working holiday makers in some horticultural regions of Australia, be implemented in horticultural regions which continue to rely extensively on working holiday makers for seasonal labour; Accepted. In the Government's view, it is important that employers in the horticultural and tourism industries do not place undue reliance on working holiday makers to meet their labour needs, or employ them to avoid providing satisfactory working conditions, training and remuneration for Australian workers.Recommendation 36 In order to ensure effective coordination of harvest labour recruitment and a reduction in the horticultural industry's dependence on working holiday makers, appropriate government support be provided to allow for the maintenance of existing harvest labour offices and the establishment of new offices in regions with seasonal labour needs;Not accepted. The Government accepts the need to ensure effective coordination of harvest labour recruitment and a reduction in the horticultural industry's dependence on working holiday makers, but this will occur within the context of the Job Network. Many of the services previously provided by harvest labour offices have been put out to tender under the Project Contracting element of Job Matching, resulting in a reduced need for maintenance of regional offices. Recommendation 37 A coordinated national strategy for harvest labour recruitment be developed by representative organisations of the horticultural industry in order to reduce the industry's dependence on working holiday makers and to provide unemployed Australians with year-long work either in a particular region or across a variety of regions; Accepted. In accepting this recommendation, the Government is aware that some horticultural organisations with experience in this area have indicated their willingness to take a leading role in a coordinated national strategy for harvest labour recruitment. The Government has itself already taken direct action by establishing a Working Group comprising representatives from grower organisations, relevant Area Consultative Committees and Federal Members of Parliament to oversight further development and implementation of the Harvest Trail concept. The Working Group met on 12 May 1999. The Working Group will oversight the progress and implementation of the Harvest Trail. The Federal Member for Hindmarsh, Mrs Chris Gallus MP, chairs the Working Group. The Harvest Trail will benefit both jobseekers—through increasing their knowledge of job opportunities—and growers by helping to facilitate a stable supply of labour. Recommendation 38 In order to resolve existing difficulties associated with the employment of temporary residents, including working holiday makers, in the tourism industry, particularly as tour guides: (a) the working holiday program not be used as a primary mechanism for meeting the tourism industry's need for bilingual and multilingual staff; (b) a working party, involving tourism industry, government and union representatives, be established to develop appropriate Technical and Further Education (TAFE) courses and labour market strategies which will lead to the staffing needs of the tourism industry being met principally through the employment of Australians; and (c) the working party commission a detailed study of the tour guide occupation, as a basis for developing appropriate labour market strategies to foster the employment of Australians as tour guides; Accepted in part. The Government agrees that working holiday makers should not be used as the primary mechanism for meeting the tourism industry's need for bilingual and multilingual staff. Recent developments in tourism training in Australia and in labour market strategies appear to have obviated the need for a working party at this stage. The Government notes that: (i) Tourism Training Australia has undertaken a skills audit for tour guides and other tourism industry occupations, the outcomes of which were incorporated into the development of the Tourism Training Package endorsed in May 1998. Training courses for tour guiding and tour operations offered by TAFEs and other Registered Training Organisations should be consistent with the Tourism Training Package. Competency must be assessed against the Training Package before the national qualification can be issued; and (ii) several Labour Agreements for tour guides have been established and others are being negotiated (see response to recommendation 40). Recommendation 39 Within three years, a mandatory accreditation system for tour guides be introduced to ensure that tour guides are skilled appropriately and have adequate knowledge of Australian culture, society, geography and history; Noted. Responsibility for any introduction of mandatory accreditation of training courses resides with State and Territory recognition authorities (for example, the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board in NSW). The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) is responsible for endorsing national competency standards on which course accreditation is based. Labour Agreements (see response to recommendation 40) can refer to the national competency standards and accredited training courses developed for tour guides. Recommendation 40 Within three years, a labour agreement for tour guides be established which would: (a) allow for the temporary entry to Australia of a specified number of persons with specialised skills relevant to tour guide work where employers demonstrate the existence of a skill shortage which cannot be addressed in a timely manner through the training of Australians; and (b) provide a commitment by employers to employ and train Australians to acquire the requisite skills for bilingual and multilingual tour guide positions; Accepted. DEWRSB and DIMA have negotiated several Labour Agreements for tour guides and related occupations with others currently under negotiation. These Agreements will be used as benchmarks for other Agreements in the industry. The Agreements provide for the temporary entry of specified numbers of appropriately qualified personnel, reflecting industry competency standards. They include employer commitments to provide enhanced employment and training opportunities to Australians. Recommendation 41 If a labour agreement, as outlined in recommendation 40, is not established within three years, consideration be given to restricting temporary residents, including working holiday makers, from employment as tour guides. See response to recommendation 40. 15:36:008274Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.82748274The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—The President has received a letter from a party leader seeking a variation to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Brownhill be appointed a participating member of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee.Bills8274A message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws: Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 Bills8274r8658274Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 . The question is that Democrats amendment No. 1 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.(Quorum formed)15:41:008274Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Democrats are opposing schedule 1, item 1, page 3, lines 5 to 10, because of the term used in the clause of `protecting the competitive position of young people'. If you look at page 3, lines 5 to 10, it presently says:Protecting the competitive position of young people in the labour market, promoting youth employment, youth skills and community standards and assisting in reducing youth unemployment.Implicit in the term `protecting the competitive position of young people' is a classical economics view of competition in markets. Our belief is that when `competitive position', as commonly used in this parliament by the parties who attach themselves to the philosophy known as economic rationalism, is mentioned it sparks the thought, by necessity, of lower wages. In our view, Labor and the coalition are saying that it is an objective of this bill that low wages for young people must be protected. The minister might well reply, `Surprise, surprise! Of course that's what we are saying.' Our concern is not that the existing status of young people might be protected but in fact that more people may be forced onto youth rates than would otherwise and that people getting out of youth rates for whom it is no longer relevant might find it a lot harder.So when Joe de Bruyn goes down to the Industrial Relations Commission for his case by case analysis to try to get junior rates abolished for shop assistants above 18 years, he faces the heavy positive onus Labor is now imposing on him because he will be up against a commissioner whose statutory obligation will be to protect the competitive position of young people. How does he do that? In classical economics, the economics of economic rationalists, the commissioner may believe he or she has only one choice, that is, lower wages.The Industrial Relations Commission's junior rates bench has already made its views pretty clear that low wages are essential to the competitive position of young people. I refer you to page 177, paragraph 6.16, of that report. What the Industrial Relations Commission is saying there is that cost advantage is a key reason why juniors are employed in some industries requiring low skill cannon fodder employees. It is not a question of creating new jobs, but rather cheap young people displace not quite as cheap older people.I would be interested in Senator Collins's views, as a former advocate of the shoppies union, when she talks to this amendment, as to how else Joe de Bruyn could defeat a statutory obligation on the commissioner to protect the competitive position of young people. Senator Hogg might have a view on it, too. We recall that in 1996 he discussed the impact of junior rates on young people. Really, Labor need to say to us whether they understand what a commissioner will have to do to overcome a statutory obligation to protect the competitive position of young people when trying to deal with the issues of age discrimination.Before I sit down, I would like to refer to some remarks made earlier about whether or not we had lost our case that was put before the Industrial Relations Commission. That was a strange way to present it, because it was in fact an inquiry, not a case.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—You do take the point, though?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I take the point; that is why I am responding to it. I thought the various submissions, including those from the government and from people attached to the Labor Party, were very helpful. The final decision, if it can be described as such, of the AIRC is spelled out on page 212, item 7.14, of their inquiry report. There are five dot points in that item 7.14. I must advise the Labor Party, who seem to think that somehow those five dot points undermine our views and our position, that we actually accept all those dot points. We do not resist them in any way whatsoever. Our argument is and has been that the principles which govern relativities—the balance that needs to be had with regard to youth rates and employment—need to be moderated by an overriding desire not to discriminate against young people on grounds which do not have a reasonable basis.We go further and believe that it is the obligation of Australia, as a mature and progressive democracy, to follow the leadership of other countries in the OECD and impose a ceiling on the extent to which age rates apply. There is nothing inconsistent between our approach—which is an amalgam, if you like, of our long held views and the ACTU's position—and the conclusion at 7.14 of the AIRC report. I will indicate for the record what those five points are. They are:. the avoidance of discrimination on grounds of age that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation;Why on earth would the Democrats regard that as a failure? That is exactly what we believe in. The second point is:. maturation skills and related personal attributes in the employment or in performance or particular work required under the classification;We agree that it is appropriate that any such review of a particular junior rate classification should take that into account. Of course we agree with that. That is their second conclusion we agree with. The third point is:. the need for protective measures for young workers in the industry or employment covered by an award classification;We agree with that. The fourth point is:. the desirability of maintaining a junior rate having regard to the availability and use of structured training under New Apprenticeships in the relevant industry; We agree with that. The last point is:. the likely effect of the junior rate classification in securing a reasonable balance of entry of young employees in the relevant industry.We agree with that. If we agree with the findings of the report, I find it an extraordinary allegation from you that somehow we have been defeated in this whole thing. We are simply saying that in the development of appropriate principles to govern the exercise of youth rates in our economy, which should continue on a case by case basis, certain fundamental principles should be established. Those are principles agreed by you before you got into this situation of having to defend the indefensible. They were agreed by you in all the quotes we have quoted from the Labor Party and agreed by the unions which represent young people and indeed agreed by the Industrial Relations Commission. In many respects they are also agreed by the coalition.Where we differ with the coalition is the breadth with which they wish to deal with this matter. They want to extend youth rates far wider than we do. Secondly, they will not apply a ceiling. Thirdly, they do not intend to give guidance on the matter of relativities within the commissions dealing with the act. The argument you put up, Senator Collins, is to me a bit of a distraction. Given how much time we have to deal with the two acts we have to deal with today, I do not think that we should go on too much about it. But you raised the argument. I am raising the response. We can agree to disagree. On the record I am telling you that we support the five principles laid out at page 212 of the AIRC's report. That is our position.15:51:008276Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I indicate for the record that we are opposed to all of the Democrat amendments. I want to refer to this one, in particular, because I think it has been the cause of some misunderstanding at both ends of the other side of the chamber. This morning I said that only one federal award out of nearly 1,700 that have been surveyed by the department had a junior wage rate for 21-year-olds. I was immediately told that that was wrong; it was 22. I therefore want to spell out the facts.Senator Murray, in particular, has repeatedly stated that many awards apply junior rates to 21-year-olds and that some apply junior rates to 22-year-olds. This is completely wrong. It is apparently based on a misinterpretation of a survey undertaken by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business which is included in the joint governments' submission to the junior rates inquiry. The survey described in attachment A to the submission examined 100 key federal awards. Of these, 76 were found to have junior rates. The table in attachment A sets out the number of awards that pay adult rates at 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. All the awards that include junior rates pay adult rates on or before age 21, except one. In other words, only one award prescribes a junior rate at age 21 and none whatsoever do so at age 22 or higher.I hope Senator Murray is listening to this because these are facts. I will repeat the ultimate conclusion: all the awards that include junior rates pay adult rates on or before age 21, except one. Only one award prescribes a junior rate at age 21, and none whatsoever do so at age 22 or higher. This result is confirmed by other surveys.A more comprehensive survey undertaken by the department in January this year of all 1,690 federal awards which contain wage provisions identified only one federal award which applied a junior rate at age 21. It is the GIO Australia award 1991, which applies junior rates from 16 to 21 years, with adult rates applying at age 22. It is the same award identified in the original departmental survey. GIO advises that this is a longstanding provision and that only a handful of employees are employed on junior rates. A survey conducted by the junior rates inquiry itself was consistent with this. Of the 196 awards examined by the inquiry, all of the 111 which contained junior rates paid adult rates by the age of 21.15:54:008276Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—There are just a few issues that I would like to clarify at this stage. They deal with some of the matters that Senator Murray just raised. In the light of the Democrats' amendments I should clarify for Senator Murray—although I too do not want to spend considerable time on this debate—that when I referred to the failure, or what was lost, in terms of the commission's inquiry and report, I meant any case at all from this report that there should be a ceiling imposed by legislation, by this parliament, on the commission's deliberations. That is the case that does not arise out of this inquiry or report. I should go back a step. That is the case that does not arise out of the report. I would probably join with you in saying that there was plenty of evidence in the inquiry supporting the two propositions that you and I both support, which is that there need to be changes which reflect community standards and the link to unemployment that is commonly referred to.Much of the evidence that was heard by the commission both you and I would support. What does not arise out of that evidence is a recommendation that a ceiling should be applied. That is where the Democrats lost an argument to support the amendments that are before us now. I do not even know whether you ran the argument in that case. It might be an interesting thing for us to consider here, although, as I have said, I hope we are not going to spend considerable time debating these issues. You convinced us back in 1996: this is for the commission to determine. And this will go back to the commission. Whilst your comments about reinforcing the presumption that the commission should apply in relation to guidance on relativities has some merit, we believe that that is built into the implication that the commission already admits is in the act. It is built into what we have built into its guidance on relativities in terms of community standards and youth skill.I think that all of the arguments that you are running are relevant to the section that I highlighted earlier in this summary—the points that everyone here would support, point 7 of the summary at the very end, although I reinforce the point that I have already made. Senator Stott Despoja should not drop words when she quotes commission decisions. The commission said, `Age discrimination measures present an ill-suited process for that task.' I go back to my earlier point. The one issue that the commission said we need parliamentary or court guidance on is the definition of `discrimination'. In that, they did not mean `put a ceiling in for us'. That is obvious from the discussion in the report and in Justice Munro's appendix. The department's advice on that is that that is obvious. I will be interested to see, Senator Murray, if you seek to deal with that matter at all.But let me clarify for you the questions I think that the Democrats have not answered in relation to these amendments. They are: what is your alternative schema for clarifying the meaning of `discrimination' in the act? In that context I should highlight that even your amendments about inserting a ceiling still leave discrimination. So what guidance do you propose that the commission deal with in relation to those areas below the ceiling that you are proposing? That is what this report sought from the parliament or the courts.The next issue—I need to clarify it because Senator Murray seemed to indicate at the time that he could answer this one—is: where is the support for legislating 18? I agree with you; there is much argument that supports that proposition. The problem the Democrats face is that there is nothing in the commission's report which supports that proposition. Originally I was going to ask: why have you ignored the conclusion at point 7 in the summary that the commission found? But I suppose the question on that one is why, at least in respect of Senator Stott Despoja, do you misrepresent it by dropping words? I think it took it completely out of context.I have indicated again that the presumption that you raise is already there. I have pointed you to material which I think supports the argument that that presumption is already there. We came to terms with the government in boosting that presumption by incorporating job skills and community standards and, frankly, these additional words are too little, not really adequate and too late.There are only two other issues in relation to earlier comments that I want to go to, and that will probably conclude my remarks with respect to this amendment. Senator Stott Despoja feels that she could have done a better deal. These amendments, frankly, do not represent that, and the confusion that I have seen in the Democrats' position does not either. She says that it is a `dirty deal'. Senator Stott Despoja, I do not make dirty deals, and I find that language offensive.On top of that, for some reason the Democrats continue to avoid the straightforward situation that we are in—the government moved a bill; the government refused to change that bill in the light of the commission's decision; and we went to the government and said that we were not prepared to support anything in this area unless it reflected the commission's decision, and we believe the situation before us now does indeed do that.In conclusion, the final point I want to address is Senator Murray's connection between women and junior rates. That is an interesting one in terms of some of the debates we had back in 1996, because I remember that it was actually the Australian Democrats that dropped the principle of equal remuneration out of awards—and the principle of equal pay in awards dropped back 15 to 20 years. So please do not talk to me about women in this area. But let me raise one issue that is obvious out of the report in relation to that analogy. This report deals with junior rates, and it talks about things like maturation factors. Most people realise that young people have maturation issues that are relevant to the skills they apply in the work force—that is a pretty common proposition, accepted by most people. The setting of ceilings that you grapple with in your amendments, in part, reflects that.I hope you will admit—although some would argue that the situation is pronounced in the other direction—that maturation issues are not relevant in relation to the connection between men's wages and women's wages. As one of my other colleagues mentioned when I raised this point with him, women actually tend to mature earlier than men. So the connection here between men's wages and women's wages is a bit tenuous.The other element of the commission's discussion of the issue is that the meaning that the commission can apply to discrimination with respect to men's wages and women's wages is much clearer than the meaning they have to rely upon in relation to age discrimination. Again I reiterate: the meaning of age discrimination was the one issue I came across in this report about which the commission said, `We need more assistance from the parliament or from the courts in how we deal with it.' Your amendments simply do not cover that point.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—The question is that schedule 1, item 1, page 3, lines 5 to 10 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.16:03:008278Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I turn now to amendment No. 3 on sheet 1524. I move:(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert:1A Subsection 4(1) Insert: junior rate means a rate of pay paid to a worker aged less than 18 years of age that is less than an adult rate of pay for the same or equivalent work.We regard this as the most important amendment we will vote on today. It is an amendment that I am moving at the direct request of the ACTU—not of `some unions', Senator Collins, but of the ACTU. This is the amendment that the ACTU want Labor to back. I do know that the minister handling this legislation has had a lot of fun teasing the Labor Party about their connections with the ACTU, and the Labor Party have had a lot of fun in responding that you are, in fact, properly close to them. We are moving their amendment for you. The first preferred position of the ACTU is that junior rates be abolished completely and replaced with clauses based on skill. Both the report and every senator who is—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Overnight?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—concerned with this issue acknowledge that that is difficult. Its second-best fall back position is that, if there must be junior rates, they should peter out at 18 years, as they do in 14 out of the 20 OECD countries that have junior rates.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Overnight?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Why not? The position of junior rates at 18 years is the official position of the largest representative organisation of young workers, the shoppies union.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Overnight?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I think I will have to respond, because I am getting a repetitive theme here.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—You are out of order, Senator Collins. Not only are you repetitive but you are repetitively out of order.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Do not make me laugh, Mr Temporary Chairman; it offends the gravity of the moment. The question of anything overnight, of course, always exercises our minds with regard to bills. If the good senator had concerns about that, transitional provisions are always appropriate, and I will accept an amendment if you choose to put one up on that basis.To return to the amendment, of the OECD countries, only Australia and the Netherlands have a statutory law that they can treat 21-year-olds as juniors. The official position of the largest representative organisation of young workers who are unionised, the shop distributive union, is that junior rates should apply only to those up to 18 years of age—I might quote at length from pages 5 to 7 of their submission to the Industrial Relations Commission—and this is the position that the Hon. Kim Beazley was saying eight months ago was sensible. As recently as March 1999, as well, Mr Beazley said that young adults should not be paid children's wages. Mr Beazley said:Do not kid yourselves that 19- and 20-year-olds in our community do not have family responsibilities, because there are plenty who do. There is no suggestion that, if they did 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.These are her leader's words which Senator Collins directly refutes in her arguments. It is a wonderful statement. It is classic Beazley, if I might say so, but unfortunately he did not believe it; he was just an actor delivering his lines. That is no longer the Labor Party's position. There are two parties in this debate who have held consistently to their position: one is in government and the other is the Democrats. The Labor Party have moved their position.I have to confess that I was not terribly surprised that Labor did a deal on junior rates; I had been expecting it. What did surprise me was that they settled for so little. I was amazed that they did not fight for an 18 years of age definition or some similar ceiling. I heard Senator Collins pick Senator Stott Despoja up for using the words `dirty deal'—and quite rightly so—but I suspect Senator Stott Despoja did so with tongue in cheek, because what she was really doing was bouncing Labor's words back at them. I do not think it is inappropriate for Labor to have had a deal or an arrangement with government—why should I? I think it is perfectly proper. But whenever we do it or Senator Harradine does it or somebody else does it, it is always referred to by Labor as a `grubby little deal', a `cosy little arrangement' and so on. I do not quite have the theatrics that they attach to it. I am not going to use that language, but what has happened with this deal, we think, is that you were unable to achieve a better outcome.The way that the bits of this law interact it will now be impossible for Joe de Bruyn and the shoppies union to implement the policy of trying to cut out junior rates at 18 years. The commission will be so hamstrung by the bill and the amendments that attach to the bill that it will never be able to grant such an application and fulfil the onerous statutory duties that this bill imposes on it. It will therefore be hamstrung on the case by case response. Our approach was to rather set the ceiling and, within the case by case response, let the Industrial Relations Commission make a proper evaluation on relativities.The amendment we are proposing would certainly give Joe de Bruyn and his shoppies what they want—and rightly so. I know we are going to lose it, but it has never stopped us putting amendments before and I do not see why it should now. It would also, though, bring Australia into line with most OECD countries with junior rate definitions. I repeat that Canada, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Poland and Spain have abolished junior rates. France, Luxembourg, Turkey, Ireland, Korea, Portugal and the Czech Republic allow junior rates only below the age of 18, and New Zealand has an age of 19. Those are adult ages. So, of 20 OECD countries with minimum wages, seven have no junior rates, seven define it as less than 18 years, four define it as less than 20, and only two have it over 21 years. Eighteen years in our own award system is already the case for adult rates in awards in the copper industry, the food, beverages and tobacco industry and the business equipment industry. Labor's Senator Campbell, in his excellent speech earlier, highlighted the anachronism of junior rates in terms of their history, which was also canvassed in the Industrial Relations Commission's report.The term `junior' in relation to wage rates replaced the term `boy' or `lad' in awards in the period 1910-17 and was set in most awards at below the age of 21 years. That was not terribly surprising for that time, because 21 was the age of majority. It was the age at which people could vote. In most awards it is stated as age 21 ever since. But community standards have shifted. The relativities, once put in awards, have tended not to be changed and have stayed, with links to a bygone era.One of the arguments that has been addressed constantly is the need for modernisation and simplification. It is a theme of the minister and it is a theme I have agreed with by and large—that you do need to modernise and simplify awards. This is an area where it needs to be modernised. Since the 1960s, the ACTU's equal pay for work of equal value policy has committed the union movement to abolishing junior rates above the age of 18 years. The ACTU's Grant Bellchamber, in particular, has tried very hard indeed in recent years to improve matters on this front. This really became an issue in the 1960s because 18 was the age for the draft, and people felt that if people were old enough to fight and die they were old enough to be paid an adult's wage. In 1972 the federal government gave people the right to vote at age 18 years and the equal pay case for women was resolved.At that time the metals union started to try to improve the junior rates in the awards but were largely rejected by the commission. There it stood for 20 years until the 1991 national wage case introduced skill based career paths and insertion of the 1993 antidiscrimination provisions into law. What I am trying to say is that the age of 21, which the minister quite correctly indicates is scattered right through numerous awards, is a historical anachronism. It was the age of majority in 1920 when junior rates were first set, but it ceased to be the age of majority in 1972. Why haven't our pay scales caught up? I am not here referring to issues of training or issues where it is generally obvious that people have to be discriminated against in wage terms because of the nature of training and apprenticeships. I am talking about where an adult is doing an adult's job and happens to be aged 18, 19, 20 or 21.I know from what has been said before that this is going to go down. For the assistance of the chair, I indicate that for emphasis reasons we have a number of `in the alternative' amendments following this amendment. I will put those, but I will put them to the voices. This is the only amendment on this section that I will put to a division.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendment No. 3 on sheet 1524 be agreed to.16:18:00The committee divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.0Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.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. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Schacht, C. C. