1999-09-203914SENATE834501999-09-20 The Senate met at 12.30 p.m.Miscellaneous834510001CLERKThe Clerk—Pursuant to standing order 13, I advise the Senate that the President is temporarily absent and the Deputy President will take the chair.The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator West) thereupon took the chair and read prayers.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that the President is leading the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and will be away from Canberra until 26 September 1999. She will be absent from the sittings of the Senate for the period 20 to 23 September. Pursuant to standing order 13, the President has suggested that I be empowered to act as President during her absence.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:(1) That, during the absence of the President, the Deputy President shall, on each sitting day, take the Chair of the Senate and may, during such absence, perform the duties and exercise the authority of the President in relation to all proceedings of the Senate and proceedings of committees to which the President is appointed.(2) That the President be granted leave of absence for the period 20 to 23 September 1999.Bills8345r6728345Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.12:32:008345Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I rise to speak in this debate on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and, in doing so, take the opportunity to indicate that this bill, though seen by the opposition as an important bill, is one which is also masking another attack on the human rights of Australians, particularly the rights of disadvantaged people in our community.This bill presents an important opportunity to look at the government's human rights record. It is a bill that cannot be debated in isolation because, though it does present and represent the government's response to the Brandy decision, it does contain further attacks on the disadvantaged—those who suffer discrimination in the Australian society. It is yet another of a series of actions that have been undertaken by this government, actions that are depriving many hundreds of thousands of Australians of the right to access justice and to hold government accountable.Basically what we are seeing in the government's strategic approach to this area is a denial of access. This government is attacking the rights held by Australians by making cuts to a wide variety of justice related services—including, for instance, cuts to legal aid, the federal courts and tribunals and the family services program. The government has also increased fees for federal courts and tribunals and is considering limiting the rights of Australians to hold their government accountable through the Commonwealth's administrative law system.It is worth noting at this point in the debate that, from the date of its election to the end of next year, in total, the government will have cut more than $400 million from services that help Australians access justice. Most importantly, it is those who are less well resourced who are denied access to justice. If there is one lesson that can be learned from the Victorian election over the last few days, it is that the community will no longer tolerate being denied access to services that they have been used to and which, I think quite rightly, they see as their right. One of those services is access to justice and, through that, accountability of government.Foremost amongst the cuts that I have mentioned are the government's cuts to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The government has reduced funding for the commission from the $20.5 million provided in the 1996-97 financial year to $17.9 million in the 1997-98 financial year, to $12.3 million in the 1998-99 financial year. With the move to accrual accounting, the budget of the commission on paper has increased to $16.069 million. However, even this is a slight decline on the $16.099 million estimated as the accrual budget of the commission in 1998-99.When the additional $470,000 provided to the Privacy Commissioner to meet his foreshadowed responsibilities for privacy in the private sector and the related capital injection of $89,000 are taken into account, the commission will, in effect, still have $600,000 less in 1999-2000 than it did in 1998-99. When all these factors are taken into account, the commission's budget will have been cut by some 50 per cent since the Howard government came into office, and that figure does not even take into account an adjustment for inflation.As a result of the second round of cuts foreshadowed in the 1997 budget, the commission was forced, for budgetary reasons, to implement those cuts with effect from 1 January 1998. The government did not even provide the commission with ancillary funding to meet the inevitable costs of redundancies—and redundancies there have been. As a result of the cuts, the commission has been forced to sack approximately 60 of its 180 staff, or one in three—half the budget and one in three of the staff made redundant.You cannot make those sorts of cuts without having some impact on access to the services of the human rights commission, its resources and, as a consequence, making government accountable. These cuts have caused the commission to effectively abandon the great bulk of its ongoing inquiry work. Instead, it has been forced to meet its essential statutory obligations to conciliate complaints. An exception to this is the report released recently by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner into pregnancy related discrimination. Apart from that, the commission now has shed some of its functions in a major way.The actual effect of these cuts is completely at odds with the government's claims. This is probably another lesson that the government needs to learn from the weekend's election results. You cannot keep on doing things to the public and then say to them that something contrary or directly in conflict is happening. In this case, despite the staffing cuts and the shedding of functions, the Acting Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, stated in the middle of 1997:Reports in the media today contain incorrect claims that changes to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) will have a negative impact on disabled people.However, the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Sidoti, who is now the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner as well, confirmed in evidence to a Senate estimates committee shortly after Mr Ruddock's statement that the services provided by the Disability Discrimination Commissioner would be amongst those affected by the cuts. So, the cuts should be condemned, but the government's deceit in not telling some of the most disadvantaged in our community what the real effect of these cuts would be is also something that needs to be condemned.Supposedly some cuts can be related to this bill, but I also want to note in this part of the debate that the government originally projected a cut of $1.5 million per year in the commission's 1996-97 budget to transfer the hearing function from the commission to the Federal Court of Australia. Some cuts and functions have been documented, but diddling of the books has also gone on in respect of HREOC. The hearing function was transferred to the Federal Court of Australia and a projected cut of $1.5 million was made to HREOC's budget because of what the government assessed was the cost of fulfilling that service by HREOC. Even that cut is unjustified. In terms of duplicity and wanting to do away with this commission, the government itself told the estimates committee that that function was only costing the commission some $600,000. So they took the opportunity to take another $1 million off the commission under the guise of shifting a function. The commission suffered and those who accessed the services of the commission suffered.However, a broader part of the community has been suffering because of the cuts in general to legal aid across the nation. In its 1996-97 budget, the government announced a cut of $120 million over three years from legal aid funding from 1 July 1997. They decided to dismantle Australia's national unified legal aid system. Those two decisions have had a massive impact on the ability of Australians to enforce their human rights. This is particularly so in cases where there are discrimination law disputes which will now be determined by the Federal Court of Australia.I would also like to draw the Senate's attention to the more detailed discussion of the effects of the cuts to legal aid funding as contained in the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee's first, second and third reports on Australia's legal aid system. I will not discuss the impact of these cuts here, but it is worth noting that the impact of those cuts was all-pervasive across the community. I also noted the effect of the changes to the guidelines to legal aid. As I say, the cuts have been quite pervasive but the Commonwealth-state legal aid agreements which came into effect on 1 July 1997 contain the following guideline with respect to the funding of equal opportunity and discrimination cases. That guideline says:5.1 The Commission may grant assistance for equal opportunity/discrimination cases where there are strong prospects of substantial benefit being gained not only by the applicant but also by the public or any section of the public.This guideline has to be totally unacceptable because it unfairly excludes people suffering discrimination from access to legal aid. The guideline achieves this effect by providing a number of qualifiers to the standard merits and financial hardship tests that an applicant is required to demonstrate. From now on, not only do applicants have to meet the financial hardship test and the merits test but they have to show that they have a strong prospect of success, that those prospects are directed towards the attainment of a substantial benefit, and that the benefit not only be acquired by that individual but must serve a broader public interest, or otherwise be in the interests of a section of the public.These additional requirements have been applied arbitrarily as other civil litigants are not required to demonstrate similar matters to access legal aid. I am sure the government knows that these additional requirements will effectively exclude large numbers of people adversely affected by discrimination from access to legal aid. I have to say that these additional requirements are simply unacceptable as a matter of principle. The creation of equality of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination are matters which derive substantial benefits not only to the individual complainant, but also to a whole class of persons to which that complainant belongs and to the community as a whole. By mere example, mere definition and mere decision, a decision can have an impact on a broader range of people. Putting all this together, we have had an attack on HREOC and we have had an attack on legal aid. We have also had an unfair discriminatory exclusion from access to legal aid for those who deserve that access the most.I will take this opportunity to turn to the legislation and indicate some of the flaws that the opposition finds with it. This legislation has two fundamental objectives. The first is to ensure that discrimination determinations can be enforced in a timely, effective and efficient manner in accordance with the ruling of the High Court in Brandy v. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The second is to implement a restructuring of the commission's complaint handling mechanisms. We acknowledge that, since the Brandy decision was handed down in early 1995, it has been necessary to vest the power to make enforceable determinations in a body exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth pursuant to chapter III of the Constitution. Following the Brandy decision, the previous Labor government introduced interim procedures for the handling of discrimination complaints, procedures which effectively reinstated the system that had applied to discrimination complaints prior to 1993. These arrangements provide for an initial determination to be made by the commission, which determination, if acceptable to the parties, operates subject to their goodwill and continued compliance. Determinations of the commission as such are not legally enforceable.Under this scheme, enforceable determinations require a fresh hearing of the dispute and a determination by the Federal Court. It has always been our view that the continued operation of the pre-1993 regime is inappropriate. This is because of the need for a second hearing by the Federal Court of a complaint for a determination to be enforceable. We believe that the current mechanism is unwieldy and places all parties at a financial and temporal disadvantage. So there is a strong and clear public interest in disputes being enforceable once determined. We support the creation of a special human rights registry within the Federal Court of Australia, as provided in the bill, as the most appropriate and cost-effective way to give effect to this purpose.We also support the bill's effect in giving the commission the power to conciliate disputes. Under the proposed arrangements, as set out in the bill, complaints are lodged with the Federal Court which then transfers the matter to the commission for conciliation. The executive president of the commission is responsible for administering the conciliation function, although the role will be largely performed by specialist conciliators. Should the dispute not be capable of conciliation then the matter is referred to the Federal Court for determination.We broadly support the structure of the bill. We see that as a necessary mechanism for the attainment of simplified and effective complaint determination procedures. However, as I will discuss more fully in the committee stage, we do believe there is a need for a number of important amendments to ensure that the rights of complainants are protected and they are able to access those rights.In closing—and I indicate that much of our complaints will be detailed in the committee stage, and there is no need to duplicate the debate at this stage—I want to make one particular point in terms of process and the delay with this legislation. On 3 March 1998 the Attorney-General issued a press release accusing the Labor Party of delaying the passage of this legislation. In so doing the Attorney called on the Labor Party to stop `opposing' the bill. This was despite the fact that he knew that we had said that we generally supported the bill. The Attorney made his statement knowing that, when he first announced this proposal to create a human rights registry of the Federal Court, it was I, as shadow Attorney-General, who said in a media release dated 9 August 1996 that the proposal was consistent with previous Labor government policy and that we would support it.The Attorney made his statement knowing that recommendation 3 of the minority report on the bill, signed by Senator McKiernan and me and dated 25 June 1997, stated:The Labor members of the Committee support the passage of the Bill subject to the Parliament's agreement to the amendments set out below.So what you have here is an Attorney who knew what was on the public record, who knew what was in the documentation of this Senate—a specific recommendation of me and Senator McKiernan—but then proceeded to put out a thoroughly untruthful statement. Why did he do this? Essentially he did this because he wanted to hide the fact that the only reason there has been a delay in having this bill dealt with is that he could not get sufficient priority for this legislation from his colleagues to have it debated in the Senate.The Senate committee reported on this bill in June 1997, some 26 or 27 months ago. It first appeared on the Notice Paper in December 1997, some 21 or 22 months ago. It appeared after the Native Title Amendment Bill and therefore, as one could have expected, there would not have been sufficient time for it to be brought on for debate. The Attorney had a couple of goes at trying to bring it on for debate last year, but once again it was put down low on the list in terms of priority in every sitting week in the Senate that it was listed. Once again, those who put it there knew that it could not have come up for debate. As a result, it has been over two years since the Senate committee finished deliberating on this bill—two years in which the bill could have been debated in the Senate. The bill lapsed in the Senate because the Attorney could not convince his colleagues of the need to debate it before the last election.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You filibustered on the native title bill and now you blame us.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—If you go back to that debate, Senator Campbell, you will realise that that debate was treated quite expeditiously and that was acknowledged by Senator Minchin at the close of that debate. So a cheap shot from you at this stage of the proceedings is probably not going to assist proceedings for the rest of the week or the rest of the fortnight.It is extremely disappointing that the Attorney has sought to blame others for his and the government's failure to give human rights issues the priority they deserve. If he had shown the same diligence in pursuing the interests of the victims of discrimination as he blames others for his own lack of action, then we would have finished debating this bill quite some time ago.This is a bill that will have an extensive committee stage. We will be moving amendments, but we will not be moving all the amendments that I have circulated. There has been some fruitful discussion in recent weeks between the Labor Party and the government in respect of some of the issues that have been outstanding, and it took two years for the government to sit down with the opposition and discuss these issues. There are still some areas of disagreement.While I have circulated all the original amendments proposed by the Labor Party in relation to the bill, I can advise that I propose now to move only amendments 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21 and 22 and when we get to the other amendments I will explain my reasons as to why I will not be moving them. I do not think I need to say much more at this particular stage of the debate. I know other colleagues want to speak on this legislation. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate.12:50:008349Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to speak in support of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . It is necessary following the High Court's decision in Brandy v. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1995 that a means be found to ensure that parties can gain direct access to the Federal Court. I am concerned that cheap justice in the form of mediation and conciliation will not always equate to real justice. I would further support the development of a federal magistrate's court to enhance a cost-effective approach to dispute resolution. Access should be timely, affordable and enforceable.I support limiting the role of the commissioners and think it is most unfortunate that we cannot also limit their pay packets to match. Tony Smith, a previous member of the House of Representatives for Dickson, said in his speech on the second reading debate:Why couldn't the Brandy case have been dealt with in the magistrate's court? It could have been dealt with simply and summarily and disposed of once and for all. Instead, we had an exhaustive process that took it through the Federal Court and the High Court, and an enormous amount of money was spent.I stress again that I welcome any approaches regarding the creation of a federal magistracy to deal with these issues. However, in supporting the bill, I also have enormous reservations.Let us face facts: the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is not treating the causes of the problems within this country but treating the symptoms. It is well known that economic freedom buys political freedom. With economic freedom comes our dignity and our self-esteem. When we have access to housing, health, education and employment opportunities for all Australians we have armour to deal with unwarranted and unwelcomed infringements on our rights—rights that we earn through being responsible citizens.When people in this country talk about human rights and about discrimination and tolerance, many of them are fond of apologising for Australia. I am not one of those. I think Australians have an outstanding record on human rights. I think we are outstandingly tolerant people. One of our great characteristics is that we have welcomed millions of people here from all over the world. By and large, they are treated with dignity, with great decency and great respect by the majority of Australians. I hope that that will always continue to be the case. These are the sentiments of not only One Nation but also our Prime Minister on 10 December 1996. Pauline Hanson's One Nation knows that the majority of Australians are decent people who are only too willing to give another Aussie a fair go. Yet here we are spending $15 million in the 1999-2000 budget on this commission to deal with a problem that the Prime Minister himself tells us is a small issue.The funds would be better expended in our health system on cancer, diabetes, asthma or dermatitis research and treatment facilities. These areas require funding to save and support the lives of thousands of ailing Australians. Our politicians act as if they have a bottomless pit of money to direct to the social elite and to their cosmopolitan ideals. In her new book, The Great Divide, Katherine Betts discusses that liberal cosmopolitans have a sincere concern for international humanitarianism. They delight in travelling to Paris, New York and Bangkok and in impressing their neighbours with their new found sophistication. They distance themselves from their own origins by attributing selfishness and racism to the parochials. Katherine Betts asks the following question:. . . how many times have we felt obligated through social pressures to watch our language or change the subject to avoid taboos that the new class have constructed around the questions of immigration and race?Like most of the working class—that is, the new working class poor and those on support benefits—it is a desperate struggle to prioritise their most finite resource—cash. Mainstream Australians are hurting badly and every householder knows the necessity to prioritise their spending. There are many members of our community having difficulty affording school uniforms and shoes for their children or new tyres for their old cars. There are many homeless Australians who cannot find support accommodation and who are forced to suffer intractable poverty, yet politicians are still spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on this bureaucratic, top-heavy instrument of government.Hasties Law, named after a British socialist, states:The incidence of alleged racism in a given society will vary in direct proportion to the number of people handsomely paid to find it. I suggest that Australian taxpayers are spending an inordinate amount of money through the commission to address a small percentage of our population who, regardless of legislation and the efforts of those commissioners, denigrate those they perceive to be weaker and inferior to themselves. I often reflect on the diggers who came back from World War I who were proud of their country and their achievements but were nicknamed `Hoppy', `Wingy' or `Hooky', depending on whether they had lost a leg, an arm or had makeshift surgery on their face. This ability of Australians to relate in an abstract way to their adversity has in fact contributed to their ability to cope with those adversities. Thank God the commission did not exist in those times, as a victim mentality may have overshadowed what has been a part of Australian life since settlement.Australians have and always should enjoy freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of association. This has led to our uncanny ability to form enduring relationships—mateships—in times of extreme hardship. We have always enjoyed an ability in the past not to take ourselves too seriously. If the commission is to pursue the occasional discriminatory person in our society, then it should also pursue the matter in which our monopolistic, overseas controlled media frequently behave in their desire to pursue profits. These entities have ignited and poured fuel on racist stereotyping in the interests of sensationalism, of selling newspapers and of making profits. These international conglomerates, with an aim to gain market dominance, affirm in headlines across the country that the accused are guilty until they prove their innocence.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is not supporting the Australian people but creating a victim mentality and industry. The greatest threat to individual freedom of thought and speech has been the dominance of this legislative machine. I welcome the changes that dilute the power of this commission. Put decision making processes into federal magistrates courts to more thoroughly ensure that real justice can be achieved. I do not support the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as I believe the funds currently allocated to this body would be better spent saving lives, not fragile egos.In conclusion, I will support this bill but believe that it has not gone far enough. It does not solve the problems facing Australia, rather it merely sticks a bandaid over a festering sore. Economic rationalist policies have denied economic and ultimate political freedom to Australians by denying them the opportunities to secure worthwhile employment, health, housing and educational opportunities. If the government and the opposition work towards rectifying employment, health and housing, they will go a long way towards not needing the human rights commission. Solve the problems rather than treat the symptoms.13:01:008351Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I also rise to speak on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . I for one do not dismiss as easily as Senator Harris seems to the very real concerns of people with disabilities about their basic human needs to be addressed and their right to seek recourse when they are discriminated against. I think that is at the heart of this bill. This bill is one of a series of pieces of legislation the government is seeking to introduce in relation to human rights. While the bill includes many necessary reforms which the Labor opposition supports, it also has at its core what I see as a fundamental attack on the basic human rights of many members of our community, principally the disadvantaged and people with disabilities. The focus of my contribution today will be on the impact of the legislation for people with disabilities. The awarding of the costs rule, the application of court fees and the commencement of the restructuring of HREOC will erect massive financial and administrative barriers in the paths of people with disabilities seeking recourse for discrimination. While the bill does provide for enforceable decisions, at the same time it diminishes access to, and affordability of, justice for people with disabilities. The real impact of this bill will be to reduce their capacity to exercise their rights. Since the coalition government's election in 1996, justice related services have consistently been downgraded. The Family Court, legal aid, tribunal and family service programs have all suffered. The full extent of these staggering cutbacks can be measured in dollar terms: the Howard government has cut an astonishing total of $400 million from services that directly assist Australians accessing justice. In addition, people with disabilities have faced a two-pronged attack. Since 1996, in addition to the general justice service cutbacks that affect them, people with disabilities have faced a constant barrage of discriminatory human rights policies and have seen their support services grossly underfunded. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 represents another example of the coalition government diminishing the rights and opportunities available to people with disabilities.The bill seeks to reform the functions, structure and complaint handling mechanisms of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It also responds to the High Court decision in the 1995 Brandy case that found that HREOC, as a non-judicial body, did not have the constitutional power to finally determine disputes. While the Labor opposition welcomes moves to address the issues that emerge from the Brandy case, many other sections of the bill will severely limit the ability of people with disabilities who are facing acts of discrimination within our community to access justice. The requirement to pay up-front court fees and the risk of an adverse costs order will not enhance, promote or protect the human rights of people with disabilities in Australia. On the contrary, their rights will be severely reduced and the real fears associated with mounting legal challenges against big business and government departments will be compounded. The inability of people with disabilities to afford the costs associated with lodging discrimination complaints and the possibility they may be the subject of an adverse costs order will mean that they may often choose to put up with the discrimination rather than risk everything they own. As a result, the Disability Discrimination Act will become an inadequate and unaffordable source of protection for them.Australia has a proud human rights record, and successive Labor governments have sought to strengthen and reaffirm that commitment. The Whitlam Labor government introduced the Sexual Discrimination Act 1974 and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The Hawke Labor government introduced the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, and the Keating government introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The coalition, on the other hand, has consistently sought to turn back progress when it comes to discrimination and access issues for people with disabilities. The recent prescription of various state acts from the Disability Discrimination Act by the federal Attorney-General's office without so much as token consultation with community groups or individuals clearly highlights this government's attitudes towards people with disabilities. This government is more intent on rewarding big business with gold medals than legislating to ensure that access and transport requirements of people with disabilities are not simply left to the whim or the social conscience of the provider.Advocacy programs for people with disabilities are also under threat from the coalition government, under the guise of the National Disability Advocacy Program review. Despite the final recommendations of the review only recently being made public, advocacy groups are already expressing concern. It appears the intention of the review is to reduce the number of advocacy organisations available to assist people and to divert the remaining services away from providing systemic advocacy—the very kind of discrimination cases that receive legal aid funding, as the outcome can affect the wider population. In addition, the coalition government recently included several new outcomes in the program funding contracts of numerous community organisations assisting people with disabilities. These organisations are now required to seek out their own revenue, to reduce their financial dependence on the department and to alert the department to any contentious issues that may generate negative media interest prior to the issues being made public. Clearly, these outcomes will only divert resources away from where they are most needed and reduce the level of advocacy services available for people with disabilities.Let me turn to the costs rule. The main criticism of this piece of legislation from a disability perspective centres on the potential impact of the Federal Court's costs rule and court fees. I have received numerous submissions and letters from community groups representing people with disabilities, and from members of the public with disabilities, concerning the potential impact this legislation will have on them. The introduction of court fees and a costs rule effectively silences those members of our community who are on a low income and are seeking to pursue a discrimination claim. Given that the majority of people with disabilities are on low or fixed incomes, an act to impose financial barriers on the prosecution of discrimination claims will disproportionately affect them.A single person over 21 on a disability support pension receives just $366.50 and a member of a couple receives $305.90. This is barely enough to live on, let alone pay Federal Court costs if you have a discrimination case you wish to proceed with. Despite the fact that the awarding of costs has never previously been a feature of the handling of discrimination cases, under this legislation, even if an applicant has an arguable case and loses, they may still have to pay thousands of dollars in costs to the other party.The Disability Discrimination Act is different from other race and gender discrimination laws, or, indeed, any other law, in that it actually allows for discrimination if the respondent can show that the elimination of the discrimination would cause them unjustifiable hardship, generally in a financial sense. When lodging discrimination complaints, people with disabilities are in a position whereby they not only have to prove that discrimination has occurred under the DDA but must also be able to rebut the respondent's claim of causing unjustifiable hardship. For example, under the proposed legislation, a complainant might successfully prove that discrimination in law has occurred yet still have the costs of both parties awarded against him or her. This would occur if the respondent were able to convince the court that adhering to the DDA would cause them to suffer unjustifiable hardship.The uniqueness of the unjustifiable hardship clause creates far greater uncertainty in disability discrimination law than in any other area of law. The ability of a complainant to accurately assess the viability of their complaint succeeding is practically non-existent when the unjustifiable hardship component is factored into the equation. Very few people would risk the possibility of having costs awarded against them when the outcome of their case is so uncertain.Systemic, wholesale discrimination is exactly the kind of discrimination people with disabilities are facing every day of their lives. Under this legislation, however, it will rarely be challenged simply because people with disabilities will be too frightened to take the associated risks. Despite assurances from both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister that people who cannot