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.16:21:008281Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 4 on sheet 1524:(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert:1A Subsection 4(1) Insert: junior rate means a rate of pay paid to a worker aged less than 19 years of age that is less than an adult rate of pay for the same or equivalent work.This is the same ceiling amendment, if I can describe it as such, as I moved previously, but with 19 years of age. That would bring us into line with 15 out of 20 of the OECD countries. As I have already said, workers are paid adult rates at age 19 in the copper, business equipment, aluminium, food and beverages, and oil and gas industries. I should also indicate the different percentage rates that 19-year-olds are paid in different awards. One of the difficulties we have is the inconsistency in the relativities between awards. For instance, a 19-year-old is paid in the metals industry 82½ per cent of the adult rate; in hospitality, 90 per cent; in construction, 88 per cent; in meat processing, 88 per cent; in clerical industries, 80 per cent; in the retail industry, 80 per cent; in the clothing industry, 93 per cent; and in the entertainment industry, 97½ per cent. That is one of the problems that we have with the present youth rates regime. There is no consistency; it is pretty arbitrary. Frankly, the employers—and we understand their motive—want to keep wages as low as they can, and whatever they have been able to argue with the union on the rate, they have managed to achieve.Having spelt out those percentages, if you move to a junior rate of 19 years, it would mean a pay rise of between 10 and 20 per cent for 19-year-olds moving to an adult rate. Once again, anyone who has ever been in business knows that that is a large movement. Nevertheless, we think that if other countries can accept it and find that it is appropriate and it does not destroy jobs or harm their economies or their industries then we should do the right thing here. You have to ask: could industry afford such a thing? The company profits figures released last week suggest that they can. Company profits were up by a healthy 17.4 per cent last year. In retail, profits jumped 69 per cent. The shareholders are therefore getting a 17.4 per cent increase. The company executives will be getting performance bonuses of at least that, and Senator Conroy was wonderfully eloquent on that matter. So why can't we afford to give young people a decent wage at age 19? If New Zealand can do it, we think Australia can too.What would a junior rate above 19 years do to reduce or increase youth unemployment? We think it is not an issue about jobs but an issue about equity. If anything, such a rate would make it more attractive, we think, for industry and awards generally to operate in a better regulated situation. I do not think I will go through all my notes; I am getting a little weary of the argument.16:25:008281Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I missed my opportunity, as I was being briefed when we came to the question on the last amendment, so I will deal with some of those issues now. They are just as relevant in relation to this amendment, as I am sure Senator Murray would acknowledge. Senator Murray, we agree with your objectives; we do not agree with your process. You mentioned the SDA's position and the argument that the SDA ran in the commission. The SDA's argument in the commission was that you may actually need to deal with some of these matters—down to a more appropriate adult rate—with a transition process. I cannot recall the precise number of years but I think it was possibly even up to about six years. There is no such proposition before us at the moment.In terms of process matters, the Labor Party believe that the commission is in the best position to determine the process on a case by case basis by being able to assess on a case by case basis the costs and the issues involved. You are right, we could stand here and talk for ages about the various different examples and what percentage points would be involved, but again we would be doing it on a case by case basis; I do not think it is possible for us to frame a transition arrangement which is universal, and it is certainly contrary to the advice that has been given to us by the inquiry that you guys established.We have not had an answer to the question that I raised in relation to where does the commission find that we should legislate or set a ceiling. That is the fundamental point in relation to these amendments. It would be completely inconsistent for the Labor Party, given that we took the position that we accepted that the independent umpire determined this matter, to change that position. It would be logically inconsistent for us to change that position and now say, `But on top of that we will now impose a ceiling on the commission,' and particularly to not leave scope for the commission to determine transitional arrangements. I think it is appropriate for the commission to hear your arguments and many other arguments about how the community standard today is well behind on the issue of what is an appropriate adult rate. I think it is appropriate for the commission to determine transitional arrangements to introduce more appropriate rates, taking into account all of the factors that we establish in this bill.Senator Murray referred to the New Zealand example, and earlier there was some discussion about the United States. I want to raise those issues in the context of dirty deals, as Senator Stott Despoja suggests, done dirt cheap. This is not a dirty deal done dirt cheap. Let me address why. I was actually scared stiff one would be done, but it would be done by your party, Senator Murray. A dirty deal done dirt cheap might have been the sort of deal that was done in New Zealand. As I understand the New Zealand context, the age of 19 for the adult rate quite appropriately was brought in in 1983 in its current form, but—and this is in part a message to the ACTU—in the context of their independent contracts legislation.I knew the Democrats were going off to talk to the government about an attempt to change this bill, and what scared me stiff was the prospect of what the government would take to give it to you. The only thing you guys had to offer was what is in the next wave, and Reith does not do a deal for nothing. Thus the outcome was that you did not get a deal out of the government, but that was obvious before the fact.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—What is your deal?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—What are you getting out of it?GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—The deal that the Labor Party got out of this matter was as follows. We got the position that we had supported all along, which is a framework which the commission sought after duly considering all of the factors that you guys had established. We got to continue to support the role of the independent umpire.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—You might address your comments to the chair, Senator Collins.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Through the chair, what else we got was that you did not do a deal with the government that traded something else for some ad hoc or partial position on junior rates. What we got was a scenario in which, I hope, the Australian Democrats will fight in the future for an independent and strong Australian Industrial Relations Commission.I hope that what else we got—going back to my United States example—was a scenario where we will not go down that path, because, while the United States does not have junior rates, just think about the rates it has in its deregulated environment. That is the path we do not want to go down. We want the commission to determine, in the light of promoting job skills and community standards, more appropriate rate classifications for all Australian workers, men or women, young or old. That is what the Labor Party wants.16:31:008283Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator Collins, I do not recall all the aspects of what was a very complex and sometimes very technical report from the inquiry, but I do not recall them actually ruling out a ceiling. They certainly did not rule it in—and I agree that is not in their recommendations—but I do not agree that they ruled it out.The second thing is that I do not seem to recall that they looked beyond 19-year-olds in their analysis. I think their not having done that is a weakness. One of the difficulties when you are looking at 19-year-olds—who are a year above adulthood—is that, if they had been in the work force since age 15 and 16, as many young people who have not been in education have been, they would have two, three or four years experience and often would have reached work maturation levels that would make them ready to move out of youth rates. It is a difficulty, frankly, in that someone who has entered the work force at 15, who is in an award which has a youth rate up to the age of 21, and who effectively has been six years on youth rates, might have reached the appropriate skill or maturation level within two or three years.The other issue is that the 19- to 21-year-old labour market is very different from the 15- to 19-year-old one. It becomes much more speckled, if you like, with young people who have undertaken education—they are completing a secondary traineeship, a TAFE course or so on—and are, quite frankly, ready to go; they are young adults with appropriate skills. So I just make the point that, whilst we value the IRC report, I do not think it is the last word in all this and I hope the debate will continue.16:33:008283Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I agree with you: there are inadequacies in the commission's inquiry. They have acknowledged that there are many inadequacies, but they do suggest a framework, or an approach, to proceed into the future. That is what this bill supports. Senator Murray, I suggest you have probably got two options.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Could you suggest that through the chair, Senator?GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Through the chair, I suggest that Senator Murray has two options about how to proceed from here. One option is to present that case—and I think Senator Murray would acknowledge that he certainly does not have that case together for us to consider here now—on a case by case basis to the commission by intervention. The second option is: if he wants to review this matter further, perhaps he should throw it on the table in the next wave inquiry.I do not think that case is here now; it is certainly not developed in terms of these amendments or how transition might occur. The impact on industry overnight of these amendments is acknowledged by unions such as the SDA. I think you will find that, beyond those two options, this piece of legislation is not really an option to further that case in terms of how well it has been developed today.16:35:008283Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—May I ask through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, whether Senator Murray could enlighten the committee on how anybody, if there is a principle to be upheld in his amendment No. 3, could vote for amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6?16:36:008283Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Thank you, Senator Harradine. That is a good question. If you are going to be arbitrary as to a cut-off point for discriminating on the basis of age alone, you need a standard which is accepted as a community standard. That community standard in years gone by was 21, the year of adulthood. The year of adulthood is now 18 and I think that is a rational point to pick. We have, as you might recall from your long Senate memory, in fact accepted—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator, you might care to address your comments through the chair.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—My apologies, Mr Temporary Chairman. Senator Harradine might have recalled with his long corporate memory that our position was never that we should adopt an arbitrary age position. But we have thought that, in the interests of this bill, it is appropriate to accept what we regard as a sensible compromise solution from the ACTU.However, as the age of 18 has been rejected by the Senate, our position, therefore, is to try to recover ground for any adults who are still being paid youth rates on a basis which is acceptable to other countries. In other words, the principle of comparability. It is this principle of comparability that we are trying to flesh out as we go along. In particular, because we share a highly mobile labour market with New Zealand—as many senators know—we thought the age of 19, for instance, is another benchmark age. If we as a parliament were to agree there should be discrimination, at least it would allow everyone above the age of 19 to be paid adult rates.If implicit in Senator Harradine's question is whether we understand that this is an arbitrary line—yes, we do, but it is a comparability exercise.16:38:008284Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—There is a point of principle about the definition of a junior rate—juniors being those under the age of 18—and a lot of arguments have been educed in support of that, particularly outside this chamber, over a number of years. Unless the Industrial Relations Commission is going to deal with the matter in an appropriate way, I cannot see that supporting a definition of a junior as under 19, 20 or 21 assists in the ultimate resolution of the matter that junior workers are those under the age of 18. In other words, those workers 18-years-old and over are ultimately to be considered adults.That is the difficulty I have in supporting anything other than amendment No. 3 which, of course, I supported. But in principle I just cannot support the other two amendments, which I think do not have the arguments to sustain them that we saw in relation to the 18-year-olds. I know what arbitrary points Senator Murray is making, but I think they are too arbitrary. I want to make it clear that under those circumstances I wish to abstain from voting for amendment Nos 4, 5 and 6.Amendment not agreed to.16:41:008284Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(5) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert:1A Subsection 4(1) Insert: junior rate means a rate of pay paid to a worker aged less than 20 years of age that is less than an adult rate of pay for the same or equivalent work.This amendment puts the age of 20 as the cutoff age and, of course, any such selection of an age group enables those above that age to be paid an adult wage. Let us see what that would mean to 20-year-olds who might be now regarded as adults if this were to pass.Under the hospitality award, it would make absolutely no difference to them because they get 100 per cent of the adult rate. In the metals industry, they get 97.7 per cent—a ridiculous discount. Why? What possible ground is there in the metals industry for adults at the age of 20 not to get the full adult rate? They are all receiving adult rates in the building, meat processing, banking, transport, manufacturing, textile and travel industries. The clerical and retail industry is the odd one out, paying 20-year-olds only 90 per cent of the adult rate. So there is inconsistent treatment at age 20. In the hospitality or building industries, they receive adult rates; in the metals industry, they receive 97.7 per cent; and in the retail and clerical industries, they receive 90 per cent and are still treated as kids.That is what discrimination and prejudice means. You discriminate or are prejudicial towards people on unjust grounds, where there is no rational basis for it. That is exactly what it means. There is no rational basis for discriminating in that way against 20-year-olds in those industries. Given that most industries seem to regard 20-year-olds as adults, should we not try to stop the remaining industries that attach themselves to archaic awards from paying 20-year-olds as kids? I find it unreasonable that the Senate cannot accept that argument.At age 20, our junior rates definitions would come into line with the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Belgium. We would be in line with 18 of the 20 OECD countries. I have heard all your sophisticated arguments, Senator Collins, but 18 out of 20 OECD countries draw a ceiling at least at the age of 20. If it is good enough for Tony Blair's New Labour, why is it not good enough Kim Beazley's liberated Labor?16:44:008285Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I have a very quick question for Senator Murray. I think it highlights the fact that, whilst I agree with much of his case, the case has not been fully developed. The case has certainly not been developed that it should be parliament which determines these matters. Is he aware, for instance, of the environment in which the 19 rate was introduced in New Zealand? Was there a transition arrangement? If so, how was it developed? Was it done by parliament? Was it introduced over time by the equivalent of their commission? Is he in a position at this stage to answer any of these questions? I suspect not. This is a matter for the commission.Amendment not agreed to.16:45:008285Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(6) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert:1A Subsection 4(1) Insert: junior rate means a rate of pay paid to a worker aged less than 21 years of age that is less than an adult rate of pay for the same or equivalent work.The case will simply be cranked to death if I repeat all the arguments. It is now 21 years of age. Does anyone actually believe that a 21-year-old is a kid? If anyone in this chamber wishes to join me, I encourage them to do so.16:45:008285Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I will make a very brief comment on this amendment. The strategy is obvious, but the point I need to make in response to it is that this matter should have been dealt with by the commission a long time ago. I am pretty confident that, had it been, it would not even be in front of us here. Alternative processes need to be explored about why we are confronted with this issue in relation to workers over 21. There is still one award that has an adult rate up to 22, which Senator Murray would suggest is an outrage. I will not comment on the details of how that continues to exist. I do not know why. Again, it should not be the case, because if the commission had reviewed it, I doubt very much whether it would have continued.Amendment not agreed to.16:47:008285Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 23), at the end of subparagraph (ii), add "while seeking, as far as possible, to eliminate discrimination in pay rates on the basis of age".This repeats a similar amendment I put earlier, but it obviously applies to a different section of the bill. It is similar to the one I moved on the objectives of the act in section 3. This amendment is to section 88A, which is the objectives of part 6, the functioning of the commission in dispute prevention and settlement. All the arguments I made earlier apply.Personally, I do not believe that a new objective is needed for section 88A. The overriding objectives of the act are already there. If we had done what Labor described as dirty dealing and refused—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I wouldn't have, Andrew.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I do not believe that Senator Collins would have, but some in her party might. They refuse to back what we regard as sensible amendments. The objectives of the act already make it a statutory duty of the commission to protect the competitive position of young people. At least in section 3, the objectives of the act, there is the countervailing objective (j) about discrimination. But in section 88A, there is no countervailing objective. So it will be an objective of the act that settling a dispute must further the competitive position of young people. We think that will mean an encouragement for much lower wages. There will be no countervailing objectives of seeking to prevent or eliminate discrimination.This is not just about junior rates clauses. We think it sets a dangerous precedent. The deliberate tilting of this field against the interests of young people might end up applying to all elements of dispute prevention and settlement. Looking at a training award clause, study leave provisions, casual loading, redundancy, hours flexibility or all the other things that make up an award, and looking at any dispute hearings about treatments in the workplace or discrimination, the commission may take the view that it must override those in the interests of the competitive position of young people.I cannot, as none of us can, foresee exactly how the commission will react. However, it is a fear, and that is what lies behind this amendment. Discrimination might not be seen as important by the commission because it will now look solely at the competitive position of young people.I still think a result of this is that in many respects young people will be second-class in the commission's considerations. I think the amendments agreed to by the Labor Party and the coalition will end up tying the commission's hands by forcing them to a particular style and approach to this, which I regard as unsatisfactory. Parliament will end up making sure that the specific overrides the general. By repeating objective 3AA and the objects of part 6, it will send a clear message that some objects are more important than others and that discrimination will simply be a second-order issue, which we do not agree with.16:50:008286Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I understand the concerns that Senator Murray has raised, but I do not think this amendment actually addresses them. If it is a concern with the balance of how these objects are reflected, that is obviously an issue which we feel is solved by the insertion of the words the government has accepted as part of our arrangement regarding community standards and job skills. If his concern is that the commission's attitude will go much broader than just the issue of rates of pay and that it will go into other conditions of employment or broader matters, adding the words `while seeking as far as possible to eliminate discrimination in pay rates on the basis of age' does not really address that concern.Amendment not agreed to.16:51:008286Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—We seek to oppose schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 11 to 23). This goes to the paragraph which outlines the commission's functions and powers in relation to making and varying awards. I have spoken already at length on the impact of the new objects clause. It is a message to the commission that discrimination on the basis of age is not just a good thing in terms of junior rates clauses but that it is justifiable in a wide range of other employment conditions as well.As I said earlier, when the commission is looking to protect the competitive position of young people, we do not know what the age of those young people will be. It could be 18 years old as the age of maturity; it could be 21 years old; it could even be the age of 25. I understand that, in certain United Nations categories, people below the age of 25 are considered young people. I think Young Labor people, Young Democrats and Young Liberals are probably categorised below the age of 30. The Labor Party as an organisation certainly defines young people.I do not know what they will mean by the categorisation of young people, and that is the point of a ceiling. In theory, the commission can ratchet up the ages at which youth rates apply and decide that journalists who have not reached 10 years experience are not yet worthy of being paid appropriately. There is no ceiling to this. In changing the way in which the commission is required to determine these things, we may see some unintended consequences that we would regret. So, when Joe de Bruyn goes down to the IRC for his case by case analysis to try to get junior rates abolished for shop assistants above 18 years—which he can do under this law; it has not been ruled that he cannot do it—because of the heavy positive onus on him, he will be up against a commissioner whose statutory obligation will be, in our view, to reject his case. Because in classical economics—the economics which is laying behind the intent of his bill—we think the commissioner may feel that he or she has only one choice, which would be lower wages. If the Industrial Relations Commission says that there is a key cost advantage why juniors are employed in some industries, it will insist that youth rates continue. Once again, we feel that this approach outlined in this paragraph is a negative indication, and we therefore oppose it.16:54:008287Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I want to speak just briefly with respect to this matter. What we are really doing is readdressing the issue raised at item 1, which is the presumption that the commission would apply. I think I have dealt with that matter adequately. As we move through those, though—and relevant to the previous item we dealt with where Senator Murray is worried about the potential scope of the additional objects that the commission will consider—can I say that, unfortunately, some of these concerns are also far too late in the process. Before we came back in this afternoon, I had heard from the press gallery that the Democrats were putting the position that they had not really intended to move amendments today. That concerned me, and I indicated—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—That sounds like a Labor Party spiel to me.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Senator, I indicated at the time—defending your honour—that in fact that matter had not been raised with me. I am sure you are not doubting the honesty of my statement that I was in fact approached by someone from the press gallery with that claim.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I don't doubt that.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—The matter of delaying this matter had not been put to me. I took it as an opportunity to say that perhaps the arguments that have been run to date about the concern with whether many of these amendments actually do what is intended is coming home to some people. Again, this one simply deals with the presumption issue again, and the earlier one did not really seem to do what Senator Murray intended he wanted it to do.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—The question is that schedule 1, item 2 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.16:56:008287Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I would to ask that amendments (9) and (10) be dealt with together. Can that be done if one seeks to oppose?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray, one seeks to oppose an item. Therefore, what you propose would not be in accordance with standing orders.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Thank you for that guidance.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray, you could speak to both together if you wish, but they would be put separately.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I will speak to (9) and (10) together and put them separately. We have heard arguments from Senator Collins that I hope we can now turn a little against her. She has been arguing quite strongly—and I would agree with her sentiments although not the debating points—that the commission should be independent and should have the ability to exercise that independence. But explicit in much of what the government and the Labor Party are doing with this deal, arrangement or agreement is that they are in fact going to be reorientating the direction of the commission. The consequence of that is telling the commission what to do with respect to certain matters. I think that it is appropriate at times to ask that the commission take into regard certain things. But if we make those requirements such that it constrains the commission's ability to do the right thing, I get a bit worried about it.In directing the commission, you are saying that it must protect the competitive position of young people. The commission will therefore lose its independence to balance discrimination and employment issues in looking at junior rates, which is a position it has adopted over two decades—not always with good outcomes, but nevertheless it is a position it has adopted. With these provisions, we think the young people will be treated in a way that they might not otherwise if the independence of the commission had not been curtailed. As indicated in (10) we will be opposing the clause. In amendment (9), we were seeking again to add that qualifying consideration that we have put throughout.In the Industrial Relations Commission's junior rates report, on pages 65 to 66, they refer to how the commission have approached junior rates decisions over the past two decades on a case by case basis. Their conclusions are on page 66. That is how the commission have been working—and, I guess, from reading the report, would prefer to continue working. But now they are going to be required to take account of youth employment. The government says that is a perfectly valid and legitimate thing for them to do, but we say you should take it into account provided you balance it against the issue of whether discrimination is arbitrary—that it has little to do with youth employment, and just has to do with cost and paying young adults youth rates.The concept of needs is not there either. The issue of discrimination is not there. The commission laid out four factors, of which only two seem to be surviving as a result of these changes. Once again I would remind you that the consequence of what we are doing here is going to make things worse for young people rather than better. Before Senator Collins responds, if she is going to, or before the minister responds, I am quite happy to take those two items on the voices. I move:(9) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 31), at the end of paragraph (ba), add "while seeking, as far as possible, to eliminate discrimination in pay rates on the basis of age".17:01:008288Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Again I am not sure that the words included here even deal with the sentiments that Senator Murray just raised. We believe that the words that the government has inserted at our request actually provide the balance that he is referring to as being needed—that is, that the commission needs to be mindful of community standards and job skills. In addition to that, though, throughout the report there are various references to other factors which assist the case. For about the fifth time today I go back to my earlier point about what the commission thinks is the task ahead to get it right.Here and elsewhere the commission are directing us more towards issues associated with appropriate classifications and work value matters. They quite clearly say that in their view age discrimination measures present an ill-suited process for the task. Again I am not really sure that this amendment changes the balance in the way that the Democrats might like. The commission are telling us that they think that this process is ill suited. We think an appropriate process is there. In my earlier discussions I have already referred Senator Murray to the presumption that the commission accept is already in the act and remains in the act. I can only add one further factor that I am seeking clarification of—I am short of an adviser at the moment—and that is that I think the principal object of fairness was one of the ones that disappeared back in 1996, in the deal between the Democrats and the government. But I am unable to confirm that just at the moment.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—The question is that schedule 1, item 3 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.17:04:008288Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will now speak to (11) and (12), but I will put them separately in line with our previous procedure. These, we think, again are crucial. Of course, everybody who puts amendments says that, but we do, because we think that without this there can be no fair case by case analysis of junior rates. I am referring to amendment (11) when I say this. Without this amendment there is no possibility that the commission will be given sufficient independence to at least restrain discrimination. This morning, the Hon. Bob McMullan, former Senator McMullan, was saying that adult rates for young people were a legitimate aspiration. Without this amendment, we think the deal that has been put forward will close off that option from ever occurring.I wish to remind the chamber again that the economic evidence that junior rates are needed to reduce youth employment is tentative at best. Junior rates have not stopped a long-term decline in full-time youth employment. The absence of junior rates above age 19 has not prevented jobs being created in the hospitality or financial services sector or in the building sector. It is absolutely essential that the commission only be allowed to authorise discrimination if it is the only way—and only to the extent necessary to achieve the objective of youth employment. I do not think the economics of junior rates is sound, but if they can be justified let us give the commission the capacity to award them on a case by case basis. The onerous duty of the commission in its case by case analysis is now to always deliver junior rates, and that is what the changes to section 3, 88A and 88B have already achieved.So this is a last-ditch stand, if you like, to rescue this proposed Labor-coalition bill from its consequences. Labor's Senator Campbell gave an eloquent speech yesterday but I do not think he would be aware from a close reading of the bill how the commission's powers are going to be affected and how preordained the outcome of any application on new junior rates is now likely to be. And I doubt that Senator Lundy, who, like Senator Stott Despoja, carries the youth portfolio, would be aware of the possible consequences. I suspect that a number of key figures in both the coalition and Labor Party are, and that is one of the reasons they want this bill pushed through rapidly, even though it would only really need to be dealt with by June next year. Another two weeks of sustained lobbying from the ACTU, the SDA, the NUS or Young Labor might get a bit uncomfortable.I am hoping that, when this has all gone through, they will have a repeat action of it come the second wave, and hopefully by then Labor might have reconsidered some of these matters. Senator Collins, who quite rightly has been outlined as spending her working life defending the rights of shop assistants and young people, would then not have to stand here and defend the indefensible, and Senators Lundy, Bishop and Hogg, who would probably also have the same beliefs about young people, would also not have to defend what we think is indefensible. That is probably why it is being rushed through.I do not know the people well enough, but I am not sure Joe de Bruyn, Doug Cameron or Jacob Varghese will forgive you. I forgive you because I do not think your heart is in it. I think you have been told by your caucus leaders that you have to defend this thing. I think this will be a festering sore for Labor. I will be very surprised if you are not obliged to try to re-address this issue. The consequence for the minister will be another agonising session listening to arguments he does not agree with. Having said that—as you know, you can hear the sound of defeat in my voice—I move the Democrats amendment No. 11:(11) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 35), at the end of subsection (4), add: where the Commission has ruled that such discrimination is clearly necessary to: (a) protect the competitive position of the young people in the labour market; and (b) promote youth employment, youth skills and community standards; and (c) assist in reducing youth employment; provided that the discrimination is permissible only to the extent necessary to further these objectives.17:08:008289Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Senator Murray, this really is the last stand. Defending the indefensible is something, again on this one, I need to put back to you. In relation to amendment No. 11, I heard a couple of claims but no argument which dealt with the provisions of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 or the act which demonstrated that case. I do not see anything particularly problematic with the wording here, but we would argue that this change is not necessary. Essentially, it deals with some of the arguments you have run.As you have indicated already, this is your last stand. It is a re-run of much of that and draws on the language that is already in the bill. I am still not convinced about what it achieves over and above what is already there. Again, because I cannot see that it actually does anything, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. I really do not see how you can say that the government and Labor are pushing this through rapidly. I am not aware that the Democrats raised any concern about the debacle that occurred yesterday. Was I missing something?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I was amused; I don't know about concerned.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—If you were amused by what transpired yesterday but raised no concern about it, you have been in this place long enough to know how legislation proceeds. I know some in the press gallery were a bit confused about how you could deal with a bill but not deal with amendments. They had a bit of trouble understanding that there is not a special procedure that relates to Democrat amendments that can be carved off a process and set aside for two weeks. You certainly do know how the process works. I have seen you work it with 500 amendments in other circumstances. I really find it difficult to see how it can be argued that we are pushing this through rapidly. Everybody was aware of what Labor's position was in June of this year. We have brought the government back to that position and we are happy to process that position. We are not rapidly rushing anything through.To the extent that there has been only amusement and no complaint by the Democrats—and perhaps a little political posturing in the process—I think you are hardly in the position to say that we are pushing this through rapidly. We are dealing with your amendments. There is no guillotine. I would rather be thinking about heading home some time this evening, but I am still here and I am prepared to stay for as long as you want to debate this. I heard earlier that there was some prospect that you were going to string it out until 8 o'clock tonight. I cannot say I am aware of the direct source of that comment, but in relation to this being your last stand, I am quite pleased that we have worked cooperatively through the process of addressing your amendments today.When we started the committee stage this afternoon there was no-one here from the Democrats. I was a bit concerned and thought, `Good heavens! Maybe their way of not wanting to deal with the amendments is not to turn up in the chamber,' but we worked on from there. I have listened to your argument and I do not see how you have demonstrated that these words actually do what you have described as your intent. I have heard the claim that you are concerned about various factors, but these are the words we have inserted into the objects, into various other provisions in the act, and I do not see how putting them here actually adds anything further.17:12:008290Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The attempt in amendment No. 11 is once again to balance the issues which have quite properly been attended to by Labor and the coalition—that is, wanting to examine youth employment with the issue that discrimination should not be arbitrary and should be permissible only to the extent necessary to further these objectives. It is a constant balancing act. As to the events yesterday and the view about hastening the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 through, there is no subterfuge in my approach. I would like you to have as many weeks as possible to be subject to as much pressure as possible on these issues. You understand that, I understand that, and that is what it is about.As to my amusement yesterday, many people have opinions about the minister. Everyone knows that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is an extremely capable and experienced politician. The way in which he was able to manufacture an event which had a lot of humour to it, with the consequence that we are dealing with his bill ahead of other ministers' legislation, I thought was rather masterful, given the nature of things. I think we all have understood what has happened. Surely the only winner in the legislative timetable is Mr Reith. We must admire political skill where we see it, frankly, even if the opinion of the minister might vary according to the person who is dealing with him.17:15:008291Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I have one comment to add to Senator Murray's, because he has gone down the path of Mr Reith's behaviour yesterday. I am not going to go into the point about how masterful I regard the minister, but I will say that Senator Murray and I have a differing perspective about the minister's motives. In the context of his earlier comments, I would like at least to put them on the record. There is one view that the minister thought this pressure that the Democrats think they are able to develop was actually going to change Labor's position. From what has been highlighted since he made his political ploy, I think it is pretty clear that Labor is not moving on its position. I think he understood that yesterday morning. I think he has understood that for quite some time. I think the minister's motives on this occasion were to take an opportunity to kick the Labor Party. You can debate how masterful he has been at that, but I do not think it was a masterful strategic ploy that was going to make sure Labor stayed on the line. The minister knew very well that the Labor Party was not shifting on this issue.The only reflection there is that perhaps it might be nice if the Democrats had more influence on the Labor Party or the government. The reality is the minister was not going to accept any proposal from the Democrats on this issue unless they had something to offer. The only thing they have to offer which scared me stiff is barking on something on the second wave. I am considerably pleased that they did not have that opportunity.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question now is that schedule 1, item 4 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.17:17:008291Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move Democrats amendment No. 13 on sheet 1524:(13) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 19), at the end of the item, add: (3C) The Commission must not approve an application under subsection (3A) to include in an award a junior rate of pay for employees who have turned 18 years of age.This does not deal with making existing awards pay adult rates at a lower age. This deals with the ability for the commission to decide on a case by case basis that there will be new award junior rates clauses. One of the surveys we referred to earlier, when the minister and I were discussing matters early in the debate, indicated that about three-quarters of all awards have youth rates. This amendment would deal with the quarter that do not. It tries to make sure that any new award junior rate clause at least recognises that young people are regarded as legal adults at the age of 18. We are trying to give some guidance to the commission on new applications to insert junior rates in new awards. That is particularly important because of the way the objectives of the act and section 88A and 88B are framed. Thanks to this agreement between Mr Beazley and Mr Reith it will be almost impossible, in our view, for the commission to refuse an application to insert junior rates clauses in new awards. The government and the Labor Party might take the view that that is perfectly appropriate. But we say that, if there are to be new junior rates, let them not be over the age of 18. I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for putting it so well previously. I have quoted the speeches accordingly. I hope the Labor Party will agree with this approach. It quarantines junior rates to those awards that have them for people aged over 18 years.17:19:008291Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I have a question for Senator Murray. I thought he had already made his last stand, but this appears to be his last stand on the issue of a ceiling. Can he tell me how he has in mind that a new award be defined? I am going to take the opportunity to get some advice on this briefly from the department, because I can see some obvious on-the-face problems here. Perhaps Senator Murray has already considered that question and, while I get that advice, he might give us any understanding he has.17:20:008292Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—There might not be the need to take advice. I might have used language a little loosely. There are existing awards which do not have youth rates. The purpose of the amendment is avoiding a youth rate provision being put in an existing award. Did you get that response, Senator Collins?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Sorry, Senator. I understood that you would want further advice on that problem, too.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Let me repeat my response. I said I might have used language a little loosely. I meant that there are existing awards which do not have youth rates. If youth rates were introduced into existing awards, this would prevent those youth rates extending beyond the age of 18.17:21:008292Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—No, Senator Murray; I understood that that was certainly your intent. My problem and concern, even in addressing the issue of principle here, is that there are some other complications which appear fairly obvious to me. As I understand it, although the scope to achieve it is reasonably limited, there are still some state awards in the system that aspire to federal jurisdictional status. I suspect a consequence of this amendment would be that the classification schema in those awards would not be translatable into the federal jurisdiction.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question is that Democrats amendment No. 13 on sheet 1524 be agreed to.17:27:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.46Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Ludwig, J. W. Macdonald, I.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. O'Brien, K. W. K.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Schacht, C. C. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.17:30:008292Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I wish to move amendment No. 14. But before doing so, I make a suggestion to the minister and to Senator Collins. I can see the way in which this is going. Frankly, I feel like somebody who is punching a marshmallow, because I am just not getting anywhere. So my inclination is to put the remaining amendments I have, one after the other, speaking very briefly to them. That means that the full arguments will not always be expressed. Other senators may, of course, want to have a longer exposition but, if you are happy that most of the arguments that surround this issue have in fact been debated—we have a remaining eight amendments which we do consider important—I would like to do that. I also ask, without having given the government or the opposition the advantage of seeing my notes, if it might be appropriate for me to incorporate my notes—if I was permitted by Hansard rules—to make sure that they are grammatically correct and edited. Otherwise, I would have to read my speaking notes, and I am conscious that senators have a program ahead of them and may prefer for us to get on with this. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—My understanding is that that can be accepted if everyone is in agreement.17:32:008293Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Senator Murray, perhaps I can just address your request. You are right; some of these issues are simply revisiting arguments that you have earlier put. It is my view that from the opposition's perspective those arguments have actually been adequately addressed and countered. I would hate to think that I would read something the next day, after the vote had occurred, which had been incorporated that I might actually find has some valid substance. I am not quite sure how you propose to deal with that difficulty. I do not believe that we have simply been standing here rejecting, rejecting, rejecting; I think that there have been very valid concerns raised from the opposition's perspective. I know that Senator Alston has been very quiet. From his perspective, maybe he thinks this is just a deal. But, from our perspective, yes, there is an arrangement, but I think that there are quite rational reasons for upholding that arrangement, and I think I have dealt with that on every issue that these amendments have raised so far. I would hate to think that you might actually raise a valid argument that gets lost because you have incorporated it and that we would not see it.17:34:008293Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I will attempt to move very quickly through my amendments and, with the cooperation of the rest of the chamber—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Could I ask that you move amendments Nos 14, 15, 17 and 19 to 21 together initially?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Yes, I will do that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—And then move Nos 16 and 18 separately. They are the items to be opposed.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Thank you, I will certainly do that. The Manager of Government Business in the Senate has indicated to me that it looks like we will be finished on this bill well before 6 o'clock if things go well. Having said that, I seek leave to move my amendments together.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I move Democrat amendments Nos 14, 15, 17 and 19 to 21:(14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 19), at the end of the item, add: (3D) Any provision of an award or agreement that provides a junior rate of pay for employees who have turned 18 years of age ceases to have effect on 1 July 2001 or such earlier date as the Commission, on application, determines.(15) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 27), at the end of paragraph (ea), add "while seeking, as far as possible, to eliminate discrimination in pay rates on the basis of age".(17) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (lines 6 and 7), omit the item, substitute:8 Subsection 143(1E) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1E) Paragraph (1D)(a) does not apply to any clause of any award or agreement after 1 January 2001 except where the Commission has reviewed the relevant junior rates of pay to ensure that the wage relativities comply with principles established by a Full Bench.(19) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), after item 8, insert:8A After subsection 143(1F) Insert: The Commission shall, through a Full Bench, establish principles for more consistent relativities between junior and adult rates of pay across industries, taking into account: (a) the extent of labour market disadvantage faced by young workers; and (b) the work value of young workers at different ages; and (c) the promotion of skills development and training of young workers to reduce their labour market disadvantages; and (d) the desirability of minimising discrimination on the basis of age in wage rates only to the extent necessary to further these objectives; and (e) the structural efficiency principle.(20) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute:10 Subsection 170LU(7) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (7) The Commission must refuse to certify any agreement providing for a junior rate of pay to an employee who has turned 18 years of age unless the Commission has reviewed the relevant junior rate of pay to ensure that wage relativities comply with principles established by a Full Bench.(21) Schedule 2, item 1, page 6 (line 13), at the end of paragraph (ea), add "while seeking, as far as possible, to eliminate discrimination in pay rates on the basis of age".I will speak as briefly as I can to these amendments. Amendment No. 14 is about completing the process that the commission was empowered to do by our 1996 junior rates amendments. What we asked the commission to do—and some people have always misrepresented this—is, firstly, hold an inquiry generally into junior rates and then apply the act as it stands, with its joint emphasis on promoting employment and opposing discrimination on a case by case basis, to current awards. The commission was even allowed to authorise junior rates on a case by case basis past June 2000 where it was of the opinion that was justified.As an aside, I am quite glad that that little item was not incorporated, because the typing error was `juniper' instead of `junior'. That would have confused Hansard no end.However—moving on from `juniper' rates—mindful of the commission's work backlog, this provision seeks to extend that process to 1 July, requiring the commission to complete its case by case analysis of junior rates by then. Without this deadline, without forcing both unions and employers to face up to the issue of junior rates, we did not think anything would happen. Under this provision the commission would be forced to test case by case whether junior rates were needed to promote youth employment. Our view is: what union would, in the absence of a deadline, commit itself to wasting scarce union resources making an application under the new bill to review junior rates when the hands of the commission have been so comprehensively tied? I have gone through the operational aspects of why the unions will probably never succeed in having a junior rate removed or reduced under this act, and I do not propose to repeat that.Amendment No. 15 refers to the strangling clauses. I have tried to put in a fall back by asking the chamber to at least ensure that when the commission considers youth employment ages it also considers age discrimination issues.Amendment No. 17 is the provision we inserted in 1996 which allowed the commission to pursue junior rates clauses past 22 June 2000 only on a case by case basis using principles established by a full bench. We thought that was a good and fair process. The five very fair, very considered, very workable principles established by the commission should have made it into the act, and the fact that they are missing is a problem. The principle of maturation skills we have had a discussion about earlier. The principles of discrimination, protecting workers, measures for young workers, junior rates and training wages and a reasonable balance of entry for young people to industry have been discussed, so I will not explore those at any length, unless there is a decision to debate them.Amendment No. 19 has been moved at the request of the ACTU. Mr Greg Combet, Assistant Secretary of the ACTU, who I understand is to be the new General Secretary, said:The present situation is one of widespread and arbitrary inconsistencies in the minima payable to young workers in different industries not accounted for by differences in the nature of the work done or the skills utilised by the workers concerned. No coherent rationale is available for these discrepancies which remain because award restructuring under a longstanding IRC structural efficiency principle has not yet been applied to junior rates. Young Australian workers deserve a fair hearing in relation to such fundamental issues as: who is a junior; how sensitive is youth employment to changes in youth wages; and consideration of the relationship between skills, training, competence and age, particularly for over 18-year-olds.So that amendment seeks to establish the rationale for principles that Mr Combet viewed as so essential for the systematic development of junior rates clauses. Obviously, in moving the amendment, we indicate that we agree with them. A quick look at the table on page 75 of the IRC report shows just how inconsistent the relativities between awards are—and nobody disputes that. The Labor Party does not dispute that and the coalition does not dispute that. But the rationale for the different rates needs to be challenged, and we think there should be some kind of consistency, some kind of principle, which emerges from it.I think amendment No. 21 is self-evident. We have discussed that before, so I will leave it at that, unless senators want me to respond to any particular issues.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Did you speak to amendment No. 20?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I will not bother to speak to No. 20 either, Mr Temporary Chairman.17:40:008295Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I will attempt to run through these amendments very quickly also. I think I will go back to amendment No. 14. Senator Murray, I think I will call that your GIO amendment. Presumably, the motivation behind this one is to prevent the GIO circumstances ever being maintained, which is to require the commission to review, I presume, of its own motion. It is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, it is too little too late. As I said, having received these late yesterday, I have not been in a position to apply a comprehensive analysis of how it sits in the total schema of the act. I do not think the department really has been either, in that context.To require the commission to review these awards of its own motion is an argument that has some merit but, in the context of the commission's own decision that we need to proceed on a case by case basis, which will in some sense establish some of the principles that the commission will use to guide it in consideration of matters on a case by case basis, I do not really see how bringing in this requirement at July 2000 is, in terms of the commission's processes, even achievable. As I recall, in the decision itself the commission implied that a task of that nature it itself would not regard as a priority. The Democrats might argue with that position—and they could probably run a fairly good argument—but that is what the report says, and I have already indicated that Labor's position is to accept the decision of the independent umpire. We are not completely happy with everything in that decision either, but again we have accepted the decision it has come down with, and that is what this bill seeks to implement.Moving on to amendment No. 15, I think that is a case of `ditto' where it was argued earlier in your amendments. In amendment No. 17 you seek that the full bench establish principles. Well, the commission's decision already tells us the framework and the approach that it thinks is appropriate. Again, that is what this bill is doing and that is what Labor is supporting. I can understand why the Democrats might like another full bench inquiry to revisit the areas where you do not think you have been successful in the commission's decision, but again I have indicated that Labor's position is to support the framework that the commission has recommended should be established.With amendment No. 19, you have indicated that Mr Combet made various comments. As you were going through them, I was thinking, `Gee, it sounds very similar to the description that the commission has given of the field as well: the inconsistencies et cetera that exist.' Indeed, the commission has described difficulties associated with junior rates and discrimination. I think the ACTU and the commission are at one on some of those problems, but again their solution to those problems is different, and Labor have indicated that we support this bill in establishing the framework to implement the commission's decision, the decision of that independent umpire.Again we are dealing with a full bench consideration to establish principles. That is going to occur through the case by case process in the current scheme. Much of what is drawn on here draws on existing wording in the act or attempts to introduce the presumption that I have argued is still within the act. To highlight that point look at point (e), the structural efficiency principle. Commission principles apply to the structural efficiency principle already. That is a case of repetition and draws on much of what I have already said about how the commission deals with classification structures and work value issues, et cetera.I highlight one issue that Senator Murray referred to, and that is consistency. I agree with your concerns about consistency; I wish we could go back to prior to 1996 in terms of how the act was framed with respect to the issue of consistency. That comment on its own makes exactly the point I am making: there are many areas of inconsistency that have developed under the government's schema since 1996—quite deliberately, because it is Minister Reith's intention that there should be more inconsistency as workers bargain on, or in many cases bargain away, many of their entitlements at a workplace level because they simply do not have the same bargaining position as the employers that they are dealing with. Minister Reith is quite happy for that to occur and he wants to further extend the schema of this legislation to enable more of that to occur. I look forward, Senator Murray, to more from you on the issue of consistency because we will obviously draw on those principles over the next month or so.Moving to the last two amendments: the comments I made about amendment (19) apply to amendment (20); ditto my comments on various amendments going back to (1) for amendments (17) and (21). So I have nothing further to say on the amendments as they stand. Labor will be opposing them because they are not consistent with our support of this bill as implementing the framework that the commission sought to implement arising from its decision on the junior rates inquiry—the inquiry which was commissioned as a result of the deal done between the government and the Democrats back in 1996.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question is that Democrat amendments (14), (15), (17), (19), (20) and (21) be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 6 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that schedule 1, item 8 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.8296Motion (by Senator Alston) proposed:That this bill be now read a third time.17:49:008296Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—We have covered much of the ground and many of us are mindful that we have another piece of legislation to get through. I will keep my broad, in-principle comments quite brief. I want to reiterate that Labor has not done a dirty deal dirt cheap. I thank Senator Murray and Senator Stott Despoja for the catchphrase I was searching for—you gave it to me during the course of this debate. Let me say one final time so that it is clear for the record—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—It was merely a backflip.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—This was not even a backflip, Senator Alston. I was disappointed that I was not able to allow Senator Murray to incorporate his remarks to facilitate this debate, but I made the point quite clearly: how on earth could we say, `Yes, incorporate your argument'? It would have been an open admission that we did not think we had a counter to them. I have demonstrated through the committee stage of the debate on this bill that there are quite solid, rational counters to the amendments that were put forward by the Australian Democrats. I accept that various suggestions have been put to the Australian Democrats during the process by parties interested in the process, and that is a good process to develop and follow and should be facilitated further. I look forward to more of it in the second wave legislation, but let me reiterate the facts one final time. Back in 1996, Labor accepted the facts of life on this issue.Honourable senators interjecting—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I knew the facts of life by then. That was obvious, I already had one child at that stage. Back in 1996 Labor accepted the facts of life, which were that the government and the Democrats had done a deal which established this inquiry. This inquiry addressed junior rates and it addressed the arguments and the cases put by the unions, the Democrats and community organisations such as ACOSS and many others, and eventually it reported.When it reported—this is skipping a few stages; I remember we joined with the Democrats in preventing Reith from trying to pre-empt it—Labor looked at that report and framed their position accordingly, accepting the decision of the independent umpire. Labor's position accepted the decision of the independent umpire, which I am about to spend the next few months trying to maintain under further attacks by Minister Reith, and I look forward to joining with the Democrats in that process. We accepted the commission's decision; the government did not. Do you remember phase 1 of this bill? The government did not change the attempt to pre-empt this legislation prior to the decision. It did not change that bill and reintroduced it post the decision, and Labor said to the government, `We're sorry but, no, that is nowhere near good enough. We're not going to cop that. We're not going to cop an attempt to extend junior rates.' We have said we will accept the commission's decision and we will establish a framework to review junior rates in the way the commission finds appropriate under the guidelines or the terms that were established between the Democrats and the government back in 1996. And that is what we have done. There have been no dirty deals and no special arrangements, and the result has not been cheap. The result has been what we said we were after back in June post the decision. That is what this bill does: it establishes the framework for the commission to do what it said it wanted to do arising out of its report, which was commissioned by the government and the Australian Democrats back in 1996.I agree with many of the arguments that the Democrats have put on the principles involved. The problem is the process. I have much more confidence in the process of the commission to determine many of the issues that have been presented in the debate today—as the commission currently stands. I might be concerned if that independence were compromised by some of the process in the second wave, but, as it currently stands, I have confidence in the commission to deal with the issues that have been raised in this process. I look forward to observing the case by case analyses that follow. There may be some areas where we did not get the scenario quite right, and I think I have been quite open to some of the issues that Senator Murray has raised on that. But I think I have also been fair in saying that there are counter-difficulties with some of the amendments that you have raised which have not been addressed. Unfortunately, the time frame in terms of when we received these amendments has not allowed some of those issues to be canvassed further, but the Democrats have chosen not to object to this process, so we can only have confidence in their view that perhaps it is better for the commission to review and address some of the queries that have been raised in this scenario. Or perhaps Senator Murray will pursue some of the other options that I said are available post this debate.I said I would attempt to be brief and I have taken only about six minutes. There has been no dirty deal done dirt cheap by Labor. Unfortunately, Senator Stott Despoja is not here for the conclusion. Cheap rhetoric is not going to solve the problems of juniors in Australia. I hope that the commission will. I believe that the framework exists to do that. The schemas that we have developed over time do not to date appear to have ensured that. If you compare the situation where New Zealand went down to the age of 19 in 1983, obviously we do have problems. Let us get a test case run through the commission and let us get it to determine one. If the result of the commission test case is that we still have the extreme example of an adult rate up to 22, obviously we have got big problems, but I have got confidence that that will not be the case. Question put: That the bill be now read a third time.18:00:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)47Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.O'Brien, K. W. K. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills8298r6468298Consideration resumed from 1 September.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering amendments (10) and (12) on sheet 1265, moved by Senator Brown. The question is that those amendments be agreed to.18:04:008298Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—At the end of the last session on this legislation, I moved Australian Greens amendments (10) and (12) together. We are dealing here with the termination clause in the legislation; that is the sixth clause in this regional forest agreements legislation. The passage of these two together would effectively delete this proposed section and would leave the termination provisions as in the regional forest agreements themselves and subject to parliamentary scrutiny if other Green amendments are not successful.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—The question is that amendments (10) and (12) on sheet 1265, moved by Senator Brown, be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.18:06:008298Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Australian Greens amendment (11) on sheet 1265 reads:(11) Clause 6, page 4 (lines 21 to 27), TO BE OPPOSED .I oppose the clause for a similar reason to that which I have just given. I think there ought to be a termination provision in legislation that affects the forests of this country. We need to ensure that we can review regional forest agreements and state management plans that are not being abided by. There is a need for the Commonwealth to review the expenditure that is going to the forest industries. If the forest industries or their minions in the states are not complying with even these weak provisions, the Commonwealth ought to have the ability to terminate. That is not so if we leave the bill as it is, so I oppose the clause as printed.18:07:008298Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats indicate our support for Senator Brown in his opposition to this clause.