afford to pay will not be required to pay their own or the other side's costs if a case were lost, people with disabilities, their advocacy groups and the opposition remain unconvinced. The Federal Court is a particularly costly and formal forum and has the potential to intimidate many people with disabilities to the point of exclusion. The existence of up-front court fees, coupled with the potential for an adverse costs order, will prove an impossible barrier for people with disabilities accessing the courts and tribunals.Under current guidelines, applicants have to pay only a nominal fee when lodging a complaint. If this legislation is passed, many will have to pay full Federal Court fees, averaging $3,200, if the matter ultimately goes to hearing and a minimum of $505 if the matter is resolved through conciliation. For a single day hearing, the lodgement fees, service fees, setting down fees, witness fees and hearing fees can total as much as $3,000. Many people, including the majority of people with disabilities, quite simply do not have that kind of money to spend.Only people on very low incomes are eligible for legal aid, which in some states is pegged at $12,000 for discrimination cases. Bearing in mind that most Federal Court actions are defended at a cost well above $12,000, even those people with disabilities accessing legal aid may still be left exposed to cover debilitating costs. As I understand it, a number of jurisdictions will not even consider legal aid funding for discrimination matters.Australia must retain an adequately funded, independent and accessible national human rights body. HREOC has a fundamental role in protecting the rights of all Australians—in particular, people with disabilities. HREOC was established to stem the rise of discrimination across our society. By slashing the funding available to it, the coalition has seriously undermined its function. HREOC's own annual report contains a series of criticisms in relation to the government's discrimination reform agenda.While HREOC welcomes the proposed strengthening of its educational function, commission representatives expressed grave concerns about some aspects of this legislation which, in their view, adversely impact upon the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the body. Former president of HREOC Sir Ronald Wilson issued a press release stating:At a time of great need for restating the values of inclusion, non-discrimination and tolerance in Australia, these cuts will mean the Commission will be unable to work at its current level.Interestingly enough, Sir Ronald's position as president was abolished just six weeks after he made those comments. The Howard government has reduced funding for the commission from the $20.5 million provided in the 1996-97 financial year to $17.9 million in the 1997-98 financial year and $12.3 million in the 1998-99 financial year.As a direct result of the funding cuts, the commission's work force has been slashed by one-third, from 180 staff to just 120. Any organisation suffering a reduction in funding to the tune of nearly 50 per cent, coupled with a one-third culling of its staff, would note a reduction in the number of cases it is in a position to deal with. This is precisely what is happening at HREOC, as the bulk of the commission's ongoing inquiry work has been abandoned in order for it to meet its statutory obligations to conciliate complaints. This direct, unashamed attack on the funding, resources and, therefore, ability of an institution established to monitor, protect and educate all Australians in antidiscrimination issues is, in my view, beyond contempt.As I previously mentioned, this piece of legislation is just one part of a series of reforms the government plans for human rights in Australia. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 outlines further reforms for HREOC. That piece of legislation proposes to abolish the five specific commissioners, including the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, and to replace them with three deputy presidents with responsibility for several jurisdictions. By abolishing the position of a dedicated federal Disability Discrimination Commissioner, the coalition government has reaffirmed its ignorance and indifference on discrimination issues relating to people with disabilities. People with disabilities suffer forms of discrimination unlike—and unknown to—the wider community. Even the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Chris Sidoti, criticised the government's reform agenda and confirmed that people with disabilities will be sorely affected by the abolition of that office when he said:The loss of a specialist position devoted solely to disability discrimination issues comes only five years after the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the establishment of the position. Much has been accomplished during those years but equality for Australians with a disability remains at best, unfinished. The case for maintaining a specialist position remains compelling.People with disabilities also vigorously argue that discrimination cases involving them are not only complex but also particularly widespread. A dedicated commissioner focusing on disability discrimination issues is absolutely imperative given the volume of discrimination people with disabilities must endure on a regular basis. For example, gender and race discrimination cases are generally more straightforward than disability discrimination cases. Gender discrimination cases involving a woman applies to all women, whereas a discrimination case involving a person with a disability might arrive at differing outcomes depending on the actual disability involved—mental disability, paraplegia, hearing impairment, et cetera—as well as the physical environment. These cases involve complicated and often multiple issues, and the interests of people with disabilities would be best served by having a dedicated specialist commissioner.The late Elizabeth Hastings was Australia's first and only dedicated Disability Discrimination Commissioner. All of her life Elizabeth was concerned about the issues surrounding disability. She knew that the rights of people with disabilities flowed from justice and fundamental human rights. Elizabeth's last written article was published in the Financial Review. In it she wrote:The protection of our human rights, our experience of our rights being protected because we are as human and valued as all people, goes to the heart of our belonging as human beings.The Howard government's decision to combine the roles of the commissioners has sent one message to people with disabilities: that the advancement and protection of their rights are not a priority for this government.In conclusion, in a modern society it is inappropriate that a person enforcing his or her fundamental human rights could be subject to the risks of litigation, particularly where the risks between the parties are so disproportionate. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 does not afford equitable and accessible justice to people with disabilities. The bill does not protect the basic rights of people with disabilities. If effectively diminishes those rights and protects the offenders. As foreshadowed by my colleague Senator Bolkus, the Labor opposition will be moving amendments to address the inadequacies that this legislation contains for people with disabilities. I hope that the Senate ensures that the bill is amended to protect and enhance the rights of all people with disabilities.13:18:008354Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 is the first piece of legislation which I have carriage of as the Australian Democrats spokesperson on law, justice and human rights. As honourable senators will now realise, one of the central planks on which the Australian Democrats was founded was the respect and promotion of human rights. In my capacity as the Democrats spokesperson on law, justice and human rights, I look forward to continuing a role—it is what we may now modestly call a tradition—in the Senate of representation and emphasis on human rights.I wish to begin my contribution today by quoting from the statements made by my colleague Senator Murray in 1996 when the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 was considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. Back then Senator Murray had this to say in the minority report:The modern principles of democracy have long abandoned the simple notion that the mandate of the ballot box, legitimises all government action. Democratic principles also require the respect for human rights and the protection of minorities against the possible coercive and oppressive power of the majority, the powerful, the wealthy or just simply the strong. It is what distinguishes democratic and relatively free nations from that of oppressive and tyrannical ones. It is in essence, a system of checks and balances on the potential abuses of any government or any sector of the community against a vulnerable group in the community that we are talking about.At a national level at least, it has been recognised that equality should be afforded to persons regardless of their gender, race or disability. The Australian Democrats believe that this protection should be extended to that of sexuality and age in the immediate future.I would like to add my support to those sentiments expressed by my colleague Senator Murray no less than three years ago. There could be no greater example of those sentiments expressed by Senator Murray three years ago than the human tragedy and political malevolence that has unfolded in East Timor. Australia need only now look at our nearest neighbour to see the consequences of democracy stifled and human rights denied. If for no other reason—but, for some, many reasons—East Timor and its courageous people exemplify why, in comparatively peaceful Australia, we must be ever vigilant and never complacent about the state of human rights in our own country.While it is true that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission performs many functions under its foundation legislation, no function is as important as its capacity to receive, manage and process complaints of human rights violations. To a large extent, it is the capacity to resolve the conflict of human rights with human behaviour that is at the core of what this commission is all about.In 1996 the Attorney-General in his second reading speech outlined the practical implications of the 1995 High Court's Brandy decision. There has now been four years of effective constitutional deadlock with that decision paralysing the present structures of the commission. This deadlock is not merely an administrative one; it goes to the core of that central function that is the human rights commission's existence—to enforce decisions concerning the abuse of human rights and to see that ultimately a form of justice prevails.Antidiscrimination law, human rights law or its other manifestation of equal opportunity law is necessary in Australia because not everyone is equal in this country. While the pretences of working-class equality have pervaded Australian mythology, the experience for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, people with disabilities, women, the young and people in the gay and lesbian community has been anything but equal. Since 1975 we as a nation have acknowledged through this parliament that no-one should be disadvantaged on the grounds of their race.In 1986 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was established as Australia's human rights watchdog. If our democracy is to continue to function, we should—and I emphasise `should'—place great emphasis on institutions and organisations which monitor and protect human rights. Would anyone doubt the valuable work and the contribution that organisations such as Amnesty International have made in alerting the world about, and then coordinating action against, nation states which, for undemocratic motives, abuse the human rights of their citizens.In the stark contrast that East Timor presently provides, it could be convenient to suggest that on comparative terms Australia has little with which to concern itself. We would, I think, be in error if we assumed that human rights abuses were just about violence, discrimination or vilification in the way we have seen graphically portrayed in Dili, although they certainly do include those things. But they also include ignoring people and not catering for their needs. They include the deliberate omission or marginalisation of specific groups on specific grounds: be it the mandatory detention of young people in the Northern Territory or in my home state of Western Australia; be it the appalling and disparate social indications such as health, education and housing for indigenous peoples; be it the mandatory immigration detention—in some cases for years—of infants because of inappropriate procedures in dealing with immigration applications; or be it the differing pay rates for young people just because they are young and, more to the point, the assertion that discrimination on the basis of their age is actually good for employment prospects. In the view of the Australian Democrats discrimination can never be justified on economic grounds. To quote my colleague Senator Bartlett, `we live in a society, not in an economy'.Be it the denial of superannuation benefits to same sex couples or unequal ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual males, or be it indifference to people with mobility or sensory impediment and their full participation in social life, these too are abuses of human rights and they form part of the continuum that means that our fellow human beings are treated with less than the respect they deserve and to which they are entitled, particularly because they are Australians.It is a sad indictment of our political system that those groups which seem to have the loudest and best funded voices are the ones which appear to have the ear of government. We hardly need to be reminded that for this government it is large multinational private corporations which presently have that ear. HREOC exists as an ear for those in society who are not necessarily loud or well funded. The recent cuts to HREOC have served only to limit that role. It is now becoming clear through questioning at estimates hearings exactly what these cuts will mean to Australia's human rights watchdog. In real terms, the cuts will exponentially increase the delays in the handling of complaints of discrimination. There will necessarily be an abandonment of major research and development projects directed at reducing and eliminating discrimination against, and abuse of, those classes of persons protected by federal human rights and antidiscrimination law. There will be an abandonment of or, at the very least, a significant reduction in public educational activities directed towards reducing and eliminating discrimination against and abuse of those classes of persons protected by federal human rights and antidiscrimination law.The Australian Democrats condemn the government for its cuts to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Further, this week the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee will report to the Senate on the government's amendments to the human rights commission. I will not pre-empt the committee's findings except to say that in my view, and in the view of the Australian Democrats, I hope that the committee will find that the efficiency of HREOC is central to the functioning of our democracy. Be that as it may, while this is indeed a government bill, the Australian Democrats acknowledge that this is not a bill of the government's making.The constitutional validity of HREOC has had a long and chequered history. Until the High Court's Brandy decision in 1995, the system—known as the tripartite structure for discrimination complaints of conciliation—in an inquiry by the commission and a possible de novo hearing in the Federal Court, met with significant criticism on the grounds that it was inefficient and prone to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the distress of the complainant. This situation was summarised by the former member for Kennedy Mr Rob Hulls, who described that process, as it then existed, in the following way:To my mind, the whole process is an abuse of human rights.In light of these concerns, the question of the status of commission determinations was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 1990. The majority committee report recommended that HREOC decisions be allowed for registration of decisions in the Federal Court. In accordance with that majority report, the Labor government introduced the Sex Discrimination and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1992 which, among other things, amended the newly enacted Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Human Rights Act, the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act to allow registration of the commission's determinations in the Federal Court. The whole intention of amendments was to have the effect as if a HREOC decision was an order of the Federal Court.The High Court had other views when the constitutional validity was tested in the Brandy case, and I think it is important to summarise what happened in that case. In the Brandy decision the enforcement procedures of the 1992 act were the subject of challenge. Following a complaint lodged with the human rights commission pursuant to the Racial Discrimination Act, the commission found that Mr Brandy had breached