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that clause 6 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will move on to opposition amendment (9) on sheet 1290.18:08:008298Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move:(9) Page 4 (after line 27), after clause 6, insert: 6A Amendment of RFAs Nothing in this Act is to be taken to prevent the amendment of an RFA by the parties to an RFA where the parties agree that the circumstances are such as to warrant amendment of the RFA and where they have consulted interested stakeholders about the amendment.Amendment (9) seeks to insert an additional clause, 6A, which would read:Nothing in this Act is to be taken to prevent the amendment of an RFA by the parties to an RFA where the parties agree that the circumstances are such as to warrant amendment of the RFA and where they have consulted interested stakeholders about the amendment.We would suggest that this is a commonsense measure that empowers parties to an RFA to make marginal changes in the light of unforeseen developments. For instance, one can envisage that a natural disaster—a bushfire—occurring in an RFA region could have a substantial impact upon the operation of that RFA and the operations that are permissible under that regional forest agreement. Therefore, unforeseen circumstances could possibly require that some amendment to the terms be implemented.Similarly, it is possible that, during the period that an RFA is in operation, new information may come to light that had not been reasonably available at the time that the RFA was entered into. The parties may, as a result of that new information, believe an amendment to the RFA to be necessary. In such circumstances, one can readily envisage that it could lead to agreement for areas to be reserved that are additional to those agreed upon at the outset of the RFA.We submit that it is likely that this power exists in any event, but our amendment seeks to make it explicit that this power exists and to impose a requirement that interested stakeholders must be consulted about the terms of any such amendment. We believe that would be reasonable, given that that process is required to take place during the development of an RFA itself. This is a commonsense amendment that adds clarity to the bill, and we ask this chamber to support it.18:12:008299Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government opposes this amendment, as we consider it unnecessary. The bill, as it stands, only makes special reference to termination and compensation provisions originally contained in an RFA to ensure that they are not subsequently watered down. It does not otherwise attempt to restrict RFA variations by mutual consent. Senator Murphy noted in the Senate on 10 March 1999 that:The bill is really the warranty or the insurance policy for the regional forest agreements.. . . . . . . . .So we have to understand that the legislation is underwriting what has been put in the agreements. The agreements are the crucial aspect to all of this.It is assumed that the reason for this amendment is not to attempt to subsequently circumvent those termination and compensation provisions. If, rather, it is to deal with unforeseen events, such as fire or disease, that might compromise the character of reserves found in an RFA region—as I said, we consider the proposed amendment unnecessary—the RFAs themselves allow for such amendments, and wood supply contracts with state agencies also allow for such unforeseen events as fire and disease to be taken into account.Further, the Office of General Counsel has this to say about the proposed clause. I quote from advice dated 10 August 1999, page 10, paragraph 26:This clause would require consultation with interested stakeholders before an RFA could be amended. The term `interested stakeholders' is vague and has the potential to be extremely wide, thus making compliance with this term difficult. If, on the other hand, this proposed amendment is an attempt to ensure that RFAs in existence before 1 March 1999 can be amended to comply with the changed definition of RFA in the bill without going through the parliamentary scrutiny process, this also seems doomed to failure.On the basis of clear legal advice from the Office of General Counsel from which I have previously quoted, adoption of that changed definition of RFA will have the likely effect of ensuring that existing RFAs will not be recognised as RFAs under this bill.There is some further legal advice which has considered one implication of this. I am following a question which was raised with it by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I seek leave to table that advice.Leave granted.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—As a result of that advice, RFAs made prior to the commencement of this act, such as the Tasmanian RFA, are likely to be reopened to the parliamentary scrutiny process, contrary to the assertions of the opposition. So we oppose the amendment.18:14:008300Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move:(12) Clause 6A, after "RFA" (first occurring), insert ", in order to protect the environment,".Democrat amendment No. 12, on sheet 1514, page 4, seeks to amend opposition amendment No. 9 on sheet 1290 Revised 2. It puts in the words `in order to protect the environment'. This makes it explicit that regional forestry agreements can be amended for environmental protection.18:15:008300Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate to Senator Greig that we cannot accept the amendment. The reason is that the effect of the Democrats amendment on our proposed amendment would be to limit its operation to relate only to amendments of an RFA where those amendments are related to protecting the environment. It is quite feasible that such amendments that might be agreed upon between the state and the federal governments are related to protecting the environment, but it is also possible that other amendments could be made in the future that have another purpose as well as that, such as with respect to employment. We do not believe that our amendment to the bill should be restricted to amendments which relate only to protecting the environment.That is not to say—in case it is even contemplated—that amendments to RFAs would be proposed that would somehow be injurious to the environment; rather, we are saying that there can be a range of reasons why the state and federal governments might believe that an amendment to an RFA is necessary. They can be related to environmental reasons. They can be related to employment reasons. They can be related to social policy reasons, community reasons and so on. We do not believe that it should be restricted to the environment. Our amendment ensures that what Senator Greig may be trying to achieve is already encompassed.18:18:008300Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Regarding this amendment, I ask Senator Forshaw for his view on who the interested stakeholders are. I presume the parties are the Prime Minister and the Premier of the state. Who are the interested stakeholders?18:18:008300Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I will respond to Senator Brown. Interested stakeholders would certainly include those groups that would have been consulted in the development of the RFAs—those groups who chose to be involved in the processes of developing the RFA.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Very vague!656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Troeth, if you want to argue your point that it is vague and therefore would be held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, I think you should get some better legal advice. If you read the national forest policy statement, nowhere does it exclusively define the various groups that may have an interest in the development of an RFA and who can be involved in the process. If you have a look at the way RFAs are being developed in those areas so far, you will see that it is pretty easy, in practical terms, to identify who the interested groups are.One could start with the industry—the companies that operate—whether they be large companies or small timber mills. They would also include trade unions—the employee representatives. They would include industry organisations, such as NAFI, or their state based equivalents. They would include environmental groups. They would include local government. They would include state government departmental bodies. It is pretty clear who the interested stakeholders are.We are talking about an amendment that is directed at amendments to an RFA. If we could have legislation that results in RFAs which come about as a result of consultation, negotiation, agreement between state government and federal governments and a whole range of other groups, then surely it is equally possible that, when an amendment of sub stance is proposed to that RFA, we can identify who those interested stakeholders are. I do not have any concerns that anybody who wanted to argue that this term was not able to be clarified, in the particular circumstances of the case that might come before a court, would have any great difficulty in identifying whether or not it had been complied with. After all, the concept of reasonableness is one that runs right through the law.18:22:008301Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Australian Greens will support this amendment, but I am very aware that what it really means is that at some future date there can be an emendation of a regional forest agreement by a Prime Minister and a Premier. Never in the history of the whole fight for the forests can we cite a case where compensation flowing from such an act or change has been anything but for the woodchippers. We have to have that in mind and have trust that the woodchippers have got everything under this legislation—supported by both the major parties with some minor amendments—and that there may be at some future time an amendment that could be made by a Prime Minister and a Premier more responsive to the vast public opposition to the destruction of Australia's forests which is written into this legislation.It is vague, but I would say to Senator Forshaw, who has brought forward this amendment, that it is better than the point of view being exhibited by the government, which is that the public, who are opposed to this legislation, should not be consulted at any stage in the future; that it should be lock-down legislation to their friends in the woodchip corporations. The anti-public face of the government—and, in particular, the Prime Minister, who is signing these agreements—comes to the fore when the government cannot even take a step to support consultation with stakeholders for a mutually agreed change to a regional forest agreement in the future. I will, of course, support Senator Greig's amendment because it says, in effect, that an amendment ought to be looking to protect the forest environment in this country, and that is what we Greens are totally about.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—The question is that Democrats amendment No. 12, moved by Senator Greig, to opposition amendment No. 9, moved by Senator Forshaw, be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Forshaw be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now move on to Australian Greens amendment No. 13 on sheet 1265.18:25:008301Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Greens amendment No. 13:(13) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 28) to page 5 (line 13), omit the clause, substitute:7 Compensation for breach of RFA The Commonwealth is not liable to pay any compensation arising out of a breach of an RFA.This amendment would affect clause 7, page 4, line 28 to page 5, line 13 by omitting the clause and substituting instead under the heading `Compensation for breach of RFA' that:The Commonwealth is not liable to pay any compensation arising out of a breach of an RFA.Here we are in the heartland of this legislation, which is lay down misere for those who would destroy Australia's wild forests unnecessarily. Here we are at this point where the Howard government not only is prepared to give woodchippers the control of the forests for the next 20 years—that is the term of the duration of this legislation—but also says that, should any future minister of the Commonwealth move to protect one tree anywhere in the vulnerable forests in this nation of ours, then the woodchip corporations get the compensation. In other words, the Australian taxpayers, who own those forests, have to give money to the woodchip corporations, that do not own the forests, for not cutting the forests down. These are the woodchip corporations that not only do not own the forests but also have not paid a red cent for any of it.So it is the blackmail clause. But the blackmail is being paid on the very people who do not have a say in this; that is, the Australian people. The opinion polls show that 80 per cent of Australians are opposed to this legislation. It is 87 per cent, I think, in the latest Western Australian opinion poll. These people do not want this unnecessary destruction of our forests in Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland where these regional forest agreements, signed personally by the Prime Minister, will come into play with millions of hectares of those forests then targeted for logging—that is, cutting down, with the destruction of the ecosystems and the wildlife in them—over the next 20 years. And the Prime Minister says, `When I put my signature on these documents, not only my government but no future government for two decades in this country ought to be able to get in the way of those chainsaws.'Then we come to clause (7), which was added late to this legislation. It says that the Commonwealth is liable to pay any compensation if it should intervene to protect forests in the future and that the money will be payable out of money appropriated by this parliament. As far as this government is concerned, the only activity this parliament can take part in for the next 20 years is to dip into the pockets of the people of Australia to pay off the logging corporations for not cutting down forests. What an extraordinary failure this is—failure of the government to respond to the people of Australia and their wishes and failure of responsibility to future generations who want this forest heritage and its wildlife kept.The influence of the woodchip corporations who fund government election campaigns is written right through it. You have to look at how that influence works. The very people who are most likely to benefit from this clause are companies like North, the biggest woodchipping corporation in the Southern Hemisphere, which, by the way, is mining uranium against the wishes of the Mirrar people at Jabiluka at the moment. I have here the latest figures for contributions from North to political parties. They are for last year, 1997-98. According to this, the Labor Party got $89,000 and the Liberals got $90,000—a total of $179,000 for the year.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What about the Nationals?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—A National Party senator, Senator McGauran, interjected there and said, `What about the Nationals?' It may well be that what Norm Sanders, former Democrat senator in here, had to say about then Tasmanian governments giving away the forests was true—that those politicians did not even have the brains to put their hands out. I do not know about the Nationals, Senator McGauran, but you can get up and talk about the corporate backing that the Nationals get and why you will be voting for this compensation clause.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We can all sit here and listen to this argument being repeated over and over again by Senator Brown. It is untrue and it does not wash. I draw his attention to standing order 193(3), which says:A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament or of a House of a state or territory parliament, or any member of such House, or against a judicial officer, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.I think it is very clear that Senator Brown is more than impugning; he is actually stating that the decisions taken by members of the parliament from a number of political parties are based upon improper motives. I would ask you to call him to order and rule that those arguments are highly disorderly. They are defamatory and they are untrue.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—On the point of order, I advise you, sir, to be very careful about going in the direction that Senator Forshaw implies, because we are moving in the realm here—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—Senator Brown, I am ready to rule. There is no point of order. I have listened carefully to what you have said in this debate so far and, although you have gone fairly close, I do not think you have impugned. QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is a very proper ruling, Chair. I am very careful in these matters, but of course they are very legitimate matters for debate.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Nice to know you think our motives are proper.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The sensitivity of parliamentarians must never be allowed to get in the way of open public debate on the way in which politics works in this country.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—All this is on the public record.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Over the interjections, Chair, I want to go on with this chart, because we are dealing here with a compensation clause which is most likely to end up benefiting the big woodchip corporations in this country. If we look at Amcor, which operates in three states, we see that in 1997 it gave $30,000 to the ALP, it gave $90,000 to the Liberals and it gave $10,000 to the National Party. That is a total of $130,000. Boral, which is very active in New South Wales but also has taken over Northern Woodchips in Tasmania, gave $52,500 to the ALP, $69,000 to the Liberals and $19,000 to the Nationals. That is a total of $140,500. The National Association of Forest Industries, NAFI, gave $3,000 to the ALP and $5,000 to the Liberals. And the New South Wales Forest Products Association gave $2,000 to the Fred Nile Party, which of course is not represented here. In Western Australia, Wesfarmers, which I understand owns Bunnings, gave the ALP $23,000—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Wasted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I think that is an unfair reflection on Wesfarmers. These corporations have an obligation to their shareholders. They do not give money away for charitable purposes; they give money away because they are in the business of purchasing influence. Wesfarmers gave the ALP $23,000, it gave the Liberals $25,000 and it gave the National Party $20,000, a total of $68,000. When you add all that up, just in one year these companies and associated interests gave the major parties in this country more than half a million dollars.Here we have a clause which says, as direct as you like, that, if any future particular minister for the environment moves to cut across the interests of those corporations as written into this regional forest agreement legislation, the parliament will be obliged to compensate those corporations. These are regional forest agreements that the government does not want this parliament to vet and is opposed to this parliament seeing. We have seen in the last couple of days that the Tasmanian, East Gippsland and Central Highlands regional forest agreements in Victoria cannot be brought before this parliament—except in one circumstance, and that is when a future federal minister moves in the interests of this nation to protect a forest or an ecosystem, if not for its aesthetic or intrinsic values then because the country is howling against the impending destruction of that place. And in that circumstance we do come back to parliament to work out how much money—blackmail money—is given to the woodchip corporation so that they will keep their chainsaws at home. What an extraordinary circumstance. What would the people of Australia think if they knew what was going on in this piece of legislation?Of course, I put this to the government in this committee. Who drew up this clause? Were the barristers and legal advisers of any woodchip company in any way involved? I think they were. Was Daishowa, totally owned in Tokyo, or any of its legal advisers involved in the drawing up of any part of this legislation, particularly this compensation clause? And do you know what? The government is not going to answer those questions because it cannot truthfully answer them.So we have this extraordinary situation where, at an extended sitting—because the government wants to get this legislation through before it can come under any further scrutiny—we get to the part which says in such explicit terms that the beneficiaries out of this, no matter which way you look at it, are a handful of woodchip corporations, and the losers, whether you look at it from an environmental or an economic point of view, are the people of Australia.The chamber is almost empty. The government can get two people to sit in its seats for this debate. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who is out of this chamber, has been in here once during the debate leading up to this particular impasse, and that was for about five minutes when he made no contribution at all. What a dereliction of parliamentary duty from a government which said that it was there to govern for all of us.If the government cannot explain why this is written for the woodchip corporations, I ask it to explain why there is no compensation clause here for the workers. Senator Troeth is quick to fire off broadsides at the conservationists, quite wrongly transferring the blame for the loss of jobs in the industry from the woodchip corporations and their automating across to conservationists. Whoever is the cause of loss of jobs, is it only going to be a Green in this place who says, `This compensation clause is not the right one. If you are going to compensate someone, compensate those who are going to lose their jobs in the wake of these regional forest agreements,' like the 480 who have already lost their jobs in Tasmania? As soon as the Prime Minister's signature was on the paper, they started shedding jobs. Why is there no clause here which gives compensation to the people who are really hurt by these deals?18:41:008304Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government has no intention of agreeing to this amendment. It would seek to destroy any confidence remaining in RFAs if the other Green amendments were agreed to. Senator Brown is trying to indulge in a total erosion of confidence in the RFAs, whereas the government believes that the RFAs set strong economic frameworks around the timber industry. This amendment would ensure RFAs are no different from previous forest agreements where parties have been able to walk away from their commitments with impunity and they would be back where we started, which is exactly where the Australian Greens would like us to be. This government does not intend to breach any RFA to which it is a signatory. We are clearly committed to ensuring that RFAs work.18:42:008304Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition will not be supporting this amendment.18:42:008304Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting this amendment for all of the reasons which Senator Brown outlined. Further, Parliamentary Secretary Troeth argues that, in her view, and presumably in the government's view, this amendment would bring about a total erosion of confidence in the RFA process. I would argue that the RFA process has suffered, most particularly in my home state, the greatest erosion of confidence in any piece of public policy I have seen in a long time. Senator Brown's amendment is an attempt, I believe, to introduce some confidence into the process. For that reason, the Democrats will support it.18:43:008304Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank Senator Greig for that support. Of course, he is absolutely right. You will have noted, Mr Temporary Chairman, that my challenge to the government to say whether the legal advisers to the woodchip corporations were involved in drawing up this legislation, and in particular this compensation clause which advantages them, has failed to get any response at all. The parliamentary secretary cannot answer because to answer that question would be to indict the government for the process that is involved here, which gives clear favour to the woodchip corporations. I read out just a while ago the way in which the woodchip corporations give clear favour to the parties who are involved in bringing this legislation before the parliament.Let me look at how those corporations work in their influence elsewhere. Let me give the example of the forest companies in Tasmania making donations to the Forest Practices Board. This is the so-called arbiter of whether forestry is proceeding according to the law and with the aims set out by parliament. Here we have a situation in which the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania puts in 40 per cent of the funding for that board—$349,000 in 1997-98—and Forestry Tasmania, which is in effect an extension of the woodchip corporations, though it is a semigovernment instrumentality and, by the way, has been excluded by Labor and Liberal parties in Tasmania from freedom of information surveillance, puts in 48 per cent. So 88 per cent of the funding of the so-called independent arbiter in Tasmania, the Forest Practices Board, comes from the agents of the logging industry. Can anybody say that that is a right and proper process? Can anybody say that an instrumentality 88 per cent funded by people with vested interests is going to be free to independently levy the management of forests in Tasmania?The Forest Practices Board is the forest practices unit which is charged with carrying out the Tasmanian government's laws in regard to logging in that state—and remember this regional forest agreement turns over all Commonwealth powers to that process. You find in the Forest Practices Board 1995-96 annual report that for that year $61,000—over 10 per cent of the total funding of this forest practices unit—came from none other than North Forest Products, the biggest woodchip corporation and the owner of three woodchip mills for hardwoods in Tasmania. At Hampshire, south of Burnie, it recently built the largest export woodchip facility in the Southern Hemisphere, which can crush a million tonnes plus of rainforest and eucalypt forests in any given year and send them to Japan or Korea with no further processing. In its establishment it shed 80 jobs out of the industry in Tasmania. It employs only 10 people to run its computers. That is what this whole process is about: an extraordinary farrago; a network of influence which is the major agent for undermining confidence in the whole industry. Ask the small sawmillers in Tasmania what they think of the influence of the big corporations on government, on political parties and on Forestry Tasmania. I dare say it is the same everywhere else.If we are going to look to the future, let us also look overseas. Under this clause, which Labor supports the government in wanting to put through, we could find ourselves in Australia facing the same situation as the Canadians, who just 10 years ago, to get back the South Moresby Islands for a national park and world heritage area, paid $106 million into the lumber industries. To do what? Just to keep their chainsaws at home. The Canadian public paid $106 million to logging interests so that they would not go in and log these spectacular islands on the coast of British Columbia. Who did that? It was the Canadian national government and the provincial government of British Columbia.That is the prescription that this clause puts in place in Australia. If in future we had a minister for the environment who actually rolled up his or her sleeves and went into bat for the environment in this country, something we do not have at the moment, and he or she looked at their responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention and said, `Well, I want to protect the world heritage value forests of the Picton, Huon and Weld valleys in southern Tasmania and/or the tallest trees in the Southern Hemisphere in the Styx River valley, because that is in the nation's interest and I don't want to see those forests pulverised and destroyed so that they are lost forever from this nation's heritage,' she or he is going to run into a blackmail provision. The industry is going to do the assessment, isn't it, of what it thinks it is going to lose out of those forests. It is going to raise the spectre of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars compensation. It is going to use those monetary figures to crush any minister who moves in that direction in the future.Tonight we have the Labor, the Liberal and the National parties saying, `Well, we are going to give legal teeth to a situation which leads to that blackmail situation down the line.' It is not conjectural. This is real. This is here because the woodchip corporations have international connections. They know that what they can do in Canada one year they can do in Tasmania another. I ask the government: what is the value of the forests that are now open to the woodchip industry under this legislation? What is the figure? If you are going to have a compensation clause which puts at stake taxpayers' money in this country, then you should know what that compensation clause makes you liable for. I want to know from the Howard government, the Rt Hon. John Howard, who signs the legislation which puts at risk the taxpayers' money in this country—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. I would ask that Senator Brown refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title. The Prime Minister is not the Rt Hon. John Howard; he is the Hon. John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia. I ask that Senator Brown refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—I uphold the point of order.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I accept that the Prime Minister is not `right'. I will go along with Senator Troeth on that. I withdraw any imputation that his title included the word `right' because you know, Chair—I shouldn't tempt you; but we know—that he is wrong. I am glad Senator Troeth picked me up on that. What I was saying is that he is never so wrong as when he puts at stake this nation's ability to protect its own environment. He is never so wrong when, moreover, he brings into this place legislation which says that for any future responsible minister or government to do so will involve hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.The question I was putting to the Prime Minister's agent, the parliamentary secretary in here, Senator Troeth, who is in charge of this legislation, is a simple one: what is the compensation figure that is involved in this legislation? Are we really going to blindly give support to a compensation clause without knowing what that means, without knowing what the liability is? Of course we can't. So Senator Troeth is about to tell the committee the liability she sees and what the government's estimates are for this compensation clause. To do otherwise, or to fail to do that, is to fail in the responsibility that she and Prime Minister John Howard's government have to the people of Australia.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendment be agreed to.Motion (by Senator Troeth) proposed:That the sitting of the committee be suspended till 8 o'clock.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I will agree to that because it will give Senator Troeth a whole hour to get those figures for us.Question resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 6.55 p.m. to 8 p.m.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Order! The committee is considering the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , as amended, and amendment No. 13 on sheet 1265, moved by Senator Brown. The question is the amendment be agreed to.20:00:008306Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thought the parliamentary secretary Senator Troeth might be on her feet at this stage, because before the dinner break I asked her to give an evaluation of Australia's forests that are targeted for destruction by this piece of legislation. I think the area could be as great as 13 million hectares, but it is certainly millions of hectares. The great beneficiaries—because, as a rule of thumb, they are going to get 90 per cent of these forests—will be the big woodchip corporations, like North, the biggest woodchipper in the Southern Hemisphere; Amcor; Wesfarmers, who own Bunnings; Boral; and others.We have here this extraordinary compensation clause—clause 7—of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill which says that any action by the Commonwealth in the future to protect the forests that these marauding companies are targeting will result in the payment of compensation by the people of Australia. The only thing that can be returned to this parliament in terms of review of this legislation and its enormous impact on the forests of, say, Tasmania in the next 20 years will be a compensation bill for the woodchip corporations.Whatever one might think about woodchipping—and Senator Troeth has made it clear that she is in favour of it in the most sensitive native forests that I have been talking about, including world heritage value forest in Tasmania and rainforests and forest in the Otways in her own region—one has to say that if a government acts in a way that makes the public purse liable like this, then it ought to know what that liability is going to be. No insurance company, for example, would accept a clause like this one without knowing what the liability could be.There is no liability, of course, for actions committed by the woodchip corporations. For example, in Tasmania each year thousands of hectares of prime forests and plantation forests are burned to a cinder by Forestry Tasmania. It comes in, firebombing forests late in the summer as part of its `log, then firebomb, then poison' process, which the Hon. John Howard says is ecologically sustainable logging. Inevitably, when it drops its incendiaries or lights its land based fires to burn to a cinder any remaining morsel in these wild forests that it is attacking, some of the fires get away; for example, in the Mathinna forest reserve in north-east Tasmania. If you walk in towards the Mathinna Falls, you will wonder why the forest is blackened. It is because Forestry Tasmania, ignoring weather forecasts last year, lit a match to one of the areas it had overseen the destruction of. The fire got away, and thousands of hectares of plantation and other forests were burned.Where is the compensation clause for that sort of activity in this legislation? That is done on behalf of the woodchip corporations who make donations to the Liberal Party and to the Labor Party. Where is the compensation clause for them to pay when, through negligence or inability to control their own activities, they cost the public millions of dollars in loss of an asset? There is none here, and I will tell you why: it is because this clause is written by the woodchip corporations. I challenged Senator Troeth—who is having a hard time of this debate because she does not know much about it—earlier in this debate to get up and say that the woodchip corporations had not written this clause in this legislation. I challenged her to say, for example, that none of the barristers or legal people involved with Daishowa—which has its headquarters in Tokyo—drew up this clause, handed it to the government and had it inserted as the last piece of this legislation. If silence is consent, then Senator Troeth and the government of John Howard—the honour able Prime Minister—have consented to that supposition that I have put to this chamber. What can you think of that? Senator Forshaw might be able to clarify the situation and give an assurance that that is not the case, but I do not think he will.