the RDA and had made a determination including the payment of damages. The determination was duly registered in the Federal Court. Mr Brandy challenged the constitutional validity of the determination on the basis that it was an exercise in judicial power which may be conferred upon only a court and not an administrative body such as HREOC. The High Court unanimously found that the provisions within the RDA which allowed determinations of the commission to be enforced through registration in the Federal Court offended the separation of powers and was thereby unconstitutional.It has been important to take some time to point to this chequered history because, as I stated earlier, clearly there has been no malevolence from the government in this bill that is presently before the chamber. The Australian Democrats, because of the constitutional imperative, are convinced of that fact and, indeed, we are convinced of the urgency of the bill.The fact remains that there is no place for determinations to go now, other than to a Commonwealth court. Having said that, the Australian Democrats remain conscious of the consequences of having matters before courts. We are ever mindful of the principles of access to justice and, on that basis, we have made representations to the government concerning the implications of those access issues. In contrast with the Australian Labor Party, we will look creatively and constructively at the government's proposal to establish a federal magistracy, certainly to the extent that this new and emergency jurisdiction will reduce costs and the delays that exist in the present Commonwealth court system. Honourable senators, we each carry the responsibility of working towards the dignity of our fellow Australians. The human rights commission is an honourable institution that is arriving at the next stage in its evolution.13:30:008357Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 makes some amendments to that law which affects the human rights of Australians. It is made necessary, amongst other things, by the decision in Brandy's case, which said that the system as it used to exist could not stand with chapter III of the Constitution. So this is a means of giving people an ability to vindicate rights that they have, and that is as it ought to be.Senator Greig was talking about going to the courts. The idea under the old system was that people should be able to vindicate their rights in a way that was quick and fair, of course, and of reasonable cost. Hopefully, that will not be lost when it goes to the Federal Court.I think that Australia may gain by matters going to the Federal Court, because there is need for a jurisprudence at the level of the Federal Court to tell Australians what their rights are. In contrast to comparable countries, Australia is not well equipped with legislation. I think England now has a human rights act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights. So it has legislation. The United States, of course, has its rights constitutionally guaranteed. Canada has an act of parliament, and so does New Zealand.So Australia is alone amongst like countries in the sense that it has not got legislation as specific as the legislation that operates in those countries. But it has got other great institutions which look at legislation in a way that I think could well bear emulation in other places. For example, may I refer to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, a fine committee which looks at legislation against certain tests, which are really tests that go to the issue of civil liberties. Can I also mention the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which is now well chaired by Senator Coonan, who is here, which again looks to see whether or not legislation—or in this case, delegated legislation—accords with those principles of justice which any decent community should think were correct.While I am mentioning people in that context, I see the Deputy Clerk, Anne Lynch, and also Mr Peter O'Keefe, who have served with those committees. They will attest to the very effective work that those two committees have done over the years. It does show the use that parliament can make of its committees and the approach that the parliament can take, if it is so minded, towards seeing that it as a legislature ensures that the laws that Australian makes are in accordance with those human rights that we want. I think you, Madam Acting Deputy President Crowley—since we are mentioning people—were a member of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I think you and the Deputy Clerk, Anne Lynch, went off to England. I think it was the first all women's committee that this parliament sent overseas. I think Senator Patterson also joined that group.What I want to illustrate by the address I have given so far is that parliament itself should never forget that it has obligations to human rights and obligations to see that the legislation that comes out of this place is in accordance with the rule of law, which is really what we are talking about when we talk about human rights. Rights are a concept that must be married to the concept of the rule of law—that overarching body of values and principles by which we all live and which, when it is all said and done, the world has seen the need for throughout history.I would just like to go down a list of codes that have, over the centuries, attempted to do what in a small way we are attempting to do here. If you look back over the millenniums there are the matters about which we used to learn in history, such as the Code of Hammurabi; the Ten Commandments, which is a classic one for a country like ours; the Charter of Cyrus the Great; the Code of Manu in the west; the Magna Carta; the Koran; the Bill of Rights; and the Declaration of Independence. The Atlantic Charter was made during the war. After the war, in 1948, we had the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1966 there was the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There was the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and so on. The concept of enforcing human rights is embedded in our history and, hopefully, embedded in our souls and our minds. This legislation we are talking about today is absolutely essential.People say that human rights are a sort of add-on and that they are not terribly important. Not only are they important but they are the essence of what it is to be human. In my youth, which was some time ago now, like all people of that time I was interested in cowboy stories. There was one novel I remember reading called The Ox-Bow Incident by Walter Van Tilburg Clark. It was about a lynching.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It was a very good movie, too.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—It was a very good movie, as Senator Schacht says. The story went that people were apprehended by a lynch party—a group of cowboys—who then, on the most convincing of evidence, as they saw it, hung them. They carried out justice as they saw it ought to be carried out. Of course, it turned out that they were wrong. They had applied lynch law instead of going through the processes. People often condemn those processes, but they are absolutely essential for people to go through if they are to get justice. A terrible injustice was done.The other story, which more people may have read, was To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Another good movie. It won an Academy Award.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Another good movie. Again, it shows what human rights are all about and the processes you must go through if you are going to get justice and fairness.I think we can all go back over our lives and remember the injustices done to us and, no doubt, the injustices we have done to others. That is the sort of thing that remains in the mind rather than whether you earned a particular sum of money in a particular period, although that of course is important. It is in that context that I say that although we discuss in this chamber time and again, and properly so, the economic forces that rule the world, we do not spend enough time on looking at the forces of justice that should prevail around the world and should prevail in this society.This parliament always has new issues to look at. One of those issues is determining whether there are any invasions of human rights in relation to matters that are contracted out from government. We have a mindset that matters run by the Public Service, matters that are in the public hands, are subject to scrutiny by parliament. But a problem has arisen with contracting out services. I will give an illustration of that: contracting out the detention of people—I would say the imprisonment—under the Migration Act. That is now in private hands and the contract is not as available as it should be.I have discussed this matter by letter with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, who has done much work in this place in relation to Amnesty International. He is known for his appetite to see that civil rights are properly exercised. He has offered to show me the contract, as long as I keep it private. That is a generous offer but an offer that cannot be usefully accepted where you want such matters to be made available to the public. He says it is not so much the commercial-in-confidence point that he wants to take but rather the issue that, if contracts are available to the public, then there might be all sorts of legal actions, with people being sued, and it is all likely to get out of hand.I do think that contracts should be made available to the public—it is the taxpayers' money that is involved—so that people's rights and, in particular, their human rights can be protected, in the sense that parliamentarians should be able to see whether contractors are carrying out the contracts as they should be. One of the ways to do this is for parliamentarians to visit the places where we have others incarcerated. But it is also proper that contracts—from now on, in any event—should be made on the basis that they be available to be scrutinised publicly. In any event, I thank Mr Ruddock for the offers he has made in that regard.The bill itself has all the best intentions, but one of the problems—a very big problem which has been spoken about by previous speakers in this debate—is the issue of how all members of the public can make use of Commonwealth legislation to help vindicate their rights. We have the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986, the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975—a seminal act in this area—the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act, of which Senator Evans so eloquently spoke before. It is easy enough to make legislation; the real issue is how we can make the provisions of those acts available to the people who might want to exercise them.We come back to one of the great issues in this parliament, and that is the issue of legal aid. The taxpayers' dollar must be spent jealously, and we must have due regard to the priorities that are to be given. But, if we do not devote more resources to enabling people to exercise their rights, the whole structure will be available only to those who can afford it and, as has been said by speakers before me, that is not a good thing.It is time that this parliament exercised its mind on how to get that done. We need more money and more resources, yes; but we must also see how things can be done much more expeditiously in this electronic age. We really ought to look at it. We have to protect human rights in terms of the legislation that comes out of this place. We have to ensure that the actual provisions that are made do not insult the rights that people have. We have to make those rights available to them.We as a nation have taken a very big step over the last few days in terms of vindicating universal human rights. That, of course, as has been mentioned in this debate on a couple of occasions, has to do with the issue of East Timor. If we do not believe in human rights and the rule of law, and if we do not attach the importance that we should to those issues, then of course we should not go to East Timor. We have chosen to do so because we consider that there are basic values, entitlements and issues that should surround the lives of us all and that, if they are to be prejudiced, there comes a time when we have got to do something about them.Australia does not have the protections it should have in its formal structures and laws. On the other hand, there is a culture in the community which is very protective of rights. Again, the East Timor situation has shown that. During the committee stage of the debate, I may have more to say about these issues. This bill presents an opportunity for a debate which should take place again and again. Parliament is most admired for its vindication of rights and for the rule of law. It is good to see that this is an occasion on which we can keep that tradition going.13:50:008360Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . Again, as others from the opposition have indicated, in general we support the bill, but with a number of very important amendments which we trust the government will be able to support. The bill, as others have said, has had a long gestation period brought about by decisions of courts, even going to the High Court in the so-called Brandy case, and it goes back to the previous government. There have been Senate committees of inquiry—references committees and legislation committees. The bill was considered before the parliament was prorogued for the last election.The government has again returned with a bill which deals with a number of human rights matters. As I say, some of these matters were previously brought about on the initiative of the then Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, and the government has added some of its own. The first one is, of course, the Brandy case, in which the High Court found that the structure and operation of a part of the HREOC was unconstitutional, and therefore amendments had to be made. This matter was being dealt with by the then Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, when the previous Labor government went out of office. I must say that Mr Lavarch, in his period as Attorney-General, made significant decisions in a number of areas aimed at improving human rights in this country and also arguing for human rights values in the wider international community. There is much that he can be proud of in his period as Attorney-General.As I say, the opposition supports the bill overall but with reservations. We are proposing a number of amendments. A very important amendment which my colleagues have mentioned concerns the change in the structure of HREOC to abolish the five specialist commissioners that are now available to deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander matters, social justice, human rights and disability, racial and sexual discrimination and to replace them with three deputy presidents with responsibility for human rights and disability discrimination, racial discrimination and social justice, and sex discrimination and equal opportunity. There is a less specific and broader description of their responsibilities. We will be moving amendments opposing that change.We believe that there is a very strong case for having specialist commissioners. It identifies in the public's mind that there is a remedy through HREOC to have issues they are concerned about dealt with. We believe HREOC still has a very important part to play in educating the public about the rights they have. It has been a new aspect in Australia's political, constitutional and legal history over the past 20 years to have an ever-expanding focus on human rights. I do not think anybody would deny the fact that it is long overdue for the public to have the right to have remedy in the law through an appropriate tribunal and then remedy to the court when they have been harshly done by.Some have argued that this is social engineering, and there has been much criticism by conservatives that this is opening up a Pandora's box that leads to unnecessary litigation and disputation in the community—and that it encourages minority groups to launch vexatious legal cases to tie up the courts and disturb the longstanding legal and social arrangements we have in this community.That is not a view the opposition has. Over the last 20-odd years or more, the Labor Party, in government and in opposition, has argued that, if we really want a democratic society, those who are disadvantaged and do not have access to the normal structures of our community should have the right to have their case heard.Occasionally, those decisions of HREOC have led to consternation amongst conservative elements of our community. This has led to the government being pressured to get rid of the specialist commissioners who are often seen as being at the forefront of taking decisions that have affected longstanding traditions, conventions and operations in society. Therefore, we think it would be a backward step in the evolution of human rights in this country to have these specialist commissioners removed. I do not say that it would be a calamitous step to remove them and replace them with three deputy presidents with a more broadly defined role, but I think it would be unnecessary—and certainly the opposition thinks so.The basic issue that we are arguing about in this bill and have argued about in related bills over the last 20 years is really that of access to justice. We accept that if you lack financial resources in this community your access to justice will be greatly curtailed and limited. In the late eighties and early nineties I was a member of the Senate legal and constitutional committee chaired by Senator Cooney which looked at the issue of the high cost of justice in Australia.SF4COONEYSenator Cooney—To be fair, you're the one who got the issue of the cost of justice going.