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Don't say anything.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—We didn't draft the bill, for a start. We certainly didn't consult with the woodchip industry.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Forshaw says that Labor did not draft the bill, and Senator Troeth advises him not to say anything under these circumstances. So I am left with the supposition—as is anyone who is going to read Hansard —656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I think you are talking to yourself. You are answering your own questions.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Forshaw, I am making very serious allegations here.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Spurious.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And they are to be debated. That is what this forum is for.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Ignored.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You say that they are to be ignored.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—They are outrageous.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And that they are outrageous. They are outrageous. These actions are outrageous, if they are the case. But it ought to be for a government that has put so much effort into a clause like this to get up and say that is not so. It ought to be that a government can get up and say, `This is the liability on the public purse,' but it does not even know that.I move on to the miners. Under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement—and you can crinkle your brow about this on the government benches—the compensation goes to the mining corporations as well. If an area of forest is protected by any future government activity in Tasmania in the interests of this nation as a national park or a world heritage area—in the Tarkine or the Great Western Tiers or the Tasmanian Peninsula, for that matter, where Senator Troeth has been; there is world heritage value forest there which ought to be protected in that way—under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement the mining corporations can put their hands out and demand compensation. I ask the government to say what liability there is.The mining corporations have successfully tweaked the ears of the Labor Party of Jim Bacon, the now Premier of Tasmania, to get this compensation up for them and to prevent national park or world heritage status—for example, for large tracts of the Tarkine wilderness in north-west Tasmania. They have successfully got the Prime Minister on side. This is the Hon. John Howard that Senator Troeth does not want me to call `The Rt Hon. John Howard', who flew to Perth in Tasmania the year before last and signed the document giving the miners compensation should any future minister want to protect forests in Tasmania on behalf of the nation. And yet I do not think for one minute that he or his representative in this chamber tonight is able to give any sort of idea of what liability that puts on the public purse. What we do know is that, as far as the miners and the loggers are concerned, there is no limit to the compensation they can get by simply being prevented at some future time from taking in the drills or the chainsaws to some of the most spectacular and wonderful wilderness on the face of this planet. That is what we are dealing with here tonight.We are dealing with a government in silence and on the run over this legislation, a government which has no answers and which is unable to engage in debate—and, not least, we are dealing with an absent minister for the environment, Robert Hill, who does not have the gumption to come into this place and debate the matter, because he sold out on this nation's forest heritage. That is the same minister we had in here today clucking about the fact that there is going to be some United Nations Earth Day ceremony in Australia next year, as if that is a measure of environmental excellence. I have no doubt environmentalists will be keen to hear about that, but there would not be one in this country, of the 80 per cent of people who do not want the forests destroyed, who would not prefer him to use his powers and his responsibility under the Westminster system to move to protect these forests instead of to line the pockets of a woodchip corporation or a mining corporation which in the future might be prevented from destroying wilderness by some more enlightened minister for the environment.While I know the government will not be able to answer as to what the liability is that they are putting on the taxpayers of Australia should they go to protect the national heritage in the future, the government has had legal advice about the matter of Tasmanian miners getting this privilege but not miners in other regional forest agreement areas. On the face of it, that is a breach of section 99 of the Constitution, which says that the Australian government will not treat one part of the Commonwealth—one state or one region—differently from another. On 24 February, the Australian Government Solicitor wrote:It is arguable that the undertaking to pay compensation in clause 95 of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement in its application to mining and mining products is given by the Commonwealth under its constitutional power in section 51(i) of the Constitution.But there is no mention of section 99. You can tear up Australia's environment, you can offer compensation without knowing how much—without having done the prudent work that is involved in that—and, if my argument here is correct, you can trample across the Constitution, all in the interests of big corporations in this country and all against the interests of the majority of people in this country.I am speaking to government benches where there is the bare minimum of senators here tonight to defend the indefensible. I challenge either of those two to get up and respond to the challenges I have just made to them. I challenge Senator Troeth to get up and give the figures and facts I have asked for. After all, we have these regional forest agreements, we are told, because the scientific work has been done, the economic analysis has been done and this is a balanced document as far as treatment of future forests is concerned. We have none of those things. Instead we have a sell-out to the woodchip corporations and we have a government which has been found in this committee to be totally unable to defend that sell-out, which knows it is indefensible and is frightened to even try to mount a defence of this document which is against the interests of the majority of Australians.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.20:15:008309Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Greens amendment No. 2 on sheet 1528:(2) Clause 7, page 5 (line 13), omit paragraph (3)(b), substitute: (b) is to be paid out of money appropriated by the Parliament for the particular purpose.I note that I was not even able to get Democrat support for a division on the previous very important amendment. This second amendment is to amend the clause so that it has the effect I have been arguing for: that compensation ought not be a matter for the woodchip corporations.As regards the argument we have just been having, I am quite well aware that I will get no more support on this amendment than I had on the earlier one. I am not going to delay this committee by going over the same arguments. I simply point out again that we have a silent government here, and this matter is extraordinarily important. When the time comes and we are back in this house determining how much compensation should be paid out to one of the woodchip or mining corporations which make these big payments into the election coffers of the big parties, I will draw the attention of the house to this moment, when a ministerial representative failed to get up to give justification to this compensatory clause against the interests, as I have said two or three times earlier, of the Australian people and their purse.Amendment not agreed to.20:17:008309Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (10) to (13):(10) Heading to clause 7, page 4 (line 28), after "breach ", insert ", amendment or termination ".(11) Clause 7, page 4 (line 29), after "compensation", insert "in relation to actual losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable rights".(12) Clause 7, page 5 (line 1), after "RFA", insert "for a breach, amendment or termination of an RFA".(13) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation except in accordance with subsection (1) or (2).These amendments deal with the issue of compensation, and the purpose behind them is to tighten up the compensation provisions. We do not disagree that compensation may be required to be paid in certain circumstances, but we wish to clarify that and place certain limitations on situations in which compensation would be payable. It is best if I refer particularly to amendments (11) and (12), which are the substantive amendments.Amendment (11) seeks to restrict the Commonwealth's potential liability to pay compensation to actions that cause actual losses arising from parties being prevented from exercising their legally exercisable rights. The government's bill states that the Commonwealth is liable to pay any compensation that the Commonwealth is required to pay to a state in accordance with the compensation provisions of an RFA. The compensation provisions in individual RFAs are quite extensive and somewhat complex. In the Central Highlands RFA, for example, the relevant clauses take up about one-quarter of the entire regional forest agreement. That particular regional forest agreement imposes a compensation liability where the Commonwealth takes action to protect the environment and heritage values that has the effect of preventing or substantially limiting forestry and mining operations, the construction of roads for the transport of forest products, the sale or commercial use of forest products or the first sale or first commercial use of mining products. In the case of forestry and forest products, the liability only applies to action impacting on land outside the RFA reserve system. In the case of mining operations, the liability also applies to parts of the reserve system, excluding only dedicated reserves in which mineral exploration and mining is prohibited. The compensation liability is not extinguished simply because an RFA expires or is terminated.Compensation is payable to the state government concerned, which is responsible then for passing it on to the firm or firms that were adversely affected, and arbitration procedures are to be used to resolve disputes between parties. Our amendments seek to restrict the Commonwealth's compensation liability to actual losses arising from legally exercisable rights that were curtailed as a result of the Commonwealth action. We propose this because we believe that the existing wording is too open ended. For example, the Central Highlands RFA lists as relevant evidence for a compensation claim not just signed contracts but also documentation of management history or other records establishing clear intent to do something. In our view, such an approach exposes the taxpayers to an unacceptable risk.If the parliament does not more clearly define the compensation provisions by leaving the issue to the negotiation of individual RFAs, it would then be possible for more generous arrangements to apply in one state or region compared to others. There is no sound policy reason for this to be so and it would indeed be inequitable.I turn to amendment No. 12. This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which compensation is payable to encompass the amendment, termination or breach of an RFA on the Commonwealth's part. In our view, the government's bill does not properly define the circumstances in which compensation is payable, leaving this to be resolved as part of the negotiation of individual RFAs. As I said earlier, such an approach exposes taxpayers to unacceptable risks. The argument for compensation is based on the concept of breach of contract. That is why we propose that compensation be payable where the Commonwealth action entails a breach, amendment or termination of an RFA. They are the words, of course, that we have included in our amendment No. 12.In our view, the Commonwealth should not have to compensate firms for action that was quite lawful for it to take and which did not conflict with the strict terms of an RFA. Further, we are concerned that, unless these provisions in the act are amended to refer only to actual losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable rights and for actions that entail a breach, amendment or termination of an RFA, if those limitations are not included, it is quite possible that compensation claims would be brought in respect of claims for anticipated or future losses at some substantial period of time into the future. Whilst these matters could ultimately be resolved through the courts, in our view it is not appropriate to provide for a situation where, for instance, if an amendment to an RFA is made and if there is no actual loss incurred by a firm, a claim by that firm that in 15 or 20 years time it may well have received some benefit or income is given credence under this clause. As we have said, whilst we believe there is a clear case for compensation to be payable, in our view that should be based upon a demonstration of actual losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable rights. We have moved amendments Nos 10, 11, 12 and 13 together to give effect to the principles that I have just outlined in support of these amendments.20:26:008310Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will be opposing these amendments because we believe that their purpose and effect are confused. On the one hand they seem to attempt to restrict compensation to actual losses incurred, and on the other hand they appear to extend coverage to amendment and termination of an RFA whether or not that amendment or termination is made in accordance with the provisions of the RFA. In regard to the latter, the opposition amendments appear to be based on a major misunderstanding of RFA compensation arrangements. Compensation is payable if the Commonwealth breaches an RFA, not if an RFA is amended or terminated within the provisions allowed by that RFA. The govern ment strongly believes that compensation provisions should be as provided in each RFA itself. The Commonwealth will offer the same compensation provisions for each RFA, subject to any minor changes necessary to accommodate different state conditions—that is, use of particular mediation or arbitration mechanisms. Certainly we are opposing these amendments.20:27:008311Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 13 on sheet 1514 to opposition amendment No. 11 on sheet 1290:(13) After "rights", insert "(as determined by the Commonwealth Auditor-General)".Democrat amendment No. 13 seeks to put in the Auditor-General to determine the amount of compensation that the Commonwealth government can provide. We believe that the compensation issue is dangerous enough and needs proper scrutiny at arm's length from the political process. We believe this would be best and most appropriately done by the Auditor-General.20:28:008311Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will be supporting all those amendments, although they do not fix the problem that these clauses are an absolute and astonishing affront to proper governance. They put the public of Australia, which owns the forests, in the position of having to pay compensation to the woodchip corporations, which have never paid a red cent for those forests. Let me give you an example of what might happen if the public determined through the parliament that it wanted to protect part of the forests. There are world heritage values in the Styx Valley in Tasmania, where the tallest living trees in the Southern Hemisphere and the tallest hardwood trees on the face of the planet are not protected under this regional forest agreement, and if some future government moved to protect those trees and the woodchip corporation said, `World heritage value or not, we were going to log them,' would this open the way for a compensation claim by that woodchip corporation under the provisions? Could Senator Troeth tell us that?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that Democrat amendment No. 13 be agreed to.20:30:008311Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I just cannot allow the minister's lack of a response to pass as I have asked a very specific question about world heritage value forests in Tasmania. If a future government gets the guts to act on behalf of the Australian people to protect those forests or just feels that it has a responsibility under the international world heritage convention to fulfil the spirit of that convention, it would be impelled to protect those forests. I have asked the government a question that really goes through to the Prime Minister, who signed the document which puts these compensation provisions in; it was not anybody else. The question is: in those circumstances will the people of Australia have to pay the woodchip corporations millions of dollars in compensation simply to leave their chainsaws at home?I put that question again: if world heritage value forests in the Styx Valley with all their wildlife and intact ecosystems, the Huon Valley forests or the Tarkine wilderness rainforests are to be protected by some future responsible government, will compensation under this clause therefore flow to the woodchip corporations simply by them having to leave their chainsaws at home? That question, Mr Temporary Chairman, I am putting directly to the government. I am giving Senator Troeth, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the opportunity to answer that question.I have cited the circumstances in Canada, where a central government paid $105 million to the British Columbian government to stop the chainsaws being sent into the South Moresby Islands, which are now world heritage areas. This is a directly analogous situation. I put it to Senator Troeth: are you not saying that North—the woodchip corporation which, by the way, puts hundreds of thousands of dollars into the electoral fighting funds of the big political parties—would be able to claim compensation simply for not destroying those world heritage value forests in Tasmania?Mr Temporary Chairman, we are going to have a period of silence here, I suspect, because this process is so repugnant, so anti-public, so against the interests of this nation and such a travesty of good governance that this government representative, who is effectively the Prime Minister sitting in that seat, cannot get up and defend it. The silence coming from that seat is the consent to what I am saying. I cannot do anything about that except record here my utter protest at what is going on and at the fact that the opposition supports it with some minor amendments which make no difference to the central premise. I find this whole process appalling beyond belief.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Well, why are you prolonging it?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I find that comment from Senator Troeth just an appendage to the appalling performance that we are hearing here tonight. She cannot get up and answer a question of the magnitude of this, but says in effect, `We want to go home; we don't want this debate prolonged.' Nor do the woodchip companies, but 80 per cent of Australians think differently, according to the opinion polls over the last decade.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Greig be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that the amendments moved by Senator Forshaw be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.20:35:008312Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments (7) and (8) on sheet 1294:(7) Clause 7, page 4 (line 29), omit "The Commonwealth", substitute "Subject to subsection (4), the Commonwealth".(8) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The Commonwealth is not liable to pay any compensation to a State for breach of an RFA by the Commonwealth where the conduct by the Commonwealth that constitutes a breach of the RFA: (a) is necessary to ensure compliance with Australia's international obligations to protect listed threatened species and ecological communities; and (b) is undertaken after the Environment Minister decides, on the advice of the Director of National Parks or the Scientific Committee that it is necessary to amend an RFA because of new or revised scientific knowledge that indicates there is a serious and imminent threat to the long term viability of that listed threatened species or ecological community in an RFA region. (5) In subsection (4): Director of National Parks has the meaning given by section 514A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . Environment Minister means the Minister who administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . listed threatened ecological community has the meaning given in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . listed threatened species has the meaning given in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . Scientific Committee means the Threatened Species Scientific Committee established by section 502 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .These amendments are designed to limit compensation claims so that there is no liability for compensation if regional forest agreements are changed due to environmental reasons. There are two instances where this works: firstly, with respect to any changes needed to be made to ensure our compliance with international obligations on the environment—a very reasonable amendment—and, secondly, where the environment minister makes a decision that it is necessary to amend an RFA because of new or revised scientific knowledge that indicates there is a serious and imminent threat to the long-term viability of a listed threatened species or ecological community in a regional forest agreement region.We accept, though we believe the chamber is wrong, that the chamber has disagreed with us to oppose unlimited liability in all cases. Now we put to you the case that the chamber should not be party to a 20-year mechanism to pit protection of the environment against the threat of compensation. We do not want a golden sledgehammer to be the excuse for losing the habitat of threatened species.20:37:008313Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government opposes these amendments because RFAs provide the basis on which the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation. The RFAs also spell out how such issues as the treatment of threatened species and additional world heritage areas are to be dealt with during the term of each RFA should new or revised scientific knowledge become available.It is most unlikely that the Commonwealth would have to breach an RFA to ensure compliance with international environmental obligations. However, if the Commonwealth does breach the RFA in order to protect the environmental and heritage values in native forests and if such action has the foreseeable and probable consequence of preventing or substantially limiting certain land use or the sale of certain wood based products specified in the RFA then, quite rightly, the Commonwealth should be liable to pay compensation. Such compensation provisions are necessary to provide potential investors with the level of security required to facilitate what is quite often long-term and high cost investment in the forest and wood products sector. The proposed amendments would severely undermine that certainty.Further, the Democrat amendments try to coopt arrangements applying to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. As I have stated before, arrangements under that act are not to apply to regions covered by an RFA so their inclusion in this bill is not appropriate.20:39:008313Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition opposes these amendments as well. We believe that the compensation provisions included in the bill along with the amendments that were carried a moment ago, which limit the compensation for losses incurred, are appropriate. There is a fundamental reason we cannot support this proposition. It conflicts with an inherent principle of not only the Constitution but also the legal system. If the Commonwealth, in having regard to or in implementing the obligations Australia has under an internation al agreement—and I recall in one of your amendments there was a reference to international law—infringes the legitimate and legal rights and entitlements of a person or a company then, as a matter of legal principle, the latter is entitled to at least pursue compensation for losses incurred.The fact that the infringement of the rights of such an individual or such a company is brought about by what could be seen to be a noble purpose and a bona fide purpose—that is, to implement the provisions of an international obligation under some environmental convention or whatever—does not mean that that other person's rights are in any way lessened or of less value. They still have legal rights. As the parliamentary secretary said, they may be rights that have arisen under some contract.To suggest that you can just use an international convention on the environment as a basis to take away other people's legal rights and in a blanket fashion say in those circumstances they are not going to have a right to compensation is attacking the fundamental principle of the law. It does not matter whether it relates to the Commonwealth exercising its authority to comply with an international convention or obligation or to building a road or an airport or engaging in some other legitimate Commonwealth activity that gives rise to people's property rights or other rights being infringed and due compensation being payable. We cannot support these amendments because we see them as inequitable and based upon a false principle. It would be a serious abrogation of people's rights.20:43:008313Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What an extraordinary proposition coming from the Labor Party which was an arbiter of economic rationalism and which entered into a whole range of agreements to cut down barriers and take away markets, for example, for businesses all over this country. There was no compensation there, was there? It is the woodchippers who get the compensation here.Senator Forshaw interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Double standards is what this is about. What about the indigenous people of this country who, in the last term of this parliament, had their negotiating rights over their property taken away by government actions? Who is compensating them? No, they are not woodchip corporations. What about the rights of the indigenous people in Tasmania over their lands?Senator Calvert interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Calvert might grump about that. They are not even being compensated. This is land rights for the woodchip corporations right around this country. It is very specifically for those big corporations because they have influence over the political system.It is specious to get up and say, `We are following some consistent legal principle.' This is not legal principle; there is no principle in this at all. It is feathering the nests of a few big corporations, against the interests of the many. Under `compensation', the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement says that it is:To protect the environment and heritage values in native forests and in connection therewith the protection of (a) CAR values or (b) old-growth forests or (c) wilderness or (d) any priority species—that is, endangered species—or (e) any endangered forest community or (f) national estate values or (g) World Heritage values or (h) wild rivers.For any of those things, the woodchip corporations will get compensation. Let me tell you this: the tourism industry, which depends more on forests for jobs than all of the native forest loggers in Tasmania put together—hundreds more jobs these days—does not get a penny of compensation under these provisions.That puts the lie to this other claim, `We're interested in jobs,' because the forest destruction process under this legislation is destroying jobs in the hospitality and tourism industry in my home state and elsewhere around this country. It is going to do so for 20 years and there is not one penny of compensation in here. So, legal principle, my foot! This is favour and largesse to a handful of big woodchip corporations, which have extraordinary power over the political set-up in this country. I will not go through that list of donations again. I will support any minor amendment to reduce the liability that is involved here, but I will not put up with this nonsense about this parliament or this chamber having an obligation to put through this legislation to give corporate favour where it is totally out of kilter with all practice that has been going on in this parliament for the last decades.I say to both the Labor Party and to Senator Troeth, who has brought up the issue of jobs: if this was a compensation clause which required those same corporations to reskill and compensate the hundreds of people they are putting out of work, then I would support it. The Greens have called for that all the way down the line, and neither the government nor the opposition has backed it. I cannot understand why the unions who represent the workers, or the Forest Protection Society, that paid front which works on millions of dollars from the big woodchip corporations, are not fighting for a compensation clause in here for real Australians whose jobs are going to go down the gurgler in the wake of these regional forest agreements. There it is, Mr Temporary Chairman: there is not an argument or a leg upon which the government or the opposition can stand on as far as this compensation clause is concerned.Amendments not agreed to.20:48:008314Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats oppose the compensation clause, clause 7, of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . The Democrats believe this sets up a case for unlimited liability—to literally have a blank cheque signed for the native forest logging industry to hold hostage. This is not responsible government behaviour. The native forest logging industry is already in decline. Jobs are going; the industry is in trouble. We believe this sets up an out for the government—indeed, sets in place a mechanism whereby conservation goals will always be held hostage to the threat of unlimited conservation claims.What will the government do in several years time, when the situation will surely arise that RFAs need to be adjusted to protect more of the environment? I predict they will say, against any evidence to the contrary, that their hands are tied because they are worried about compensation. Question put: That clause 7 stand as printed.20:54:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)41Bishop, T. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Ludwig, J. W. Macdonald, I.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.8Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.20:58:008315Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Australian Greens Amendment No. 14:(14) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 14 to 24), after "Gazette " (wherever occurring), insert "and in 2 newspapers circulating generally in the region covered by the RFA".This simple amendment seeks to make sure that, when a regional forest agreement has been struck and notice of that is given in the government Gazette , notice is also given in the regional newspapers so that the local people know what is happening. It simply says that two newspapers circulating in the local area will carry the same notice as the government Gazette .As you know, Mr Temporary Chairman, a very tiny number of people ever get to see a government Gazette, but people certainly read their local newspapers. Because these regional forest agreements have a huge impact on local people, they ought to know about it. I recommend this simple amendment to the chamber.20:58:008315Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government sees this amendment as unnecessary, given the gazettal requirement and the fact that the commencement or cessation of an RFA will receive wide publicity in any event. So we oppose the amendment.20:59:008315Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition will be opposing the amendment as well, particularly given that we have required that the RFA details be referred to in the Gazette and they will be readily obtainable. To suggest that it should be published in two local newspapers circulating generally in the area—another noble objective from Senator Brown—is totally unrealistic.I have a copy of the North East Regional Forest Agreement, which runs to about 50-odd A4 pages. I am not sure how big the newspapers are in the regions that Senator Brown is talking about, but if they are anything like the local newspapers circulating in my area there is no way they could ever fit that into their normal publication. Maybe what Senator Brown is proposing is pandering to the interests of the woodchip companies.21:00:008315Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—No. Senator Forshaw is quite wrong about this. The amendment follows the clause that is in the bill. It simply says that when the minister publishes a note in the Gazette stating that an RFA has been entered into, and giving details of the region and the date when that RFA came into force, that should be put in the newspapers. There is nothing about the 54 pages of the RFA at all. Mind you, I then go on to say in a foreshadowed amendment that the details should be in the Gazette so that people can find out what they are and they are not left secret, like they are now. It is proper government practice to put notices in newspapers when there are government activities affecting local people. So much for the big parties saying this is good for regional and rural Australia. As soon as it comes to informing people about what is going on in the simplest terms both the big parties say, `No, we won't do it.'21:01:008316Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats express their full support for this worthy amendment by Senator Brown.Amendment not agreed to.21:02:008316Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—by leave—I move:(14) Clause 8, page 5 (line 19), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (c) incorporating the text of the RFA.