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I thank Senator Cooney for his interjection that I played some role. Sometimes lawyers have a rather populist role in exposing the issues of the high cost of justice—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Not populist, popular.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Populist and popular issues about the operation of the legal system in this country. Because of its high costs and its restricted nature it often disadvantaged ordinary Australians.Some of the issues we raised initially have now been dealt with by both sides of politics, and we have now seen a much more genuine move to reform and change the structure of the legal system in this country so that ordinary Australians have access to justice without fear of being crippled financially by the cost. I notice that it is mentioned in this bill that the cost of justice per day—to take a Federal Court case—is $2,000. So one could not imagine any ordinary Australian—average citizen, average wages—faced with the cost of a $2,000 a day hearing in the Federal Court. It would be a big disincentive to take your matter up.The opposition has made comments in the Senate minority report about how we think that could be better dealt with rather than just allowing the sledgehammer of high cost of legal fees to affect the ability of people to seek remedy, quite rightly, in the court. We also point out that we have complained strongly that in the last three years this government has substantially reduced the money available for legal aid under the guise that this is a state responsibility. We believe that already there are examples—I know it is the case in my own area of veterans affairs—of ordinary citizens being denied the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to the Federal Court, because they did not have access to legal aid funding. The cutback that the federal government has imposed on the legal aid system, now running into hundreds of millions of dollars, is one of the more disgraceful episodes on its record.Debate interrupted. Ministerial Arrangements836214:00:008362Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator Robert Hill, the Minister for Environment and Heritage and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, will be absent from the Senate today, tomorrow and Wednesday. Senator Hill is in Warsaw attending the preparatory meeting of the Fifth Council of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change which will be held in November. During Senator Hill's absence, I shall be the Minister representing the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade. Senator Minchin will represent the Acting Minister for Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.Distinguished Visitors83628362The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from France led by the President of the National Assembly, Mr Laurent Fabius. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and entrust that your visit will be both informative and enjoyable. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I propose to invite the President to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice836283628362Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, in his role as acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the minister aware of the assessment by the International Red Cross that East Timor has basically been destroyed, that several hundred thousand East Timorese are internally displaced and that a further 200,000 have fled or been forcibly removed to West Timor and neighbouring islands? Are these figures consistent with Australia's own assessments?8362Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We do have advice from the International Committee of the Red Cross and we are, obviously, endeavouring to consult with others to obtain an accurate assessment of the picture on the ground. There are certainly a significant number of internally displaced persons within East Timor who have gone across into refugee camps in West Timor. The number is estimated to be in the region of 140,000. There is also, as one would expect, a significant number of persons who are away from their own normal location inside East Timor.We certainly support the visit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs Ogata, to West Timor, and we welcome her intention to deploy staff in that area. The government is certainly very disturbed by reports of the situation in West Timor, particularly reports that relief agency staff still face difficulties moving about freely. There are some signs that the security situation in East Timor has stabilised over the past few days. In that context, I particularly refer to the re-establishment of a presence in East Timor by the Red Cross.8362Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam Deputy President, I thank the minister for his answer and ask a supplementary question. What is the government's estimate of the number of East Timorese who have been killed in the 21 days since the 30 August ballot?8362Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not aware of any precise estimate of the numbers who might have been killed or injured in that period but, quite clearly, anyone who has witnessed the television footage would be aware that there has been a very significant loss of life in the area. We are very concerned to ensure that responsibility for that is accepted and that, with the multinational force ensuring that there is an early and hopefully immediate cessation, any further killing and injuring is brought to a halt and as quickly as possible. I do not think that I can add further in terms of estimates of numbers but, again, I do not think that it makes a great deal of difference in the sense that we are all aware that the numbers are very substantial. (Time expired)83638363Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate of how the coalition is expanding the range of communications services to regional Australia? How will the $1 billion social bonus from the further sale of Telstra build on the tremendous progress made by the $1.4 billion from the sale of the first tranche? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals and what would be the impact if these were implemented?8363Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Yes, the federal government is certainly very much in the business of expanding the range of communications services to regional Australia, and that is why the $1 billion social bonus package arising out of the further sale of Telstra was critically important. It provided us with a capacity to deliver a whole range of very important programs and services in regional and rural Australia. The sale of the first tranche of Telstra was again instrumental in enabling us to establish the Natural Heritage Trust, which is receiving $1.149 billion for the expansion of environmental protection work. Included in the allocation of funds from that first tranche was $250 million for the Networking the Nation program. I am sure senators will be aware that this is the program that Labor has consistently said ought to be closed down and was not achieving any useful purpose. As recently as 6 September, Mr McMullan described it as nothing more than a slush fund. So that is really what Labor thinks of that particular program.Madam Deputy President, in excess of 100 initiatives have been funded out of that program over the last three years or so, including programs to bring about regional New South Wales agribusiness online; to approve the delivery of health care services to remote communities; to ensure the delivery of online information to country libraries; to provide cheap online access to farming communities; and the list goes on. That is why it is so surprising that the Labor Party do not seem to see these programs as beneficial. They simply wanted to close it down, put the money in their pockets and establish their own genuine slush fund. This one is at arm's length. I know you are not familiar with the concept, but the fact is that, if there is one thing that Senator Schacht might like to claim responsibility for, it was during the debate on the privatisation of Telstra when he actually insisted on details to ensure that that occurred. I know that it just does not square with your political psyche. You cannot imagine how anything could be arm's length, how these decisions could be made objectively and how services could be delivered to rural and regional Australia, but they are being delivered and they are very effective. That is why it is very disappointing indeed that Labor continues to bury its head in the sand.The sale of the second tranche of Telstra will of course provide funds for untimed local calls in remote Australia; $120 million to extend SBS and eradicate television black spots; $36 million for local Internet points of presence; $20 million to improve telecommunications for remote and isolated island communities; $70 million for building additional rural networks; $45 million for local government projects; $28 million to expand mobile phone coverage along 11 major national highways; and $70 million for regional rural transaction centres.Madam Deputy President, it is a very impressive list of initiatives. These areas were neglected for the 13 years of the Labor Party's rule and this provided a unique opportunity to come up with funds. That is why it is again simply a matter of great disappointment to those in rural areas to hear Mr Beazley say, when accompanying the Labor Party's current spokesperson Ms Kernot, `Well, the purpose of coming to visit Central Queensland is basically Cheryl.' In other words, he was not up there interested in finding out what was going on. He was not interested in listening or helping. He was simply there going through the political motions. Of course, Cheryl Kernot herself, when explaining why she had not managed to get to Rockhampton in a very long time, said, `I've got to balance the responsibility of talking to regional communities with looking after a marginal seat.' That is the level of commitment. (Time expired)83648364Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Alston in his capacity as minister representing the foreign minister. Does the minister recall the words of the recent military commander in Dili, Colonel Suratman, on the 30 May Sunday program when he said:If the pro-independents do win, it won't just be the Government of Indonesia that has to deal with what follows. The UN and Australia are also going to have to solve the problem. And well if this does happen then there'll be no winners, everything is going to be destroyed. East Timor won't exist as it does now. It'll be much worse than 23 years ago.How does the government regard this statement and the many similar threats by pro-integrationist militia leaders?8364Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Madam Deputy President, we are certainly conscious of the fact that there are elements in the Indonesian military who were not supportive of the process, but there were, of course, those at the highest level, including General Wiranto and of course President Habibie, who did acknowledge that this was a very sensible step forward. It is, of course, easy with hindsight to say that one should have anticipated the reaction to the overwhelming vote in support of independence, but I do not think anyone seriously expected anything like the magnitude of the violence that has occurred since that time. Certainly the information available to the government—much of it conflicting—was the basis on which we went forward with that process.We were always concerned that there was a serious risk of violence, but certainly we did not anticipate the level which ultimately occurred. There are, as I say, some who have talked in those terms; there are others who have not. It is a very difficult judgement to make about what you reasonably expect, but certainly we were prepared to take the assurances provided by those at the highest levels that they would facilitate the act of self-determination and allow for the processes to proceed in the proper manner. Certainly it was always understood that there might be a role for Australia and the United Nations, and the speed with which that process has been put in place in recent times is testimony to the fact that we were certainly preparing ourselves for some eventuality of that sort.8364Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government accept that the pro-integrationist militias in East Timor have not only included a significant number of Indonesian military personnel but are in fact being effectively controlled by the TNI?8364Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not know that anyone could give you a precise answer to that question, suffice to say that the rest of the world, including the President of the United States, takes the view that the TNI, the Indonesian military, were in a position to have exercised a much greater degree of discipline than they did. From what we saw on our own televisions screens it was apparent that, even though they were sent into Dili after the event, they were basically condoning what was occurring. The extent to which people might have been militias by day and army by night will never be precisely determined, but certainly the military should now be held responsible for exercising the authority that is clearly vested in them to control the militia as much as possible. Certainly we are very concerned that they did not and that is the basis upon which subsequent events have been put in place.83648364Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. In February 1998 the Prime Minister committed the government to ensuring that Australia has a Federal Police agency which is second to none in the world. Will the minister advise the Senate of developments since the Prime Minister made that undertaking?8364Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Payne for the question. Today, with my colleague the Minister for Finance and Administration, I have announced that the government has decided to make available funding of up to a further $155 million over the next three years to the Australian Federal Police for its staffing and resource upgrade program. This reaffirms our commitment to the development of the Australian Federal Police as the Commonwealth's major instrument for law enforcement.The financial injection will enable the Federal Police Modernisation Program to continue, including the development of conditions of service for the Federal Police staff to ensure that the Federal Police attracts and retains the highest calibre of law enforcement professionals. The Federal Police has been implementing a $115 million reform program set in place by the Prime Minister and me last year. That provided an initial $65 million over three years to increase staffing levels and enable the Federal Police to become a law enforcement agency second to none. Last year the Federal Police commenced its first major recruiting in years, moving to a staffing level of 2,800. The achievements of the Federal Police since commencing the 1998 reform program have been nothing short of remarkable. Consistent with the earlier financial reforms, the injection of this new funding will be released progressively to the Federal Police. The Federal Police monitoring committee will oversight the release in stages, one of which will involve the ratification by the AIRC of a new certified agreement which is presently being negotiated.It gives me great pleasure to record this significant decision on the eve of the Federal Police's 20th anniversary of its formation in October 1979. The government is confident of the AFP being able to meet the range of law enforcement challenges in the 21st century, including illicit drugs, organised crime including sex slavery and people smuggling, corruption and money laundering. The Australian Federal Police is currently concluding negotiations on a package of service conditions proposed in this new certified agreement. I understand that during this week details of the negotiations will be settled and broadcast to all AFP personnel.Law enforcement personnel in the Federal Police are highly regarded and well qualified for their very specialised roles. Of course regrettably these levels of qualifications and skills, coupled with the professional work carried out by the Federal Police, make it not surprising that some Federal Police personnel are being poached on a fairly regular basis but we should be proud of the skills and training that we provide them with to make them so poachable. Equally, with proper remuneration packaging, the Australian Federal Police expects a reduction in the number of personnel leaving as a consequence of poaching offers. Therefore it seems appropriate that the Federal Police seek to progress moving high valued AFP personnel onto proper professional remuneration packaging.I want to commend the work of all AFP personnel and in particular take this opportunity to recognise the roles of those recently returned from East Timor. The Federal Police deployed 50 members to East Timor as part of UNAMET. As you know, Madam Deputy President, the contingent was evacuated