(15) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (3) In this section: RFA includes an amendment to an existing RFA.These amendments are also related to the issue of publication of RFA information. Amendment (14) would add, in clause 8, a new paragraph (c) to subclause 1. The words are `incorporating the text of the RFA'. Amendment (15) seeks to add the words `in this section RFA includes an amendment to an existing RFA'.The first amendment would amend clause 8 so that the minister is required to gazette the text of an RFA in addition to the other matters listed in the bill. We believe that this improves this clause of the bill. We recognise that the text of an RFA is lengthy, as I have already referred to in respect of the earlier proposal from Senator Brown. Nevertheless, we consider it reasonable that such text could be published in the Commonwealth government Gazette. They are not short documents, by any means. It is a recognised practice that the Commonwealth government Gazette can, as required, print similar documentation, even if it is in a lengthy form.In respect of amendment (15) we are also concerned to ensure that the text of any amendment to an RFA should also be gazetted. I think the reasoning for that is self-evident. Even though the amendment may happen to be by mutual agreement between the parties and, following our amendment, after interested parties or stakeholders have been consulted, we still think it is reasonable that such amendment to an existing RFA is published in the Gazette. Of course, in such a situation the changes to the original text would be what would be gazetted rather than some requirement to publish the full text again. I seek the chamber's support.21:05:008316Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will not be supporting these amendments. The text of completed RFAs, which may run to over 100 pages, are already available on the Internet and hard copies are also available free of charge to interested persons. So the government considers that sufficient to ensure that details of the RFA are in the public domain.UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Greig, you have an amendment to the opposition amendment. Do you wish to move that now?21:06:008316Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I do. I move Democrats amendment (14) to opposition amendment (14):(14) Paragraph 8(1)(c), before "text", insert "full".This is a small amendment. It may be seen as a pedantic one by some, but we believe it is very important. We propose to add the word `full' to this Labor amendment, such that paragraph (c) would read `incorporating the full text of the RFA'. We find that more satisfactory.21:06:008316Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support that and, of course, I support these Labor amendments because they are exactly the same as the Greens' amendments. Once again, we have, however, the government resistant to putting details of documents signed by the Prime Minister into the proper government documents, the Gazettes , where records are kept of what governments are doing. But I guess this government, and certainly the Prime Minister himself, opposes this measure simply because they do not want it to go down on the record what they are doing here. I cannot blame Senator Troeth or the Prime Minister for that, but it is not the right thing to do. They should be agreeing to this amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that Senator Greig's amendment to opposition amendment (14) be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that amendment (14), as amended, and amendment (15) be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.21:08:008317Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—by leave—I move:(1) Page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the bill, add:9 Forest Products Advisory Council (1) There is established a Council to be known as the Forest Products Advisory Council. (2) The Council is to have the functions prescribed in the regulations in relation to the forest and wood products sector. (3) The Council is to be constituted in accordance with the regulations.(2) Page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the bill, add:10 Regulations The Governor-General may make regulations prescribing matters: (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.By amendment (1), which proposes a new clause 9, the government wishes to establish a Forest Products Advisory Council. The majority report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee recommended the passage of the bill without amendment. It also recommended, in part, that a wood and paper industry council should be established. Noting that recommendation, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey MP, publicly stated on 25 February 1999 that the government supported the establishment of an appropriate and representative stakeholder consultative body. However, Mr Tuckey believed that the final form would be considered by the government in the context of the industry action agenda that has been initiated with the wood and paper products industry sector.After further consideration, the government is proposing an amendment which provides for the establishment of a Forest Products Advisory Council with its functions and constitutions to be established by regulation. This amendment will ensure all stakeholders of the government's commitment to establishing such a council, while leaving scope for the actual functions and constitution to be fleshed out by regulations following consideration under the action agenda process. Such regulations would, of course, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I commend the amendments to the committee.21:10:008317Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition will be opposing these amendments. The reason is that we have proposed amendments, particularly opposition amendment (16), which would, if carried, establish a wood and paper industry council under the specific terms of this legislation. The government's proposal is, in our view, insubstantial and weak. Senator Troeth has referred to the fact that the majority report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee proposed the establishment of a wood and paper industry council. That is correct. It was also proposed by the minority report issued by Labor senators, but in our minority report we specifically indicated that, to give a wood and paper industry council substance and the necessary level of support and recognition, it was vitally important that such a body be established under this legislation and that the functions, objectives, composition, et cetera, of such a council be detailed in the legislation.We believe that the Regional Forest Agreements Bill is very important legislation. It emanates from the national forest policy statement and brings to a pinnacle all the work that has been done and we hope will be done over ensuing years to bring that process of regional forest agreements to reality. An essential part of that is to ensure that we promote and develop a wood and paper industry in this country; that we give impetus to such things as value adding and to meaningful employment; that we do try to give impetus to measures which will seek to deal with some of the problems that have been pointed out by Senator Brown and Senator Greig—that is, the parlous state of the industry in economic terms; and that we provide a mechanism whereby we can turn around that significant balance of trade deficit in our timber industry.The national forest policy statement encompasses more than just resource security and conservation matters; it also encompasses, as an equally important factor, industry development. There are specific undertakings about the efficient use of wood products, about value adding, about structural adjustment and about international competitiveness.It was the former Labor government, after consulting key stakeholders about the development of the wood and paper industry strategy, that actually established a wood and paper industry council. However, when the coalition government were elected in 1996, one of the first things they did was abolish that council. That showed you how much interest or enthusiasm they had in promoting a timber and paper industry in this country. They replaced it with a low-key Wood and Paper Industry Forum. Even the minister himself, Mr Tuckey, has admitted that this body has met on only two occasions during the last parliamentary term of this government.What sort of a body was that if it could meet on only two occasions? It is a body that the industry had no confidence in and has no confidence in today. The workers have no confidence in it; the trade unions have no confidence in it. What the industry seeks, and what the workers and the trade unions seek, is a proper wood and paper industry council, one that has real teeth, one that has real substance, not some body that can be established at the whim of the minister and abolished at the whim of the minister. Given the attitude of this current minister, who, whenever he comes across anyone who does not agree with his viewpoint, goes to war with them, we believe it is vitally necessary for this council to be established under legislation.I have to say, as we know, that the government's proposal was never in the original legislation. It is quite clear that, if it were not for the Senate legislation committee, where all of the senators, certainly from the government and the opposition, saw the importance of such a council, we would not even have this government amendment. The government would not even have been proposing, as they are in their proposition, a Forest Products Advisory Council. Of course, the emphasis that I put on the word `advisory' is the correct one. It would really be there just at the whim of the minister, and one can imagine how little notice he would take of any such advice that was forthcoming if it did not agree with his rather extreme views.Whilst I have been on my feet I have enunciated the reasons in principle as to why we believe there has to be a wood and paper industry council but said that it needs to be specifically established pursuant to this legislation. I have outlined those reasons and we will be moving that amendment in due course. On that basis we will be opposing the government's proposed Forest Products Advisory Council.21:18:008318Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be opposing this amendment by the government for the creation of a Forest Products Advisory Council because it is to us the antithesis of what we believe we should be doing with our forests. The promotion of a Forest Products Advisory Council perpetuates the notion that our native forests should be plundered, that they should be felled for timber and that they should be pulped for paper. That is repugnant to the policy and philosophy of the Democrats. As we have argued repeatedly for 22 years, paper and timber must come from sources other than our ancient forests. For the reasons I have outlined, we cannot and will not support this proposal by the government.21:19:008319Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I oppose this move by the government simply to featherbed further the industry. If the government think that the Australian Greens would be party to establishing a council like this, which we leave to future regulation set up by the Prime Minister, they must think we have the sort of inconsistency that they do—that is, that we would oppose regional forest agreements but set up a council of lackeys of the woodchip corporations to oversee the whole thing. We will not have a bar of it.Amendments not agreed to.21:20:008319Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 16:(16) Page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the bill, add:9 The Wood and Paper Industry Council The Wood and Paper Industry Council is established.10 Objectives The Council, in the performance of its functions, must pursue the objectives of enhancing: (a) the development of Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (b) employment opportunities in Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (c) the downstream processing and value-adding of forest products; and (d) the international competitiveness of the forest and forest product industries; and (e) the principles of ecologically sustainable development of forest industries.11 Functions of Council (1) The functions of the Council are: (a) to investigate market and import replacement opportunities for the industry and make recommendations to the Minister about pursuing such opportunities; and (b) to inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, matters referred to it by the Minister in relation to the industry; and (c) to develop, and to submit to the Minister, recommendations, guidelines and plans for measures consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development designed to safeguard or further the interests of the industry; and (d) to consult, and co-operate, with other persons and organisations in matters affecting the industry; and (e) to periodically inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, policies and procedures governing the export of unprocessed wood; and (f) to establish subcommittees and working parties in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Council (g) such other functions (if any) as are conferred upon the Council by the regulations. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Council, in the performance of its functions, may take into account any matter raised at an industry conference convened under section 13.12 Powers of Council The Council has power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.13 Industry conferences (1) The Chairperson may, from time to time as he or she considers appropriate, and after consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, convene conferences of persons concerned with the industry. (2) The Chairperson must convene a conference under subsection (1) whenever he or she is directed to do so by the Council. (3) The purpose of convening a conference is: (a) to assist the Council in identifying matters of concern to the industry; and (b) to promote a better understanding of problems within the industry; and (c) to foster a consensus on policies to be instituted to safeguard the interests of the industry; and (d) to increase markets, downstream processing, value-adding and international competitiveness. (4) A conference is to be convened at a time and place determined by the Chairperson. (5) Persons entitled to attend a conference are: (a) the members of the Council; and (b) such other persons concerned with the industry as the Chairperson, consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, invites. (6) The Chairperson is to preside at all conferences.14 Publication of Council reports (1) Where a Council report is given to the Minister, the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable after its receipt by the Minister. (2) Where a member disagrees with a finding or recommendation to be included in a Council report, the report must include a statement of the views of that member in respect of that finding or recommendation and must identify the member holding those views.15 Constitution of Council (1) The Council is to consist of the following members: (a) a person representing the Commonwealth; (b) a person nominated by each of those States which have entered into RFAs under this Act; (c) 2 persons nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; (d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems; (e) a person representing the interests of the hardwood sawmilling sector; (f) a person representing the interests of the softwood sawmilling sector; (g) a person representing the interests of the pulp and paper sector; (h) a person representing the interests of the timber furniture sector (i) a person representing the interests of the reconstituted wood products sector; (j) a person representing the interests of merchandisers and retailers of timber products; (k) such other persons (if any) as represent such other bodies or organisations connected with the industry as are specified by the Minister in the instrument of appointment. (2) The members hold office on a part-time basis. (3) The members, other than a member referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), are to be appointed by the Minister and hold office for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as is specified in the instrument of appointment but are eligible for re-appointment in accordance with this Act. (4) The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are each to represent one of the following interests: (a) the interests of the industry; (b) the interests of employees in the industry. (5) A person represents the interests of the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), or (j). (6) A person represents the interests of employees in the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(c). (7) If the Chairperson represents one of the interests mentioned in subsection (4), then the Deputy Chairperson must represent the other interest mentioned in subsection (4). (8) After each 12 months in office, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson must exchange positions. (9) The members hold office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are determined, in writing, by the Minister. (10) The performance of the functions, and the exercise of the powers, of the Council are not affected by reason only of vacancies in its membership.16 Acting Chairperson (1) The Deputy Chairperson is to act in the office of Chairperson: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Chairperson (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chairperson is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (2) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under subsection (1) is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the person's appointment had not arisen; or (b) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the person's appointment; or (c) the person's appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased.17 Deputies of members (1) The Minister may, if requested by a person, body or organisation referred to in subsection 15 (1), appoint a person to be the Deputy of a member referred to in that paragraph. (2) The Minister must, if requested by the person or body that nominated a person to be the Deputy of a member, terminate the appointment of that person. (3) A Deputy of a member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation. (4) The Deputy of a member is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council that is not attended by the member of whom he or she is the Deputy and, while so attending, is taken to be a member. (5) The appointment of a Deputy of a member, and anything done by or in relation to a Deputy of a member, is not invalid merely because: (a) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the Deputy's appointment; or (b) the occasion for the person to act under this section had not arisen or had ceased.18 Resignation of members A member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation.19 Termination of appointments etc. (1) The Minister may: (a) terminate the appointment of an appointed member for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity; or (b) on the ground of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity—give a written direction that a member, other than an appointed member, is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (2) If: (a) a member becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit; or (b) a member falls, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 20; or (c) a member is absent, except with the leave of the Chairperson, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Council; the Minister must: (d) in the case of an appointed member—terminate the appointment of the member concerned; or (f) in the case of a member other than an appointed member—give a written direction that the member is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (3) In this section: appointed member means a member other than a member referred to in paragraph 15 (1) (a) or (b).20 Disclosure of interests (1) Where: (a) a member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered, or about to be considered, by the Council; and (b) the interest could conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties in relation to the consideration of the matter; the member must, as soon as practicable after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Council. (2) A disclosure under subsection (1) must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.21 Meetings (1) The Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, may, convene such meetings of the Council as he or she considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, provided that the Council must meet at least every 2 months. (2) The Chairperson must convene a meeting of the Council on receipt of a written request signed by at least 4 members. (3) Meetings of the Council are to be held at such places and at such times as the Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, determines. (4) The Chairperson is to preside at all meetings of the Council at which he or she is present. (5) If the Chairperson is not present at a meeting of the Council, the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at the meeting. (6) The Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at all meetings. (7) At a meeting of the Council, a quorum is constituted by 5 members. (8) A question arising at a meeting of the Council is to be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting. (9) At a meeting of the Council, the member presiding has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. (10) The Council must keep minutes of its proceedings. (11) The Council may invite a person to attend a meeting of the Council for the purposes of advising or informing it on any matter.22 Remuneration and allowances (1) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but, if no determination is in operation, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. (2) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (3) Subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 . (4) A member (other than the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of the Council) is to be paid such travelling allowance as is prescribed in relation to the performance of his or her duties as a member. (5) A member of the Council is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .23 Staff of Council (1) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council—and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, engage such employees as are necessary for the performance of the Council's functions. (2) The terms and conditions of employment of persons engaged under subsection (1) are as determined by the Council in writing. (3) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council—and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, arrange with a Commonwealth authority or another body for the services of officers or employees of the authority or body to be made available for the purposes of the council.24 Consultants (1) The Council may engage as consultants persons having suitable qualifications and experience. (2) The terms and conditions of engagement are to be determined by the Council.25 Money to be appropriated (1) There is payable to the Council such money as is from time to time appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Council. (2) The Minister for Finance may give directions as to the amounts in which, and the times at which, money referred to in subsection (1) is to be paid to the Council.26 Money of Council (1) The money of the Council consists of money paid to the Council under section 25. (2) The money of the Council is to be applied only: (a) in payment or discharge of the expenses, obligations and liabilities of the Council arising under this Act; and (b) in payment of remuneration and allowances payable under this Act; and (c) in making any other payments required or permitted to be made by the Council. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent investment of surplus money of the Council under section 18 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 .27 Taxation The Council is not subject to taxation under any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory.28 Annual report (1) The Council must, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and give to the Minister a report of its operations during the year that ended on that 30 June. (2) A report under subsection (1) must be prepared in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 . (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), if this section does not come into operation on I July in any year, that subsection has effect in relation to the period commencing on the day on which this section comes into operation and ending on the 30 June next following that day as if that period were a period of one year ending on that 30 June.29 Regulations The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters: (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed in carrying out or giving effect to this Act.This amendment, as I have just pointed out in considering the government's amendment, will establish a wood and paper industry council under this legislation. I will not take the time of the chamber by reading out the quite detailed provisions that are set out in amendment (16), but I will quickly refer to them. Firstly, it establishes a number of objectives of such a council. It also explains the functions of the council in quite a detailed fashion. It provides that the powers of the council are:. . . to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.It provides for industry conferences that may be convened from time to time. It provides for the publication of council reports, which would be provided to the minister, and then such reports would be tabled in each house of parliament. The constitution of the council is an important section of the proposal. We propose that it be constituted by the following: (a) a person representing the Commonwealth; (b) a person nominated by each of those States which have entered into RFAs under this Act; (c) 2 persons nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; (d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems; (e) a person representing the interests of the hardwood sawmilling sector; (f) a person representing the interests of the softwood sawmilling sector; (g) a person representing the interests of the pulp and paper sector; (h) a person representing the interests of the timber furniture sector (i) a person representing the interests of the reconstituted wood products sector; (j) a person representing the interests of merchandisers and retailers of timber products; (k) such other persons (if any) as represent such other bodies or organisations connected with the industry as are specified by the Minister in the instrument of appointment.That council will clearly be a very representative body of industry representatives, persons representing employees and persons representing the interests of the environment movement. The various states will also be represented along with the Commonwealth.Provisions are also set out to reflect the responsibilities of the chairperson, deputy chairperson and other members of the council. There is a range of other provisions which provide for the method of termination of appointment, for disclosure of interests, for the holding and conduct of meetings and for the payment of any remuneration or allowances as prescribed. There are provisions for staff of the council, provisions relating to the appointment of consultants and to the appropriation of money for the purposes of the running of the council, and also provisions relating to the necessity to provide an annual report. The final section is the provision with respect to the making of regulations in regard thereto.It is a very detailed clause that we are proposing. I have outlined the reasons we believe it is necessary and why we believe it is important to have it spelled out in detail in the legislation. This aspect of the whole process is too important, as I said, to just leave it to the whims of the minister or the government of the day and to the vagaries of the political process. We see that it completes the entire regional forest agreement process. As I said earlier, the RFA process is not only about conservation. It is not only about such things as resource security. It is also about developing a viable timber products industry or wood and paper industry in this country into the future. We ask the chamber to support the proposed council.21:26:008324Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I hope the chamber will take note of the fact that it took Senator Forshaw some five minutes to read through the proposed functions and membership of the council. It is a very detailed prescription. The government considers it far too prescriptive. It goes well beyond the Forest Products Advisory Council which the government was proposing. Our Forest Products Advisory Council, by contrast, would allow consultation with all the stakeholders but not in such a prescriptive way that it would become a straitjacket type prescriptiveness. We believe it can only lead to problems and therefore we are opposing this amendment.21:26:008324Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—by leave—I move Democrats amendments Nos 15 to 40 inclusive:(15) Clauses 9 to 29, omit "Wood and Paper Industry Council" (wherever occurring), substitute "RFA Forest Management Council".(16) Clause 10, omit the clause, substitute:10 Objectives The Council, in the performance of its functions, must pursue the objectives of: (a) ecologically sustainable forest management in all RFA regions; and (b) increasing the areas available for conservation purposes; and (c) protecting threatened species, wetland areas and areas of important ecological diversity; and (d) collecting and analysing information about the state of the forests in RFA regions; and (e) enhancing: (i) the development of Australia's forest and forest product industries towards plantation use and away from existing native forests; and (ii) employment opportunities in Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (iii) downstream processing and value-adding of forest products; and (iv) the principles of ecologically sustainable development of forest industries.(17) Before paragraph 11(1)(a), insert: (aa) to inquire into and report annually to each House of the Parliament on progress in achieving ecologically sustainable management of all RFA regions; and(18) Subclause 11(1), after "Minister" (wherever occurring), insert "and the Minister for the Environment".(19) Paragraph 11(1)(b), omit "industry", substitute "environment in RFA regions, the industry and any industry users of RFA regions".(20) Paragraph 11(1)(c), omit "development designed to safeguard or further the interests of the industry", substitute "management".(21) Paragraph 11(1)(d), omit "the industry", substitute "forests in RFA regions".(22) Omit clause 13.(23) Subclause 14(1), omit "the Minister" (first occurring), substitute "a Minister".(24) At the end of subclause 14(1), add "and, in any case, must cause a copy of the report to be published on the Internet within 14 days after its receipt".(25) Paragraph 15(1)(b), omit "under this Act".(26) After paragraph 15(1)(b), insert: (ba) a person nominated by the conservation council of each of those States which have entered into RFAs;(27) After paragraph 15(1)(c), insert: (ca) 2 persons nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation;(28) After paragraph 15(1)(d), insert: (da) 2 scientists having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems;(29) After paragraph 15(1)(j), insert: (ja) a person representing the interests of threatened species; (jb) a person representing water catchment interests; (jc) a person representing the interests of recreational users of forests; (jd) a person representing the interests of the tourism industry;(30) After subclause 15(1); insert: (1A) In paragraph 15(1)(ba), the conservation council of a State includes any of the following organisations: (a) the Queensland Conservation Council; (b) the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales; (c) Environment Victoria; (d) the Conservation Council of South Australia; (e) the Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.; (f) the Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc..(31) Subclause 15(3), omit "by the Minister", substitute "jointly by the Minister and the Minister for the Environment".(32) Subclause 15(4), omit "Deputy Chairperson", substitute "2 Deputy Chairpersons".(33) At the end of subclause 15(4), add: ; (c) conservation interests(34) After subclause 15(6), insert: (6A) A person represents conservation interests if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(ba), (ca), (da), (ja) or (jb).(35) Omit subclause 15(7), substitute: (7) The Chairperson and the 2 Deputy Chairpersons must each represent a different interest mentioned in subsection (4).(36) Omit subclause 15(8), substitute: (8) After each 12 months in office, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson must rotate positions.(37) Subclause 16(1), omit "The Deputy Chairperson", substitute "A Deputy Chairperson".(38) After subclause 16(1), insert: (1A) As far as practicable, the 2 Deputy Chairpersons must act in the office of Chairperson on an alternating basis.(39) Subclause 21(7), omit "5", substitute "10".