completely last week. From my own observations in Darwin last week welcoming the Federal Police home, they have displayed considerable professionalism and courage during their time. They served UNAMET with absolute distinction and UNAMET was largely responsible for the successful completion of that historic ballot and the return of the ballot boxes. The conduct of the Federal Police under dangerous conditions has been a credit to the professionalism of the Federal Police and a recognition of Australia's dedication to the United Nations.83658365Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston in his role as acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can the minister confirm that up to 6,500 US military personnel will be in Australia over coming weeks to participate in exercise Crocodile 99? On what date did the government first formally seek United States participation in the International Force for East Timor? Did the government at any time seek the commitment of US combat troops? If so, when and how many?8365Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not in a position to provide the Senate with the details that Senator Faulkner has sought. But certainly the government does welcome the cooperation of the United States and their willingness to provide a force that will give not only logisti cal support but also in many respects long haul communications and equipment facilities. Some 200 military personnel have already been pledged in support of the INTERFET mission. We certainly value very much the commitment of the United States government to provide other ongoing intelligence assistance. I will see what more I can obtain by way of additional information, but I am not sure that some of the more detailed aspects of that question, including what might presumably have been private discussions between governments, are appropriate matters for disclosure.8366Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister has indicated that he will seek further advice. In relation to the detailed questions that I have asked the minister, I would appreciate him seeking urgent advice on those matters and reporting back to the Senate as a matter of urgency.8366Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I will do whatever can be done and should be done.83668366Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the minister to the taxation statistics published by the tax office which show a large and growing tax avoidance opportunity through small private companies. Is the minister aware that 60 per cent of private companies, with a total income of some $150 billion, do not pay any income tax? Is the minister aware that this proportion has risen from 28 per cent of all companies in 1991 to 38.5 per cent of total private company income last year? Can the minister categorically state that the government takes the clearly growing issue of tax avoidance through incorporation seriously and that before any move is made to increase the gap between the top marginal tax rate and the company tax rate the government will move to close those loopholes?8366Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Murray for that question. Senator Murray, I think the government record shows that this government takes extremely strong action in relation to people who seek to avoid their taxes. This government does not like tax bludgers and this government has taken a wide range of measures to ensure proper compliance with the tax law and to close the very wide range of loopholes that were left to us by the previous government. Let me list some of the issues which we have tackled in our term in office.We have introduced measures in this chamber to address the issue of dividends disguised as private company loans. I think many senators will recall that there was a bill passed through this chamber on that issue. We have moved on the misuse of charitable trusts to distribute funds overseas. There was a very important debate in this chamber on trust losses. It would be recalled that the Labor Party was in government for 13 years and failed to move effectively to deal with the issue of trust losses. We have moved in other areas such as franking credit trading and dividend streaming. Again, they have been other important measures brought forward by this government. There has been, and I think members of the Labor Party would be particularly aware of this, abuse of the R&D syndication.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Like those battlers in Brighton.WW4Senator KEMP—Well, the Labor Party developed an extraordinary view on that particular issue. That was quite clear. There was widespread abuse in this area, Senator Conroy, and we failed to get proper support from the Labor Party on this very important issue to close that loophole. This government has a very strong record on tackling tax avoidance. It is a record that we are proud of, but it is a record which will always require the most careful scrutiny to make sure that, as new schemes are developed, the government, where appropriate, can move to close those schemes down. Let me make it clear and give Senator Murray this assurance: this government does not like tax bludgers, and we have taken very strong action in that area.8366Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, thank you for your reply, but my question is really prospective rather than retrospective. I want to know what else you are going to do. Does the minister agree that the government has a moral duty to do all it can to close tax loopholes to provide an adequate revenue base to fund increased defence obligations before proceeding to cut health, education and social spending, as the Treasurer indicated he might do last week? Shouldn't we make tax avoiders pay their fair share before asking the sick, the young, the aged and the unemployed to pay for defence through more spending cuts?8367Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Of course the government believes that tax avoiders must pay their fair share. That is why, Senator Murray, I listed a wide range of measures. It certainly was not a complete list of the action that this government has taken to close down loopholes. In relation to future plans of the government, it would not be appropriate for me to make comment on that in this chamber, but I can assure Senator Murray and the wider community that this government will always move to ensure that people pay their fair share of tax. People have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. This government, unlike the previous government, has cracked down very seriously and savagely on tax avoidance.83678367Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Alston in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson's proposal for an international commission of inquiry into East Timor atrocities. Can the minister assure the Senate that the government will lend every support to the proposed commission of inquiry including the provision of relevant information held by Australian intelligence concerning the Indonesian military, police and militias and their chain of command?8367Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am aware of Commissioner Mary Robinson's outspoken concern on this matter, particularly not only the prospect of a United Nations commission of inquiry but even the possibility of the establishment of a war crimes tribunal. In the current circumstances, the government takes the view that these are matters that are best left until a later point in time. That is not to say that they are not matters of very considerable importance but, in the scheme of things, there are other matters that are more urgent. We should not be seen to condone any of the action that has occurred on the one hand, nor should we be seen to take steps that might be seen by some of those who are already opposed to us or those who take a negative view of Australia as simply a basis for suggesting that we are further seeking to antagonise Indonesia.Our concern of course has been very forcibly expressed at the highest levels, but we are anxious to ensure that we have the best possible working relationship with that country. We have taken steps to suspend joint exercises and training activities. We will be ready to take other action if that is necessary. But I simply say that those calls are ones that need some careful consideration. The government will take those matters on board. To the extent that we might ultimately provide intelligence information, I would have thought that that was a very sensitive issue that would require very careful consideration.83678367Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Firstly, what recognition and facilitation is being given to Xanana Gusmao and the CNRT, the government in exile, so that they can begin the long and difficult work of representing the people of East Timor from Darwin? Secondly, can the government say that all military aid, direct or indirect of any variety whatsoever, has been stopped between Australia and Indonesia?8367Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As far as Xanana Gusmao's position in Darwin is concerned, he left Jakarta and arrived in Australia on 19 September. It is the government's understanding that he plans to consult with members of the East Timorese community in Darwin. There have been suggestions by Mr Carrascalao that he might indeed seek to operate a type of government in exile from Darwin, but the government is not aware of that firm proposal or intention. Certainly, his mere presence in Darwin does not constitute a government in exile. He will obviously play a key role in the UNAMET process and arrangements to be established by the UN under the tripartite agreement for East Timor's transition to independence.It is perfectly understandable that he would wish to return to East Timor as soon as possible. His security remains a critical issue not only for himself but also for all those others who are looking to him for guidance and leadership. The government has done its best to ensure that he is fully apprised of the difficulties that might be faced if he were to return, at least in the short term. At the present time, while the multinational force is in the process of re-establishing order and taking whatever action is necessary, it may well be a more prudent course to wait and see how things settle down. The government would anticipate that the militia will be much less involved than they have been in recent times. It may mean that it will be possible for him to return later with a greater confidence in his long-term security than if he were to contemplate going there in the very near future.As far as the latter part of Senator Brown's question is concerned, my understanding is that whilst we have suspended joint exercises and training programs, and we have certainly suspended exercises with Kopassus, we have not at this point in time terminated all military agreements with Indonesia. We remain willing to provide whatever humanitarian assistance might be required.8368Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question following that second answer. Can the minister give the Senate an assurance that while Australian personnel are part of the UN peacekeeping force in East Timor there will be absolutely no military aid of any sort to the military authorities in Indonesia? Can the minister explicitly say what is meant by `humanitarian aid' and give the Senate an assurance that that which is other than what he calls `humanitarian aid'—the exchange of money or support, direct or indirect, of any sort—will not be going to the Indonesian military from this country?8368Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not aware of any intention or desire on the part of the Austral ian government to provide any form of military assistance to the government of Indonesia at this time. All of our efforts are concentrated in East Timor, where we expect there will be a reduction in the level of Indonesian military personnel. Senator Brown seems to be suggesting that the term `humanitarian aid' can cover a multitude of sins and be a disguised method of providing money and other assistance in kind. It was certainly not in that context that I used the term. I think we all understand what is properly meant by `humanitarian aid'. It is usually emergency relief and assistance to individuals and families—people—rather than infrastructure and other support.83688368Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the Howard government share the views of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and the National Party member Mr Garry Nehl when he praised Chinese rule in Tibet? For instance, does the government agree that the current Chinese rule is better for the Tibetan people than any alternative? Does the Howard government agree with Mr Nehl's view that the only role the Chinese army plays in Tibet is to protect the borders and that New South Wales police booze buses are more threatening than the Chinese army in Tibet?8368Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I have not seen Mr Nehl's comments, but I am aware that he has expressed—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Everyone else has! What've you been doing? Do your job!LD4Senator ALSTON—I am saying that I have not studied them. I am aware of the fact that he has made some comments, and I have seen press reports, but I have not read the comments. He has expressed a personal view—which, of course, he is free to do—but the government's position has been consistent and clear. Tibet has made significant economic progress over the last few years, but that progress by no means lessens our concern about continuing reports of human rights abuse in Tibet. The government takes very seriously any continuing allegations of that nature, and the bilateral human rights dialogue enables us to register our views at a very senior level with China. Tibet was an important item on the agenda of this year's dialogue held in China from 16 to 20 August. As well as broader issues like arbitrary detentions in China, our delegation registered with key agencies specific concerns about religious freedom and cultural identity in Tibet. We also encouraged substantial dialogue with the Dalai Lama. Our delegation impressed on Chinese authorities the high level of Australian community interest in Tibet.8369Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that Mr Nehl has admitted that he did not speak to any Tibetan people on his visit and that he only saw what his Chinese hosts wanted him to see, does the government agree that it would be preferable for an Australian parliamentarian on a human rights visit to actually insist on speaking directly to the Tibetan people? Will the government take Mr Nehl's report on Tibet seriously or will it be filed under `tourist snow job'?8369Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I would have thought Senator Schacht would be the last one to give lectures on people who regard themselves as human rights experts grandstanding in front of television cameras and making statements from around the world for domestic consumption. As I have indicated, Mr Nehl is entitled, indeed probably obliged, to provide reports to the parliament about visits that are undertaken in an official capacity. We would all have our own views. It is not the role of the government to tell people what they ought to see, whom they ought to visit and what views they ought to form. I would have thought even if we tried to do that with someone like Senator Schacht, he would probably misunderstand most of it and then read from the script he had prepared before he left home.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Settle down!LD4Senator ALSTON—I will take Senator Conroy's advice.83698369Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison. Will the minister outline the government's neutral public education program for the coming referendum? What is the purpose of this program? Have the ads been designed to ensure all Australians have an understanding of the issues?8369Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Thank you, Senator Parer, for that very important question. The Constitutional Convention last year said that there should be a neutral education campaign, and we took that advice on board and committed ourselves, in the last election, to run just that. In this campaign, which started yesterday, we are informing Australians about the process of the referendum and about the fact that you need a double majority, or a majority of voters in a majority of states. We are informing voters about the current system of government in this country, and we are informing Australians about the question that will be put to them on 6 November.In getting this together, we took the advice of an expert panel which was chaired by Sir Ninian Stephen. In fact, we also had Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Dr John Hirst, Dr Colin Howard and Professor Cheryl Saunders. It is well known that these are eminent Australians—a diverse group, indeed—and Australians who have different views. I take this opportunity on behalf of the government to thank them for their contribution in helping the government settle this pamphlet. It is noted on the pamphlet—there will be 12 million distributed across the country—that this expert panel helped the government. The pamphlet will form the basis of the neutral education campaign. Of course, we are running TV, radio and print advertisements but the pamphlet is the basis of our campaign.We are also informing Australians as to not only the question on the republic but also the question on the preamble, and it is entirely appropriate that we do that. But of course you still have criticism, and I see that the Leader of the Opposition has criticised this advertising as being biased. In fact, he said that the $9.5 million could be better spent on the troops in East Timor. He did not say that under him defence expenditure fell from 2.6 per cent of the GDP to 2.1 per cent. He also did not take note of the government polling which showed that some 65 to 92 per cent of Australians surveyed in that poll wanted more information about the forthcoming referendum. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is failing to realise. Forty-three per cent of those polled thought the President would be directly elected by the people of Australia, and we know that is not true. We are fixing that with this pamphlet and with the TV ads. We are advising the people of Australia that there is more information available. Do not just take my word for it; look at what Graham Richardson said this morning on 2GB. He said the ads were pretty fair, and I am sure he is not a monarchist or an ACM supporter. This campaign is devoted to getting information out into the community and to helping Australians make an informed decision of 6 November. Naturally, there will be some people who will think it is biased one way or another—you will always get that—but I reject totally what the Leader of the Opposition has said in relation to these ads. He is obviously ignoring the polling that took place which showed that people are crying out for more information. To those people who think that our campaign is biased, I would advise them to do themselves a favour and read this pamphlet carefully, and they will see just how on the mark it is.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Where can I get a copy?9X5Senator ELLISON—Senator Kemp has asked where he can get a copy. He just has to call my office.83708370Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, representing the Prime Minister. In the view of the Howard government, what impact did the punishing industrial relations policies of the Kennett government have on the devastating verdict of the Victorian people last Saturday? What about the headlong privatisation of essential government services, the withdrawal of many services from regional and rural communities and the diversion of significant public funding into the subsidisation of pet projects like car races and casinos? From Victoria, what can the Howard government learn about the inevitable result of its own forays into a `security guard and dogs' approach to industrial relations, its insistence on selling off government services no matter the social cost and its short-sighted withdrawal of Commonwealth services from regional areas?8370Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Straight out of central ACTU casting—a classic example of the agenda; the script was handed out on Saturday night. I had to sit through a fair bit of this sort of nonsense—no-one believed it for a moment. One of the things arising out of that state election—and this is very important because we are all willing to learn from near death experiences—and it is something I would have thought the Federal Labor Party would be interested in doing, was the achievement of a much broader spread of representation from the community, particularly if you aspire to represent rural seats where there are very serious issues. I do not for a moment underestimate the problems that are being faced in rural and remote Victoria. That is why we established the social bonus programs, that is why we established the Networking the Nation Program, and that is why the Labor Party hated every bit of it. What is the lesson you learn from a party dominated by the trade union movement? What you learn is that out of the 11 seats that the ALP claims to have won, five would be represented by people whose most recent occupation has been as an ALP staffer, three are union officials and organisers, one is a teacher and one is a welfare worker. The other one is merely part of a political dynasty—Mr Tresize.Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The Minister will resume his seat until we have silence in the chamber. I will have order, from both sides.LD4Senator ALSTON—It ought to be clear that there is a significant level of concern in rural Australia and indeed rural Victoria about a whole range of things. There is very great concern about the fact that the Labor Party simply ran around being negative and did not offer them much. Of course, we know at the federal level that Senator Conroy, because he is a regular briefer and leaker to the Melbourne Age , was out there telling them that he and Stephen Smith and Shayne Murphy and Nick Sherry had all violently opposed what the leader had been doing in terms of infrastructure and regional community activities. He made it clear that they no longer had any faith in Mr Beazley's ability to retain the Labor vote in rural areas.There is a lot to be learnt because, quite clearly, if the best Cheryl Kernot can do is to say, `I'd like to get out there more than once every 12 months but I am looking after a marginal seat,' then you have a long way to go. If you are serious about it, come up with some decent policies. Do not just pretend that somehow you can set up a very fast train all around Victoria into Tullamarine for $20 million when the true cost is something in excess of $200 million. When we look seriously at what Labor had to offer, we find there was very little indeed. I think people, particularly outside the metropolitan areas, are entitled to receive a lot more than the ACTU is prepared to offer people like Senator Collins. You ought to ask the ACTU for some serious policy advice. They should use some of those union dues to set up some decent research outfits and to find out what is really happening in these places so that you do not just trot out all the usual ideological pap.8371Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister can think of anything other than parroting about the ACTU. Can this watershed in Victorian politics also be put down to the government's outright arrogance and refusal to be accountable for any action, as suggested in today's Financial Review ? And speaking of arrogance, has the minister, with his interest in Internet surfing, looked at the Internet site Jeff.com today? Is he aware that the site has been frozen? Should the Liberal Party rename the site Jeff.full stop? And has the minister sent in his own CV to be the next premier?8371Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I would have thought that those who had seen the billboards advertising Jeff.com would have appreciated that it was for the purpose of the upcoming election. So it is not altogether surprising that, after the election, the site does not have quite the same relevance and resonance that it might have had in the lead-up period. Everyone will have their views and reasons why the result went the way it did. There will be those who will be pushing ideological barrows like Senator Collins.Senator Carr interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I am very interested to see the degrees of swings. They were about three times greater in rural areas than they were in metropolitan areas. So all this business of somehow suggesting that it was all due to arrogance and to a dislike of the premier is clearly not the case, otherwise we would have expected a uniform swing across the state. There were a lot of important factors at work in rural Australia. If you seriously want to tackle them, you should start doing some policy work instead. (Time expired)83718371Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. Is the government concerned that it is now over nine months since the class G airspace trial was terminated but the report of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation has not been released? Is the minister aware that the draft report into the class G airspace trial finds that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority mismanaged the trial to a degree that jeopardised public safety, and that BASI has found there is `a systematic weakness in the leadership and management of CASA, which had a direct bearing on aviation safety'? Minister, when will the BASI report be released?8371Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I think Senator Woodley's question does show the organisation that the government has in place regarding air service matters, and obviously BASI has looked very closely into the issue.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Where is the BASI report? That is the question.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Mackay, if you want to ask a question, please get up and ask me something on your portfolio. I do not think I have had a question from you in recent months.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Can I have some order please. Senator Macdonald, I would appreciate it if you would address the chair and not react to interjections.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I do get provoked by interjections from Senator Mackay, who is supposed to be shadowing me and who never asks a question relative to the portfolio. As I was saying, the government has aviation matters well in hand. The fact that BASI is inquiring into these issues shows that we have an interest in it. Senator Woodley asked me when the report will be released. I will refer that question to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, and give Senator Woodley a response. But when BASI indicates in its investigations that there are problems, as Senator Woodley has indicated, the government takes the issue very seriously and it is obviously something that Mr Anderson, as transport minister, will be following through. As soon as I can, I will get back to Senator Woodley on the specific answers to his questions.8372Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer, and particularly for the assurance that the government will take the report seriously. Minister, I am afraid that the report may be an indictment on the authority responsible for aviation safety and I wonder, when you are asking the minister, whether you might ask him to ensure that the final BASI report is not a watered-down version of the draft.8372Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I take some umbrage from even a suggestion that reports might be watered down. BASI is a very responsible organisation and makes its own reports. As I have indicated, the government treats with very great seriousness any matters that BASI might raise. Senator Woodley, I will not pass on that last bit to Mr Anderson or to BASI because I consider it inappropri ate, but I will certainly get back to you on the substantial question.83728372Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Ellison, the Special Minister of State. Minister, is it true that the independent committee, chaired by Sir Ninian Stephen, to approve the government's neutral public education and information campaign for the republic referendum was not given the opportunity to meet to consider the final script for the television advertisements before those advertisements were shot? Isn't it true that the members of the committee were only individually sent copies of the final scripts and asked to comment just before the advertisements were shot?8372Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Can I say at the outset that the committee that I referred to earlier was an advisory committee, and the approval for the advertisements which went out is governed by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, which I chair. On that committee you have, in this case, the Attorney-General, Mr Georgiou and a representative of the Prime Minister's office. The process adopted for these advertisements was no different from that adopted for any other advertisement conducted in relation to a government program or campaign. As I said earlier, the pamphlet which I have here forms the basis of the neutral education campaign. The print ads and the television advertisements were drawn from this pamphlet. The television advertisements are complementary to this pamphlet. What you have on the television advertisements is information about the referendum—the fact that there are two choices and the fact that you can get more information and the number to call. You cannot put all the detail in relation—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. With respect, I asked a follow-up question to a dorothy dix question that Senator Ellison received earlier in question time today. I asked whether the independent committee chaired by Sir Ninian Stephen was given an opportunity to meet to consider the final script and whether in fact members of the committee were only individually sent copies of final scripts and asked to comment just before the advertisements were shot. That is the question, Madam Deputy President, and I would ask you if you could direct Senator Ellison to answer this important question.9X5Senator ELLISON—Madam Deputy President, as I said, this is an advisory committee. It was never intended that final approval for the advertisement would be given by the committee—in fact, the approval for such advertisements comes from the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications—therefore, Senator Faulkner's question entirely misses the point. It entirely misses the point because the process was that the referendum task force settled the wording of the pamphlet and other advertisements and took advice from this advisory committee in relation to the pamphlet and print ads, but the actual style of the advertisement was settled by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications. It was not the role of this committee to determine the final form of this advertisement; it was not its role at all. That was left to the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, which determines the style and the manner of television and radio advertising and other forms of advertising in relation to government programs. So that was entirely in accordance with what we said we would be doing. Senator Faulkner's question entirely misses the point.The fact remains that the pamphlet—there will be 12 million of these pamphlets distributed around Australia—forms the basis of our information campaign. As acknowledged on that pamphlet, it has been prepared and issued by the Commonwealth government. An expert panel consisting of Sir Ninian Stephen, chairman, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Dr John Hirst and Dr Colin Howard reviewed the content to ensure it was fair and accurate. That is the sum total of it. The opposition might well try to speculate or beat up the fact that there is something untoward here. There is nothing untoward. The process has been open and transparent, and these advertisements are fair. I refer again to Graham Richardson on 2GB. He said the ads were pretty fair—and I think he is an avowed republican, if I remember correctly.8373Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister either could not or would not answer the questions I asked of him. But, given that the minister mentioned the role of the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, which he chairs, the involvement of Mr Georgiou and the involvement of a representative of the Prime Minister's office, I ask if the decisions in relation to these particular advertisements were made in a telephone hook-up of the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, whether any others were involved in the telephone hook-up and, if so, who they were? And perhaps the minister can put our minds at rest and assure us that Senator Minchin was not involved.8373Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam Deputy President, I am trying to think what I had for breakfast that day. I might just tell Senator Faulkner that too. The normal processes were followed in relation to the determination of these advertisements. I might just remind Senator Faulkner again that there was a referendum task force, comprising the Attorney-General and me, which settled the wording.