(40) At the end of subclause 21(10), add "and publish them on the Internet within 14 days after each meeting".I thank the chamber for its cooperation in this regard. This raft of amendments proposed by the Australian Democrats is to do a range of things. I do not propose to go into those in detail. However, at its core, it tries to bring a sense of balance to the proposal by the ALP for a wood and paper industry council. For example, we are proposing that such a council, if it were to be constituted, should be called the Regional Forestry Agreements Forest Management Council. As I said earlier on a similar matter, our argument from the beginning has been that our approach to forests should be one of forest management in terms of looking after the ecology and biodiversity of the forest, not in terms of plundering it for timber or woodchipping it for paper.In that sense, we propose to go much, much further than both the coalition and the Labor Party with their proposals for such councils. With the council, we want to bring a much greater focus to, for example, ecologically sustainable notions of forest management. We would like to see the council have the jurisdiction of increasing the areas available for conservation purposes, protecting threatened species and wetland areas and also looking at employment opportunities in Australia's forests and forest product industries outside of native forests.With this raft of amendments, we also propose to involve a much greater range of representatives, to bring a genuine sense of balance to the council—representatives such as those who represent the interests of threatened species, of water catchment areas, of recreational users of the forests, of tourism and so on.We would go further still and involve greater consultation and liaison with conservation councils such as exist in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. At its core, we are arguing that, if such a council should exist at all, it must be balanced and that its focus must not be simply on how best to completely exhaust native forests of what they have to offer us in terms of what industry wants but how to best maximise the use of our forests in terms of what the people want.21:29:008325Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will support the Democrat amendments. I would like some indication from the Labor Party, before we go much further, as to whether it will be supporting the Democrat amendments as well—any or all of them—because, if they are not, I am aware that we are then left with the Labor amendment, and I would like to make some very minor amendments to that to make it more acceptable for my support.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—At the moment, Senator Brown, we are simply dealing with the Democrat amendments.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, but to do that we have to look at the Labor proposition for this council, because that is what the Democrat amendment alters. The Democrat amendment, of course, is to bring this council into the balance that Senator Troeth has been fighting for all the way down the line and failing to give. It looks at the terms of reference of the council and also at the representation on the council.The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is with us. So, at last, we might get some account from the minister, Robert Hill. Maybe he will be able to give us a definition, because it is important to this particular amendment, of `ecologically sustainable' when it comes to the logging practices that his legislation here is supporting.I come back to my request for an early indication from Senator Forshaw. I will present him and the rest of the committee with my proposed amendment, but it does depend on what Labor's response to the Democrats is going to be.21:31:008326Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I am happy to oblige Senator Brown. We will not be supporting the Democrat amendments. I will just say this: we have tried to find some measure of agreement with their proposals. I can say on this occasion that this is one of those times that we actually have had the opportunity to talk to the Democrats about their proposals. But, unfortunately, we were not able to do so. On that basis, we will be sticking with our proposed amendment and cannot support the Democrat proposals.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendments Nos 15 to 40 be agreed to.Amendments not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that the amendment moved by the opposition be agreed to.21:32:008326Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I do not like the look of this council very much. It is just loaded with loggers and people who have all sorts of anti-environmental credentials. It is really important. There is one person listed here—one person out of 14—who is going to have some ecological interest. Of course, under this legislation that will be determined by the minister. I am not sure whether that is the Hon. Wilson Tuckey or the Hon. Robert Hill—Senator Hill is here; he could tell us—but I do know that there is very loose terminology that needs to be tightened up.I would find myself attracted to giving some support to this council if it had one other person, a person representing the tourist industry. Because in my state more people are employed in the tourist industry dependent on forests than are employed in the logging industry. Almost 10 times as many people are involved in the tourist industry dependent on forests as are employed in the woodchip industry dependent on forests. Obviously, if we are looking at forest industries it is critical that we include tourism. Indeed, the Labor Party does that in this very amendment when in its lead-up to the establishment of the council it cites tourism as being an important part of the business of looking after forests. The second amendment that I have here is to tighten up the words:(d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems;Goodness gracious, Minister Wilson Tuckey has the word `conservation' stuck after his name in describing his portfolio, so he could be this person. I just think that is totally unsatisfactory. The Labor proposal is to constitute a council made up of persons representing a whole range of logging interests but, as you will see under their clause 15(1), which establishes the council and its representation, part (c) states:(c) 2 persons nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; I am proposing here that we change part (d) from:(d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems;which could even be a person interested in destroying them, to:(d) a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation;I think that is a pretty easy amendment. I propose that and, as I said, I propose adding a person representing the tourist industry. That would be at the discretion of the minister. It helps make this council just that bit more attractive as far as getting the Greens' support.21:36:008327Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I can indicate that we are prepared to accept the proposed alterations to our amendment that Senator Brown has just referred to—that is, to change:(d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems;to:(d) a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation;and also to add provision for a person representing the tourist industry. We are happy to agree to those amendments.21:37:008327Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I thank Senator Forshaw for agreeing to that and move those amendments to the Labor amendment:(1) Paragraph 15(1)(d) omit the paragraph, substitute: (d) a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation;(2) After paragraph 15(1)(j), insert: (ja) a person representing the tourist industry;21:37:008327Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I put on the record that the Democrats are willing and happy to support Senator Brown's amendments, as they are a minor improvement on the structure the Labor Party is proposing. Although we will support the amendments, we will be voting against the establishment of the council as a whole. So in that sense it is possibly a trifle academic but it is appropriate to put on the record our support for Senator Brown's amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Forshaw's ), as amended, be agreed to.21:43:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)24Bishop, T. M. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. West, S. M.36Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Chapman, H. G. P. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Greig, B. A.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *Murray, A. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Bolkus, N. Minchin, N. H.Collins, J. M. A. Kemp, R.Denman, K. J. Payne, M. A.Faulkner, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C.Lundy, K. Campbell, I. G.Murphy, S. M. Coonan, H.Sherry, N. Lees, M. H.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Forshaw, will you be moving your amendment No. 5?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—No, I will not be moving amendment No. 5.21:47:008328Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet 1483:Page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add:9 Amendment of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Division 4 of Part 4 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is repealed.This is an amendment which affects the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill which went through this house in June. A very strong criticism that the Greens had of that legislation was that it effectively embodied the regional forest agreement into law. The pertinent section—division 4—gives effect to regional forest agreements. That part of the environment bill that has already gone through and that is awaiting enactment takes away the power of the minister for the environment to intervene to protect forests for 20 years. It echoes this piece of legislation.The great problem with this is that it is already effectively in law. It is there in law because the Democrats supported it. In this parliament in June I very carefully outlined the problems with doing that. By supporting that bill back then the Democrats were effectively sounding the death knell for forests all over this country. I very carefully went through the reasons for that because the environment bill removed the powers of the Commonwealth to intervene on behalf of the millions of hectares of unprotected forests that are in regional forest agreements.Yet, and despite knowing that, the Democrats voted for it, and it is now coming into law. Senator Greig, who is taking carriage of this legislation, was not here when that happened, but it is one of the most remarkable things I have seen since being in this parliament. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill was a matter of secret negotiation between the government and the Democrats. It was dumped on the Senate, and some 400 amendments which they had cobbled together were effectively guillotined through here without debate and without having gone out into the public arena to be discussed. And that is the face of the Democrats in 1999.Tonight we have seen a series of amendments to try to go back to the old `we stand for the environment' situation, but the Democrats knew that that would not work—the numbers were not here—and they knew that in June. But to get a piece of the power that they are able to get through communications with the Prime Minister's office, they were prepared to sacrifice the forest environment of this country. And that is what they did.Senator Harradine interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—They are a bad lot, Senator Harradine, because this was a very bad deal. I do not know why at that stage in a very big bill—I am talking about four pages out of more than 500—they did not negotiate with Senator Hill and Prime Minister Howard to remove this component of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill. That is what I am trying to undo, at least in part, through this amendment.21:52:008328Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—One probably would not realise it from the previous contribution, but the Democrats support this amendment. Indeed, it is identical to an amendment that the Democrats had circulated as well to achieve the same aim, which is to repeal the part of the environment act which excludes RFA legislation from it. As the chamber will remember, during the debate on that legislation the Democrats moved to ensure that forests were included for the purposes of the legislation. There is a significant ongoing flaw in that legislation, despite some of the many other positive improvements that were achieved with that amended legislation. As the Democrats said at the time and have continued to say since, there is certainly a hell of a lot of room for improvement still in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act at the federal level, and this is one of those fundamental areas where significant improvement still needs to be made. Unfortunately, at that time the government and the ALP voted together to keep forests out of that environment legislation, which at the time was clearly an ideological decision. Hopefully, in the two months since that time parties have had time to ponder it in a less heated environment, in the cold light of day, and realised the mistake. We hope they will support the Democrats in improving the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act further by passing this amendment.It is important as well to correct the misinterpretation that Senator Brown has put forward that somehow or other the component of the environment act that excluded forests was a loss of power that the environment minister otherwise had that has now been taken away. Whilst the Democrats said strongly at the time and will continue to say that it is an area that the environment minister should have power over, and responsibility to exercise that power, it is not one where the power was there at the time. If he did have the power and the responsibility to protect our forests, we would not have the repeated incidences, highlighted in this chamber over many years and including during this debate by the Democrats and Senator Brown, to his credit, continually highlighting the ongoing destruction of our native forests. That has been able to occur because that protection has not been there in legislation. It was not there before and it is not there now under the new act.The Democrats strongly believe it should be. We were not prepared to sacrifice some of the other positive gains that were made with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as amended because we were not able to achieve that gain as well, but it is nonetheless clearly a significant problem. Of course, that was the reason that a number of conservation groups, though realising some of the attacks they would put themselves under, also supported the amended Environ ment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. They knew that, whilst it did not achieve everything that needed to be done, it did make significant forward movement. Indeed, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, an organisation which has spent many years fighting against the destruction of Tasmania's native forests, also supported the amended Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act because it realised it was a step forward. Nonetheless, as much as anyone I continue to highlight that there are serious inadequacies still in that act as amended, despite its improvement over the existing federal legislation. One of those serious inadequacies is that it does not provide protection for our forests, obviously the major area of Australia's biodiversity. It is a significant flaw, and there is an opportunity now for that flaw to be rectified. I do urge the committee to support this amendment.21:56:008329Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I must point out that division 4 of part 4 of the EPBC Act recognises the fact that the RFA process is to, among other things, satisfy the purposes of that act. As we know, the RFA process provides for management of native forests in line with an agreed national policy which replaces the previous ad hoc system where decisions were made coupe by coupe, licence by licence and business by business. RFAs are intended to provide certainty—both resources for industry and protection for areas of conservation or heritage value. The RFA Bill is intended to underscore this certainty.That certainty is achieved in part by excusing forestry operations from procedures that duplicate the processes that have already occurred during the negotiation of an RFA, which are the conduct of a comprehensive regional assessment looking at environmental heritage values and economic and social values, assessment under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and protection of the environment through Commonwealth-state agreements. Senator Brown's proposed amendment, if passed, would undermine the purposes of the whole RFA process, including the RFA Bill, and therefore it is not acceptable to the government.21:58:008330Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—We will not be supporting this amendment. I have to say that what is notable, at almost 10 p.m. this night, is the contribution from the Democrats on this proposal. How can one forget that it was the Democrats who did a deal with the government whereby the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was rushed through this chamber with hundreds of amendments, with very little time allowed for debate? The bill was effectively guillotined through. There was really no opportunity for consideration by the opposition or minor parties of the huge number of amendments and the range of matters that were covered by the deal between the Democrats and the government. Yet, having done that, the Democrats come along here tonight and propose that in this Regional Forest Agreements Bill we should repeal division 4 of part 4 of that Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.I suppose one point is to recognise the blunder they have made. But the deal they did on that bill is a bigger blunder than just this one. To now try to use this legislation to repeal that division, we suggest, is disingenuous. This a complex issue, the RFA legislation is complex and the parliament has at least had an opportunity to debate it in full; that is why we have been here for the last few days and why the legislation has been before the parliament since last year. Indeed, the amendments proposed by the opposition have been well known to all of the parties in the parliament for some time, so people have been given ample opportunity. That opportunity was denied to us in respect of that environment legislation and to now try to seek to cure some problem by this means is inappropriate.The other point we would wish to make is that, even if division 4 of part 4 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act were repealed, it would not really solve the problem with what they did that the Democrats obviously now see, because there is a whole range of mechanisms available to the minister to exempt forestry operations from that act. So the issue is far more complex than what is evident from this amendment.This amendment will not do what the Democrats or indeed what Senator Brown would seek to do. But I at least take note of this: despite what disagreements we may have had through this debate with Senator Brown, we appreciate his support for the Wood and Paper Industry Council, notwithstanding his professed views about the industry. Secondly, I note that he recognised that the deal between the government and the Democrats on the environment legislation was a disgrace. We are not prepared to support this amendment; the issue is far more complex than just seeking to do what is contained in this amendment.Furthermore, I point out that earlier we carried amendments to this bill which tighten up the exemption legislation, particularly in respect of ensuring that obligations under international conventions are still relevant and are still applicable, notwithstanding the other provisions of clause 5 of the legislation. For those reasons we will not support the amendment.22:03:008330Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will respond briefly to those comments. It is true, given the hour and the length of this debate, that the chamber does not want to revisit the debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill. But I would point out, firstly, that it was not the Democrats' idea to sit through the night talking about forests so, given that Labor and the coalition agreed to do so, you can listen to this. I did not pick the environment bill but you have decided on it, so you are going to have to listen to comments about it.It is important to respond to the comments of Senator Forshaw. People listening afresh to his contribution may have taken the interpretation, which may or may not be what his intention was, that somehow or other the Democrats made an agreement with the government on the environment bill—which we obviously did and we were quite public about—and that we forgot about this bit and are now going, `Whoops, that was a mistake. We've got to try to fix it up.' Clearly we did not forget about it—we moved an amendment at the time to try to address it, and, of course, the Labor Party did not support that amendment. As I said in my previous contribution, we believe that is a major flaw in the bill; nevertheless we did not want to sacrifice the overall positive net gain that we had achieved because that flaw was still there.Perhaps, reading between the lines of Senator Forshaw's contribution, he was saying that, because there were so many amendments and the bill was guillotined through in a short space of time, they did not get a chance to examine it properly. Now they have a chance. They have had a couple of months. They have had a clear expression of concern—both from supporters of the bill and from those that strongly oppose it—that this is an ongoing problem, so they certainly cannot use the excuse this time that it was all done in a rush and that they did not get to have a look at it. The issue has been around now for a significant period of time. You should have voted for the amendment at that time; now here is your other opportunity.I would also have to say in relation to the issue of doing deals—as I have said on previous legislation in this place today—that I have no problem with doing deals or reaching agreements, whatever terminology you wish to use, with anybody as long as there are overall positive gains. Obviously, you do not agree to something unless you believe, after a strong assessment, that it is an overall positive gain, even if you do not get everything that you want. You always have to wonder whether, if you had held out longer, you would have gained more.Of course you never know, you hear other people's criticism and you think: experienced people like the ALP know how to do deals, they have been doing them for years, maybe they do not know what they are talking about and maybe they are master negotiators. I suppose one of the positives of the youth wages debacle this morning is that I can see that, if that is the sort of deal that the ALP are capable of—where they come out with a situation that is actually worse than the existing situation and enables youth wages to be extended further—I certainly now know I do not need any advice from the ALP about how best to reach agreements and where best to draw a line as to how far to go.I will not revisit the whole debate over the environment bill unless I am provoked by further contributions whereupon I need to correct the record. It will suffice to re-emphasise that this is an important issue. Indeed the whole issue of forests—despite the hour and the length of the debate, which can lead to a slightly jaded sense of the mind—is still an important one and it is appropriate to emphasise the significance of it.Forests are not just a nice little boutique issue to examine on the side occasionally when you have nothing else to look at. The future of our native forests is fundamental to a whole range of issues—economic, environmental, social, biodiversity and so on. This amendment goes to the heart of that as well. It is one of a number of core issues that we have tried to examine through the course of this debate. It is another opportunity to correct one of the still existing flaws in the environment protection act. It does sound like the ALP are yet to follow up what appeared to be their new conversion to environmentalism as expressed by their outrage over the environment protection act. This would have been an opportunity for them to demonstrate that that was more than just an opportunity to gain some political points but clearly that is all that it was and they have reverted true to type when it comes to actually being able to make a positive improvement.22:08:008331Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I can hardly stand listening to that. I can hardly stand the perfidy on Australia's forests that the Democrats have committed. When this sell out of the forests by the Democrats was proceeding in this place before—and we are now trying to undo it—it was perfectly clear that the Greens and the Labor Party, from different points of view, were going to be consistent. The Democrats knew when they voted to remove Commonwealth powers to protect forests in June that this position would arise with this bill now. Senator Bartlett says it is a mistake.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—No, I didn't.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—He did not say it was a mistake so he stands by the June vote. There is no excusing what the Democrats did then. For months they had been negotiating that legislation. They knew that they were removing federal powers to protect forests when they did it. I pointed out to them that there was no undoing their actions in June. They had been the ones negotiating with the government. They had all the leverage because the government desperately wanted this legislation to come through to remove four pages out of 500 and they did not.I will tell you why they did not. They felt that sitting at the table with the Prime Minister was more important than sitting at the table of consistency and commitment to the nation's environment. They sold out the nation's environment. They sold out the forests. They sold out 50 per cent of the species of this country that live in those forests. I for one will never let them forget it.It is easy to wash your hands of critical components of the nation's heritage to get a quick inside run on a legislative enactment of 500 pages which promised all sorts of bilateral agreements on the environment but specified nothing, except for one matter. That was to give the woodchippers what they wanted as far as the forests are concerned. The Democrats voted for that and they knew it. They deliberated on it. They were part of the plan to do it.They come in here tonight and say, `Oh, well we will try to undo it now.' They have done a 180-degree turnaround. They know the Labor Party is going to be consistent. I will give the Labor Party this: at least it is consistent in this matter. It is a better thing for the environment than the Democrats who sold out the forests in Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland and New South Wales with their cheap purchase of some power and some time at the Prime Minister's table just a couple of months ago.If they think that is all going to disappear into the air as the trees keep falling down, they are not going to get away with it. The chainsaws in those forests have the hand of the Democrats on them. They knew when they did this in June that they were committed to that action and it could not be undone. Even if this legislation did get through it is not, according to the minister Wilson Tuckey, going to get through the other place. The Democrats knew that but they sold the forests out for a quick gain for themselves.We are in this situation where this effort to undo the damage by the Greens bringing forward this amendment is going to fail because the Democrats sold it out six weeks ago. We must try. We are going to spend 20 years trying to recover from these two months. That is what Senator Meg Lees, the Leader of the Democrats, did and that is what every other Democrat did in June. I stood in this place and named each one of them at that time and said, `If you do this, you are selling out the forests.' All seven of them went across and voted with the government to sell out the forests with their eyes wide open. Senator Bartlett said, `And we made no mistake.' Let that be on the record. It is not going to help the forests.22:14:008332Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I said when we were debating the environment protection act that I was sure the government and the opposition had better things to do than listen to Senator Brown and me disagree all night long, but there you go. I feel it appropriate to correct the record for, hopefully, the final time in relation to this matter. It is part of a consistent ongoing effort by many to completely misrepresent the content of the environment protection act. That is a shame because there are a lot of positive things in that act. It would be good for them to be further explored rather than demonised and misrepresented.Simply to correct the record, and given that the proceedings are being broadcast—and I am sure there are thousands around the country, as always, listening in—the Democrats did not vote to remove federal powers to protect forests, and the environment act that went through did not remove federal powers. Federal powers were not there before, and they are still not there. We wish they were. We moved an amendment to put them there which was not supported, and we brought forward an amendment again tonight to try to do that. Clearly it again will not be supported, but that will not stop us from being consistent.The Democrats' consistent approach on environmental issues—as it has been since we entered federal parliament more than 20 years ago—is to work to ensure overall positive environmental outcomes. We do not walk away from agreements that will ensure positive environmental outcomes, even if they are not perfect and even if they still contain flaws that need to be addressed. That is why, quite clearly, we voted the way we did—with our eyes wide open and by not washing our hands. We were quite clearly saying that we knew what we were doing, that we stand by what we did then and we are still standing by it now. Because of the extent of misinformation that is put forward in relation to that, I think it is appropriate each time to put it on the record that there was not and has not been any winding back of federal powers to protect forests. They have always been inadequate; they remain inadequate. The Democrats will continue to work to improve them.22:16:008333Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It is appalling to hear that from a Democrat. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act specifically lists all the environmental powers that have been removed. That is what the Democrats negotiated and voted for. The section that we are now trying to remove but will not be able to, and which the Democrats voted for, is on page 62 of that bill. It specifically says:Approval is not needed for forestry operations permitted by RFAs.For the millions of hectares of forest in Australia, there is no approval required by the Commonwealth. There is no approval required from the relevant minister. That is a removal of the powers.Senator Bartlett is trying to confuse the inactivity of recent ministers or the current Minister for the Environment and Heritage with powerlessness. The minister has enormous powers. The fact that they have not been exercised is a political matter; it is not a matter of law. But it is a matter of law that the Democrats have removed the power of that minister to act in the future—for the next 20 years—as far as the forests are concerned. They did say `with their eyes open', and they stand indicted on that score.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to Senator Brown's amendment No. 1 on sheet 1505.22:18:008333Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:Page 5, (after line 24), at the end of the bill, add:9 Amendment of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 4 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is repealed.We are still trying to rescue something out of the Democrats fire, which is involved in this environment act which exempts forestry operations in eight nominated regions around Australia—in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and so on—from Commonwealth environmental scrutiny. They do just the thing that Senator Bartlett says they do not do.This Greens amendment deletes this exemption. It does not, however, affect the exemptions for regions where there is already a regional forest agreement in force. The amendment should be supported because, if no regional forest agreement is in force, there is no justification for an exemption from Commonwealth environment laws. Despite the heading of subdivision B—that is, regions subject to a process of negotiating a regional forest agreement—the environment protection act does not require a regional forest agreement to be under negotiation to gain an exemption.Finally, the environment protection act exemption already applies to regions where an RFA is being prepared, so there is no incentive to complete it. I am aware of the numbers against this amendment, and therefore I will leave it at that.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to proposed Democrat amendment No. 11.22:19:008333Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move:(11) Page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add:10 Expiration of Act This Act ceases to be in force at the end of 3 years after the day on which it commences.This amendment deals with a sunset clause for the whole of the act. The Democrats believe that 20 years of native forest clearing and woodchipping is too long. We think that any government policy or program could do with review after a few years. There is much scientific evidence that decisions made so far are problematic—indeed, I cite the case of Western Australia, where the changes were made to the RFAs within weeks of them being signed. It is a reasonable request to have the sunset clauses so as to review the process, and I believe that a three-year period from the date of assent to this legislation is a more than reasonable period to bring this legislation before the Commonwealth parliament for review.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to further amendment No. 1 on sheet 1520 from Senator Brown.22:21:008334Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Regional Forest Agreements Act 1998 ", substitute "Forest Destruction and Woodchippers' Subsidy Act 1999 ".This is my honesty clause. This is to do with the name of this bill, which will become an act. Its title will become the Regional Forest Agreements Act 1998. My amendment would a clear description of what it is, and not just a euphonious name. We would therefore substitute the name `Regional Forest Agreements Act 1998' with the descriptive name `Forest Destruction and Woodchippers Subsidy Act 1999'. I think that sums it all up.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—We now move to Senator Brown's proposed amendment No. 1 on sheet 1528.22:22:008334Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:(1) At the end of clause 4B, add: (9) In sections 4A and 4B: RFA includes an amended RFA.This is an important amendment because it would mean that, if there is a further amendment to a regional forest agreement, it would come back before the parliament for scrutiny. I commend the amendment to the chamber.Amendment not agreed to.22:23:008334Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move the opposition amendment on sheet 1530:At the end of clause 4B, add: (10) Proposed amendments to an RFA are subject to section 4A and this section. A reference in these sections to a proposed RFA includes a reference to proposed amendments to an RFA.This would add a new paragraph (10) to the provisions that we inserted into clause 4 by our earlier amendment dealing with parliamentary scrutiny of draft RFAs. It will be recalled that, earlier on in the debate, we were addressing some of the issues with respect to parliamentary scrutiny. As a result of further examination, we are proposing an additional paragraph that would read:Proposed amendments to an RFA are subject to section 4A and this section. A reference in these sections to a proposed RFA includes a reference to proposed amendments to an RFA.What that means in shorthand is that we currently have—by virtue of the amendments that were passed—a process for public and parliamentary scrutiny of draft RFAs. Having gone through that process, if an RFA is then entered into and signed off by the federal and state governments it becomes operative. If at some later time there is a proposed amendment to that RFA, we are providing that such a proposed amendment would be subject to the same system of public and parliamentary scrutiny that is already in place for the RFA itself when it is first entered into. It would be the proposed amendments that would come back for that process of scrutiny, not the entire RFA. We believe that that is an appropriate course to adopt. The principle is the same. Therefore, we seek the committee's support.22:27:008334Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support this amendment. We have had some talks about this. It means that amendments to the regional forest agreement would be open to parliamentary scrutiny, and I of course support that.22:28:008335Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats also express their support for the opposition amendment.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to the Democrat amendment proposed for the original opposition amendment No. 1 which was carried, as I understand it.22:28:008335Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—That is correct. I move the Democrat amendment on sheet 1529:Clause 2A, omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The object of this Act is to ensure that Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States are consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992.Earlier in this debate the opposition moved an amendment which resulted in subclause 2A(1). We now seek to omit that clause and replace it with point (1) which would read:The object of this Act is to ensure that Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States are consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992.We see that as eminently reasonable and self-explanatory.22:29:008335Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will be formally opposing this amendment. When this was circulated earlier tonight—but not that much earlier—we noticed that the game was up; that the Democrats were not going to support our proposal for a wood and paper industry council and the detailed provisions that we sought to have included in the bill to give effect to that council.This amendment would remove from the objects of the act, which we had inserted into the act by an earlier amendment, the reference to the establishment of a wood and paper industry council. It could, no doubt, be argued by the Democrats that this is a consequential amendment as a result of the defeat of our earlier amendment this evening. But it is more than that. It is another sell-out by the Democrats—this time on the side of the government—of the interests of the workers and of the interests of the industry. I won't go over the debate again, but we see the wood and paper industry council as an integral part of the RFA process. The industry is not opposed to that. The workers in the industry are very strongly supportive of it. It is necessary. Time will demonstrate that we are right and that the Democrats are wrong.I note that at the outset of this debate, a couple of days ago, when the first amendment moved by the opposition was debated, the Democrats supported it. They supported the objects clause that we were putting into the bill, which was twofold. Firstly, it was `to ensure that regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the states are consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement of 1992'. The second objective was to establish a wood and paper industry council. The Democrats supported the amendment. That is why it was carried—with their support. They never said at the time that they were opposed to the council. We know that their amendments sought to restructure it, if you like, or create a different structure for the council that we had put up. They wanted to turn it into a council which was made up of environmental representatives and make a whole lot of other changes which would have negated the purpose of the council—that is, industry development, employment generation, value-adding and downstream processing. They tried that mechanism to destroy the integrity, if you like, of the wood and paper industry council.We would not agree to their amendments so they opposed our proposal, even though they had earlier voted to support the concept by supporting the objects. It just demonstrates again that the Democrats are all over the place. There is no consistency in their position. They will do a deal with the government at the drop of a hat. This is another occasion.Amendment not agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. 8336Motion (by Senator Troeth) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.22:34:008336Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This is a terrible moment for Australia's forests. It is a rotten situation as far as millions of hectares of Australia's forests and millions of denizens of those forests are concerned. It will lead to the depletion of Australia's heritage at a rapid rate. It is not going to help jobs. We have seen the regional forest agreement in Tasmania followed by hundreds of jobs being shorn off by the big woodchip corporations. It is not going to lead to prosperity, because it has nothing in it to prevent the current export overseas of the vast majority of Australia's wild forests when they are cut down for woodchips. So the jobs and the return are gained by overseas corporations and not by the people of Australia, whose forests they are.The Australian Greens have stood steadfastly against this process all the way through. We are proud to have done that on behalf of hundreds of environment groups around the country, hundreds of localities and the vast majority of Australian people who expressed an opinion on forests and want the forests protected but, above and beyond that, on behalf of all those generations of Australians who will come after us who would vote to keep these forests and not have them shredded for a quick profit by corporations like Norths, Wesfarmers and Boral. This is not the end of this matter by a long shot. Those who feel that by pushing legislation like this through the parliament and giving the death warrant to the forests, as the Prime Minister has done with his signature on these agreements, it is the end of the matter are very wrong. They were wrong in Western Australia. They will be wrong in the other states.We now face not 20 years of harmony in the forests but 20 years of disputation. I have no doubt that that will be attended by even more draconian laws being put through parliaments like Tasmania's by Labor and Liberal governments so that youngsters who go into the forests to peacefully protest, like those who ended up in a Launceston court before Magistrate Wilson last week, will find themselves fined $2,000 or $3,000 by people who do not understand the value of forests to the whole human spirit.We come from the forests. We have an innate, natural bond with the wildlife and the plant life of forests. We put pictures on our walls of forests, wildlife and landscapes and not of chainsaws, bulldozers and jackhammers. Yet they are the entities which have precedence in this legislation. So be it, as far as the legislation is concern, but I for one commit myself for the rest of my existence—I do not know that I will get another 20 years down the line—to fighting this legislation and its destructive ramifications on the Australian forests however peaceably I can, and to encourage every Australian to take part in that historic fight. What we cannot protect now no future generation can come back and undo. While this is a black moment for the forests, there are going to be some terrific outcomes in the future.This document is not acceptable and will not prevail because the bond between people and their forests is much stronger than that. I want to say to anybody who is dismayed by this moment in our legislative history and by the power of the vote that we see expressed here tonight for this destructive piece of legislation that there have been far tougher times for environmentalists in history and the turnaround always comes. I commit myself to making that as soon as possible. The Australian Greens are committed to that. We work with a lot of terrific people who are committed to that as well. I pay tribute to their spirit which comes from the connection they have with the forests.Those people cannot speak in this place. Too few people have spoken up for the forests in this place. This is unrepresentative legislation. It does not commit itself to the spirit of the Australian people as we go into the new millennium, but that spirit will prevail over negative legislation like this.22:40:008336Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I am very conscious that 20 years from now our children will look back on this dark night and think, `What on earth were people thinking back then?' They will wonder how it is that we could possibly have thought that the continued destruction of our native forests was warranted or necessary. When they look back and perhaps pore over the debate which has gone on for so long and which will continue, they will see that the Democrats were there fighting for native forests, as our supporters have called on us to do for 22 years.This is not the end of the environmental push by environmentally minded people to preserve our forests. They will be motivated by tonight's decision like never before. We condemn this bill, which will echo for another 20 years. Question put: That the bill be now read a third time.22:46:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)50Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Ludwig, J. W.Macdonald, I. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Reid, M. E.Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.8Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Committees8337833710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received a letter from a party leader seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows—Community Affairs References Committee Substitute member: Senator Denman to replace Senator Evans for the committee's inquiry into childbirth procedures.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Substitute members: Senators Quirke and Gibbs to replace Senators Forshaw and O'Brien for the committee's inquiry into the development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway.Adjournment833710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 10.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.83378337The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—On 9 September of this year, Mr Pasquale Gagliardi will have been working for the Joint House Department for 25 years. He was the ACT Outstanding Apprentice of the Year in 1968, commenced work with the department as a temporary painter on 9 September 1974 and has worked for the department ever since. He has progressed through the maintenance services area to a point where he is now a works supervisor, overseeing works projects in Parliament House. He has always been a very committed worker, serving the parliament to the very best of his ability. He has those characteristics very necessary for someone in a service industry: he is open, helpful and cheerful. It is hard to imagine how many paintbrushes he must have used in the time he has been here when you contemplate the painting of the Old Parliament House and now this new one, but he is one of the people who enable it all to happen for the rest of us who come here as senators and members. On behalf of senators, I would say to him, `Thank you for your 25 years service.'UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!833822:51:008338Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I endorse your remarks, Madam President. Truth in politics, truth in representative life, is a very important and necessary ingredient. Unfortunately, too often truth gives way to deliberate falsehoods, to misrepresentation, all in the name of trying to score a political edge or gain a political point. We have seen instances of that in recent days, for instance in the spurious allegations made by the minister for industrial relations in respect of the opposition's position on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 and allegations made tonight during the debate on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 with respect to the supposed motives of political parties. One can understand the cynicism with which the public often views the statements made by their political representatives.I want to refer particularly to a newsletter that has been put out by the federal member for Hughes, Mrs Danna Vale. Mrs Danna Vale holds herself out to be a friend, a representative, of her constituents. She should know that it is important to tell them the truth. Mrs Vale has sent around her electorate a report entitled `The reactor: facts and fiction'. This was delivered by Australia Post to every householder in the Hughes electorate, as I understand it. She starts off by saying:A personal message from Danna ValeDear Resident,It seems to me that there have been a lot of confusing messages about the proposal to replace the old HIFAR research reactor at ANSTO at Lucas Heights. You are my neighbours as well as my constituents, and I am in a position to bring to you some verifiable facts on this matter which are a matter of public record and which are available for your scrutiny.In that five-page newsletter, she sets out a range of what she calls `fictions' and `facts'. I want to refer to one in particular. She says the fiction is:"That the majority of the residents of the Sutherland Shire are hostile to a replacement facility and protest against it. . . .."She then goes on to claim the following as the facts:. During the last federal election, held on October 3, 1998, the Labor candidate (David Hill)was determined to win back for Labor the seat of Hughes. I am informed that over $500,000 was spent in the Labor campaign and he made the reactor the only issue in the electorate.I stop there. The only truth in that statement was that David Hill was the candidate for Labor in Hughes. But it is grossly untrue and, I would submit, deliberately and maliciously untrue to state that the Labor Party spent over $500,000 in the Labor campaign. She says, `I am informed.' I call on Mrs Vale to come forth in the parliament or outside and tell us who informed her of such a ridiculous assertion. It is simply not true. The records of the electoral funding for the seat of Hughes are available on the public record to be scrutinised. If we spent one-fifth of that amount we would have been doing well.Secondly, she stated that Mr Hill and the Labor Party made the nuclear reactor the only issue in the electorate. That again is untrue. An examination of the campaign material demonstrates that the major issue was the GST and that the nuclear reactor, whilst an important one, was very much a minor issue at that time in the election. Mrs Vale goes on to state:He was unsuccessful. The results show that the seat of Hughes recorded the only swing to the government by a sitting Liberal member across the nation. The election results show we recorded 61% of the vote at the Barden Ridge booth, the booth closest to the reactor. Now this does not mean that my constituents desperately want a reactor, but simply that the vast majority of them do not have a problem with it. Again that is a distortion of the facts. Firstly, Mrs Vale does not point out that, although the results record that percentage for the Liberal Party at the Barden Ridge booth, in fact there was a swing against the Liberal Party at that booth—interesting to note because it is the suburb closest to the Lucas Heights reactor. Indeed, Barden Ridge is the new name given to the former suburb of Lucas Heights. One wonders why it was changed. She went on to say that the vast majority of people have no problem with the reactor. This perpetuates a distortion of the truth that has been put out by ANSTO. They have tried to argue that people in that region support a new reactor, even though previous surveys have demonstrated that up to 83 per cent of the people resident in that area would prefer the reactor was located in a remote location. Both because of my interest in this matter in my role as a duty senator for Hughes and because I was a member of the Senate committee that looked at this issue, I have undertaken a survey of people living in Barden Ridge. I forwarded a survey to the approximately 980 households in that suburb asking them this straightforward question:Do you support the construction of a new reactor at Lucas Heights?I have received some 665 replies; 584 of them have said that they do not support the reactor, 76 said they did support the reactor, and five were returned with no clear indication as to what their position was. So 87.8 per cent of those people surveyed that have responded are opposed to the new reactor at Lucas Heights. I would submit that is a tremendous return on a survey. It provides a clear demonstration that the statement `the vast majority of people in the shire are not opposed to the reactor' is quite untrue.The dishonesty of the Liberal Party in the Sutherland Shire continues beyond Mrs Vale's newsletter. On 11 September—Saturday week—the local government elections are to be held in New South Wales. In that campaign the Liberals are resorting to desperate tactics, because they know they are about to be thrown out on their ears. The Liberal council has a discredited reputation because it has allowed rampant overdevelopment to occur, and they are resorting to any tactic they can to try to hang onto office. For instance, last Saturday at Sharks Park, when the Cronulla Sharks—the Great Cronulla Sharks that are minor premiers in the National Rugby League competition and that will win their first premiership this year—played their home game against Penrith, the local Liberal Party stood outside the ground and handed out scurrilous leaflets suggesting that, if the Labor Party were elected to Sutherland Council on Saturday week, we would take away the lights at Sharks Park and there would be no more night rugby league games played there.This is the sort of level that they will stoop to to try to hang onto political office. This is the same Liberal party that in the D ward in the Sutherland Shire Council has given their preferences to One Nation in front of the Labor candidates—the highly qualified, experienced and very reputable Labor candidates—and also the major independent group, the Shire Watch Independents. The local Liberal Party, desperate to hang onto office, has done a deal with One Nation to give them preferences in front of other major candidates in that ward, contrary to the instructions of the New South Wales Liberal council and contrary to the supposed views of the Prime Minister and other Liberal Party leaders. It is about time the local, state and federal representatives of the Liberal Party in the Sutherland Shire learned to tell the truth to their constituents.833923:01:008339Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Tonight I would like to, once again, raise the question of people smuggling. I would like to draw to the Senate's attention the fact that the number of persons seeking to enter this country by boat illegally has increased by over 490 per cent in the last year and that the amount of money that people are being asked to pay to engage in these very dangerous voyages has increased by over 500 per cent. It is, therefore, interesting to note how the government seeks to posture on this issue with its talk of ending the sex slave trade and hunting down people smugglers. But a closer examination of the actions of the government reveal just how inadequately and poorly coordinated Australia's response has been, particularly when one considers the necessity of a whole of government approach to this issue.I am particularly concerned that new areas are being found for ruthless and unethical people to use various points of entry into Australia. I am particularly concerned about the way in which more sophisticated devices are being peddled by professional operators who are increasingly turning to means other than those we see on the news every week or so—that is, the use of various rusty old boats to run into the various shores around this country. In my judgment, they are increasingly using means such as student visas and other visas to actually draw people into this country.We have seen a very desperate move being made which forces people who are being attracted to these schemes—who are victims of these schemes—to become quite desperate and, of course, subject to all sorts of exploitation, which I think needs to be cracked down upon and needs to be removed from this country as soon as possible.I have raised these issues before, and I inform the Senate that I have spoken to people representing immigration agents and people representing the private colleges who have been particularly concerned about the developments that are occurring within the education industry. They are particularly concerned because they understand the importance of quality to the future development of this industry in this country. Those persons representing immigration agents and representing reputable colleges are particularly concerned to maintain the integrity of the industry and to see that unethical operators are in fact removed.I note that Mr Ruddock on 13 August asked that, if I did have information on these matters, I make that information available to the government. I suggest that it was Dr Kemp who on 19 August, after some of these comments were made, indicated that he was going to have a review of the main piece of legislation which governs the regulation of the export industry in education—the ESOS Act. He has—since that time—yet to produce the terms of reference for that review or indicate the personnel who are to run that review. One is entitled to ask just how serious the government is in terms of improving the regulation of this industry.I have indicated that there are some 12 colleges that are currently the subject of investigations that I am trying to develop. Tonight I would like to place on the record four cases and to ask the government to investigate them. The first is a case is that is very similar in its operation to the one that I previously referred to—that is, of course, the case of the National Colleges of Australia, which saw some 600 students on its books. That has collapsed. The department knew about only 232 people and, of course, only about 100 persons had contacted the government after the collapse of the college. So it is my contention that there are many hundreds of students from that particular college that have gone missing. A recent raid of a packing house in Sydney found some 39 students working there illegally, and I understand that those persons have been deported to India. Many of them came from the National Colleges of Australia, which was operating as National Senior Schools and the National English College.There is another body, known as the Australian National College, or ANC, which also has been acting inappropriately. As I understand, it has many more students than it is entitled to under its CRICOS registration and it is paying kickbacks to migration agents so that students who have no intentions of undertaking serious study are engaged in the enterprise. The Australian National College is currently in breach of the CRICOS guidelines and the ESOS Act. One week ago it changed owners but, according to the CRICOS registration of this afternoon, the registration has not been indicated on the relevant register, which is available on the Internet. I understand that this Australian National College has 1,400 students enrolled on its books; yet only 180 of those students appear to be attending on a regular basis. I think we are entitled to ask: where are the rest of the students?There are other colleges, such as the Skywell College at Burwood in Sydney, which I understand is a registered training organisation which has seen some 2,000 to 3,000 students pass through its books in the last 18 months. I am advised that migration agents are collecting 45 per cent of student fees levied by the college. I understand that this particular college operates a very flexible delivery service and does not have strenuous attendance requirements—again a substantial breach of the ESOS Act.I understand that there is another college, the Lloyds International College, in Pitt Street, Sydney. It is run by Caprock International Pty Ltd, two directors of which are registered migration agents. They are Mr Kofi Osei and Liba Osei. Lloyds was registered as a registered training organisation three weeks ago, which means they can get access to longer term visas under the vocational education program. I am also advised that this college is running a program which instructs students on how to get permanent residency in Australia. I think that is a particularly useful skill for a college which is run by migration agents. There is, quite clearly, a prima facie case of a fundamental conflict of interest. It is a very difficult problem which is not likely to be addressed within the deregulated regime that exists for migration agents.Another person is associated with Canterbury Business College Pty Ltd, New South Wales. The director of studies, Mr Paul Gajinder, had applied for registration as a migration agent on 5 August 1999. A senior shareholder, Mr Shailinder Kamal Kumar, was a registered migration agent but has allowed his registration to lapse and currently has an application before the migration registration authority to be registered as a non-fee agent.I think these are all cases that require further investigation by the government. We are told, under the various regulations and laws of this country, that students are entitled to study here. We encourage people to come here because of the importance of the industry to Australia. We encourage high quality outcomes, because it is on that basis that the industry can grow. There appears to be an overwhelming majority of cases of people actually operating properly and correctly and running a high quality service, but a minority of operators are acting illegally and improperly, and those operators are bringing into question the viability of the entire industry.In the case of the National Colleges of Australia or the National Business Management College—or the various other names it has operated under—I have asked questions of the minister; I have yet to receive answers. I think we are entitled to know how many students were studying at the college. At the time I said there were about 600. I am told it was about 600 when the college collapsed in June. It may well be the case that I was wrong. I may have been wrong to the extent that my information now is that there are 800 students at that college, so there may be many more students missing than I thought at the time. I think we are entitled to know how much the department knew about this college at the time of its collapse and how much it knows about it now. Why is it that the ESOS Act requires records to be kept, yet records were not available when the college collapsed? Who was auditing the company and why was its management so inadequate?We have the Business Institute of Victoria—another college which went bankrupt. It was operating illegally, trading under the name `the Great Southern Group'. BIV has reemerged as a phoenix company. It received awards from government right up to the time of its collapse.These are issues which demonstrate that this government has a lot to do in terms of cleaning up this industry and has to do a lot more in terms of improving the regulations and amending the ESOS Act to protect this country and this country's reputation. It has a lot more to do; yet it has cut the department by 50 per cent in this division, the international division of the department of education. It is quite apparent that Immigration and Education are not working closely together. It is quite apparent that the states and the Commonwealth are not working closely together. So when this government talks about people smuggling and the ways it is moving to prevent it, it is quite apparent that so much of what it does is mere rhetoric. We are entitled to see Dr Kemp come forward with the terms of reference of his review to announce who is actually undertaking the review and to see him act on this problem.Senate adjourned at 11.11 p.m.Documents83428342The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 181.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 177.Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 190.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 170.Designs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 187.Export Inspection and Meat Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 178.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 173.Federal Court of Australia Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 194.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 176 and 193.Insurance Contracts Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 191.Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 171.National Health Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 174 and 175.National Measurement Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 185.National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 179.Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 189.Ombudsman Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 192.Parliamentary Entitlements Act—Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations—Advice of decision under paragraph 18(a).Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 184.Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 180.Public Service Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 182 and 183.Superannuation Act 1976 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 172.Trade Marks Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 186.Trade Practices Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 188.8342The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed list of departmental and agency files for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999—Statements of compliance—Office of the Governor-General.Answers to Questions on Notice8343The following answers to questions were circulated:8343(Question No. 1091)10918343Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) (a) Does the Company Sun Healthcare operate any aged care services, or other long-term care facilities supplying services, to the aged citizens in Australia; and (b) who licences them.(2) What do the Minister and federal age care licensing authorities plan to do about the company's Australian operations in the light of its association with patient neglect in aged care facilities in the United States of America.(3) (a) Was the Minister or the department consulted in regard to the allegations of deficient care at that time that the Assistant Treasurer approved Sun Healthcare's entry into Australia; and (b) what was the response.8343Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Sun Healthcare is not an Approved Provider under the Aged Care Act 1997 (the Act) for the provision of Commonwealth funded aged care. Approved Provider status is necessary under the Act for a provider of aged care to receive Commonwealth subsidy.(b) The Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care or his delegate approves applicants for Approved Provider status to provide aged care services under the Aged Care Act 1997.(2) As indicated in (1) (a) Sun Healthcare is not an Approved Provider under the Aged Care Act 1997. Should Sun Healthcare wish to operate an aged care service and receive Government subsidy, they must obtain Approved Provider status. Approved Providers have certain responsibilities under the Act, including responsibilities relating to the quality of care that the Approved Provider provides and those concerning the rights of care recipients.If Sun Healthcare submits an application for Approved Provider status, it will be assessed against legislative criteria.(3) (a) The Minister for Health and Aged Care (formerly Health and Family Services) was not consulted by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) in regard to the allegations about Sun Healthcare at the time that the Assistant Treasurer approved Sun Healthcare's entry into Australia.The Department of Health and Aged Care (formerly Health and Family Services) was consulted by the FIRB in regard to allegations of deficient care.(b) The Department's response to the FIRB was to advise the FIRB to seek advice from the relevant State and Territory health authorities who have the sole responsibility for the licensing of private hospitals.8343(Question No. 1293)12938343Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) What is the annual cost to the department of news clippings purchased or produced by the department.(2) (a) Are the clippings provided regularly to the appropriate shadow ministers; and (b) in each instance, which shadow ministers receive a copy of the department's news clippings.(3) (a) Are they provided to the appropriate Australian Democrats' spokespersons; and (b) in each instance, which spokespersons receive a copy of the department's news clippings.(4) Are the department's clippings routinely provided to other members of Parliament; if so, which members and/or senators and in what capacity are they provided with a copy of the department's clippings.8343Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) From June 1998 to July 1999 it has cost the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry $27,241.88 to purchase the news clippings.(2) (a) Yes.(b) Shadow Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Laurie Ferguson MP.(3) (a) No. (4) Yes; the Hon Warren Truss MP, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon Wilson Tuckey MP, Minister for Forestry and Conservation and Senator the Hon Judith Troeth, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.