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. My point of order is this: the minister has tried to defend the government's actions here by highlighting the role of the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications. I asked the nature of the meeting—whether it was a hook-up—and I asked who was on it and whether Senator Minchin was involved in the hook-up. I think we are entitled to an answer to those important questions when this minister is trying to defend the processes of the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order. Senator Ellison is answering the question as he sees fit. If his answer does not fit what you wish him to say, you can have another question later on.9X5Senator ELLISON—Senator Faulkner asked whether Senator Minchin was involved in the processes of the MCGC, and he was not. That is it. He was not involved in those deliberations. It is just another beat-up. Senator Faulkner is just beating it up again. These ads were focused tested, they were found to be neutral and they get the information across.83748374Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Can the minister explain how yesterday's announcement of the removal of $18 million in nuisance tariffs will assist Australian consumers and manufacturers?8374Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Tchen for his question. Can I assure the Senate that I am much more interested in reducing the costs to industry in this country than I am in advertising campaigns. Therefore, I was very pleased to announce yesterday that the government is getting rid of $18 million in costs imposed on industry and consumers in the form of nuisance tariffs. Given that the major justification for tariffs in this country is that we should protect Australian industry or assist industry, it is obviously nonsensical to have tariffs on goods that are imported for which there is absolutely no domestic production or competition. These are so-called `nuisance tariffs' and are imposed on products as diverse as ballpoint pen refills, video games, squash racquets, brewery machinery, instant print film, overhead travelling cranes, et cetera.None of these are made in Australia, but all of them are subject to a tariff of between three and five per cent. They are not assisting Australian industry at all. All they are doing is raising the price of these goods to Australian consumers; and they are raising the price of products when they are used as inputs by Australian manufacturers. The importers who bring these products in have to put up with all of the red tape involved in paying the tariffs on these products. As Bert Kelly used to remind us, at the end of the day all tariffs are taxes on Australians, and these nuisance tariffs certainly fit that description. They are nothing more than a sales tax on these products and a tax on Australians.We initiated a review last year of these nuisance tariffs. About 1,000 tariff classifications were subject to the review. We consulted with industry over a 12-month period and, as a result of that process, identified some 400 tariffs which are not assisting any domestic production whatsoever. So I was very pleased to announce that from 1 November this year these 400 tariffs will be completely abolished, thus removing some $18 million in costs to Australian consumers and industry.This is part of our overall approach to tariff reform and trade liberalisation. We are examining, as you know, as a result of a Productivity Commission reference, all of our remaining tariffs, with a particular focus on the remaining some 900 nuisance tariffs that are still on products imported into Australia and which are costing consumers and industry some hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, we will be consulting carefully with industry in this. That review will take about nine months and does fulfil our commitments under APEC to review all of our general tariffs by the end of next year.I think this is a very important announcement in terms of the WTO meetings to be held in Seattle later this year. It does underline this government's commitment to trade liberalisation, our very good credentials internationally on the issue of trade liberalisation and, of course, our credentials and our commitment to reducing costs for Australian consumers and Australian industry.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam Deputy President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice8374837415:02:008374Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam Deputy President, I would like to ask a question of Senator Newman. I just ask her if she can, further to the promise she made in the last week of sitting, provide information about the child- care statistics. I wonder if the minister has got those and whether she is able to provide them for us.8375Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—No, I do not have them with me. I will check what has happened.837515:04:008375Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to a question without notice asked by Senator Collins today, relating to the recent Victorian state election.One would have thought we would have heard more today from Senator Alston, a former divisional president of the Victorian Liberals and a former campaign director in the last election for Victoria, about the lessons to be learned from Victoria. But it was all too apparent that the message has not been understood by this government. A similar pattern was displayed after the last federal election. I think it appropriate, given that the election in Victoria has yet to conclude, that we understand precisely what this government has taken away from the results that have been dished out to them on Saturday by the people of Victoria.It is quite apparent that Victoria Inc., as administered by Mr Kennett, is no longer operating. Yet you would not know that from listening to Senator Alston today. Mr Kennett's vision of politics has been routed. Yet, of course, Mr Jeffrey Glib Kennett continues on as if nothing has changed and, if given the opportunity—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Carr should use Mr Kennett's proper title.10000Carr, Sen KimThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—I suggest that you withdraw the word `glib'.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I was just wondering if Senator Carr would withdraw that and also give us a list of the margins and the swings in the seats.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I withdraw anything you have asked me to, Mr Acting Deputy Presi dent. It has been demonstrated to us yet again that Mr Jeffrey.com is very glib in his response to the election results of last Saturday. Mr Kennett's humiliation has, of course, demonstrated to this entire country that the Liberal version of politics has got to change. If this government is to survive, then it has to understand that it, too, is responsible for what has been happening in Victoria.What we have seen in Victoria is that the Victorian people have handed out a humiliation to the Liberal government, and particularly to their allies, the National Party. I must take some pleasure regarding Senator McGauran—there he is, just leaving. One would have thought that we would have heard something from Senator McGauran; that we would have heard Senator McGauran's response to Mr Glib Kennett. One would have thought that we would heard something about the way in which this government has been exposed, because the Victorian people have clearly rejected the Liberal version of the secret state. They have clearly rejected the notion that the Liberal governments should withdraw from community activity, should withdraw from the provision of services. They have, of course, rejected the Liberal government's contempt towards people.The Liberal governments, be they Victorian or be they national, have demonstrated again and again an ideological obsession with undermining and destroying the social fabric of this country. They take the attitude that economic reform has to be pursued at all costs, irrespective of the consequences to the lives of ordinary people. Liberal governments have sought to impose upon the people of this country their vision of what is good for the country without consultation with the people of this country and without any attempt to ameliorate the horrendous effects that so-called economic reform is having upon the lives of ordinary people. This is the supreme arrogance of Liberal governments. It is an arrogance based upon the contention that only they know what is good for this country.What we have seen is the failure of the National Party to represent its constituency within Victoria, just as we have seen the failure of the National Party within the federal government to represent its constituency. The ultimate expression of this is when the Liberals in Victoria under Jeff Kennett apply the gag to their members of parliament, to their ministers and to all political representatives so that there can be no debate. There can be no engagement with the people of Victoria in relation to the consequences and the costs of the social policies that their government has pursued.There are further lessons. One would have thought we would have heard from Senator Alston, the former campaign director in Victoria, as to what the costs are to Victoria of the federal government's policies. What are the costs to schools, the costs to TAFE colleges and the costs to universities? Think for a moment about the implications for a university in Ballarat of the shocking policies that are being pursued by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, another Victorian in this government. What effects are those policies having on the people of Victoria? In telecommunications we have seen a similar range of problems. In relation to industrial relations there have been attacks upon ordinary people and their standards of living. (Time expired)15:09:008376Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Here we have the Labor Party again trying to pour out successes in order to hide their failures at the federal level. One of the lessons people on the other side ought to learn is that maybe if they focused on what they were supposed to be doing at a federal level rather than crying out about what happened in Victoria, they may actually be better off.Let us look back at what Labor left us after 13 years of government. They ran out of policies, they ran out of things to do and they left the country in an absolute mess. Victoria, when the Liberal Party came to government there, was in an absolute state of chaos. People will remember that the Pyramid Building Society went down the drain. They sold off the State Bank. The joke around Australia, wherever you went as a Victorian, was: what is the capital of Victoria? The answer was: a dollar. That was the sort of thing people said.In the papers today the people who comment on financial issues are saying that one of the outcomes of this election, if the Labor Party are elected with a slim majority, will be that capital will flow out of Victoria when businesses realise they are going to have to deal with the sort of Labor government they dealt with before. They will have to deal with people like Ben Hardman from Seymour, who is another union official. They will have to deal with Liz Beattie, who is a union official. They will have to deal with Ian Maxfield, who is a union official. They will have to deal with Ann Barker, who is a Labor staffer. They will have to deal with Jenny Lindell, who is a union staffer. They will have to deal with Geoff Howard, who is a Labor staffer. They will have to deal with Jacinta Allan in Bendigo East, who is a Labor staffer, and Joe Helper, who is a recent staffer. Joanne Duncan has actually done something—she has taught. So it goes on. What we will have is a replication of what we have in the Senate—people who are union hacks.In Anne Henderson's book, Susan Ryan said, in relation to people in the Senate, that the reason they have people from the unions on the Senate side is that the unions do not want them. They get rid of them and put them into the Senate. That is exactly what Labor have done in Victoria, and the Victorian people will live to regret that they voted for a party which presented them with candidates who were nothing more than union hacks. The Victorian people were hoodwinked by the sorts of policies and unfunded promises that Labor made.In the area of transport, they promised the people in Ballarat a fast train. The ALP cost of the fast train was $25 million. It must have been a choo-choo train—a kids toy train—that they were going to build, because its real cost is $60 million. There was a $35 million shortfall. The real cost of a fast train to Geelong was $30 million, but they said it was going to cost $20 million—a $10 million shortfall. A fast train to Bendigo was $50 million plus, but the ALP said it would cost $20 million. What is going to happen if the dice fall the way of the Labor Party in Victoria? The people in Bendigo, the people in Ballarat and the people in Geelong will live to rue the day they believed the promises of the Labor Party because they will go back to being the same old, tired Labor Party that makes promises. They say they are going to build a railway, but they cannot cost anything.These people have never had to put their money where their mouth is. They have never had to run a business. They have never had to take risks. It will be demonstrated again in Victoria. It is not surprising to hear the opposition crowing from the rooftops when they have barely been able to whisper at the federal level. Where are the opposition policies? They are nowhere. Where are their successes at the federal level? They are nowhere. One might even be wondering if the federal Labor Party are actually still relevant at the policy level. Why is this? Because after 13 years of government they ran out of policies.What will happen to the people of Victoria if the dice fall in that direction is that they will live to rue the day. They will have Victoria back as a basket case faster than you can say Jack Robinson. Capital will flow out and unemployment will be up. The Victorian people will live to rue the day they made that decision. Senator Conroy on the other side will be to blame for all of his number counting on that.15:14:008377Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I am very pleased to see that Senator Alston has returned to the chamber, perhaps to enter the debate. Ask yourself what went wrong on the weekend, Senator Alston. When you are surrounded by people who make comments like `The Premier has worked very hard to help his state, and this is the thanks you get for it. Clearly he is the most experienced and successful Premier in Australia, perhaps in our history,' that could only come from Ron Walker, a man who cannot tell the difference between what is good for Victoria and good for Ron's pocket. That is what you have got happening here. No wonder they are out of touch. As I said, I am glad that Senator Alston is here, because I would like to know this, Senator. You recently referred an issue about false advertising to the ACCC. I would like to know if you received the following invitation, which was sent out a couple of weeks ago:The Liberal Party of Australia Victorian Division requests the attendance of Senator Alston to celebrate the seventh anniversary of the first election of the Kennett government with the Premier of Victoria.It is for Cabinet ministers and Liberal parliamentarians, at $1,000 a head. Talk about arrogance: the seventh anniversary of the election, with the Premier. Have you checked with Bracksey? We are not sure that he is going to be able to come. If Jeff is not the Premier, what I want to know is whether the people who have been suckered in by this advertising get their $1,000 back—because this will be false advertising in about a week.We have seen in country Victoria some extraordinary results. We have seen Gisborne go with 10 per cent, Geelong, Ripon, Narracan, Seymour, Bendigo, Gippsland West, Mildura, Swan Hill, Gippsland East: they are the country and rural seats that are not coalition any more. We have seen the Labor Party with a swing of 7.5 per cent in country Victoria hold more regional and rural seats than the coalition. The coalition, which is represented in this place by senators on the other side of the chamber—roll over, Ron Boswell and Senator McGauran—has been just about wiped out. The Labor Party represents more seats in the Victorian parliament than your parties combined. That is the story from the weekend: four country independents, and the Nationals in free fall. But in particular we do owe a debt of thanks to Rob Knowles, because not only did Rob Knowles give us one seat but he cost you two, because we won his vacancy in Ballarat—two seats from Rob Knowles.And what did we have? We had the gag. We have all heard and seen about the gag, but what actually happened? The Herald Sun is reporting that seven of the nine or 10 state coalition MPs they approached for comments lost their seats—seven of them that were gagged by their Premier lost their seats. Reflect on that. We can talk about Geoff Leigh. How do you gag Geoff Leigh? That is a big task. Even Senator Alston would admit that. Geoff Lee has said, `The gag thing obviously hurt us.' Obviously he has slipped the noose and slipped the gag, has Mr Lee—so you had better have a quiet word with him, Senator Alston.We saw the Premier in a true blaze of glory last Wednesday on the Jon Faine show on 3LO. He was asked the question by Jon Faine and what happened? He turned around and said, `That is pathetic. I'm just going to sit here and drink my tea,' and he refused to answer the question. `I am going to sit here and drink my tea': that is treating the people of Victoria with contempt.What goes around comes around. The people of Victoria have just made perfectly clear what they think of Jeff Kennett. Even Jeff Kennett had to admit yesterday, `A majority of people hate me.' Even in the papers today he was quoted as saying that there is an `unreal perception' out among country Victorians that he has ignored them. Well, an unreal perception? This bloke has not worked it out yet. He is on the front page of today's papers saying, `I may leave; I may quit.' I have got some big news for him: he is out of his job. He has actually lost and he has not noticed. He is still saying that it is up to him whether he leaves or not.The big news is that country Victorians and all Victorians have spoken: 51 per cent of Victorians on the weekend voted for the Labor Party. Is it any wonder that Senator Alston did not want to face up to this in his question? Is it any wonder whatsoever? Is it any wonder, when you have got the arrogance to be announcing a seventh anniversary election with the Premier of Victoria to be held just after the election?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—At $1,000 a head.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—At $1,000 a head. Is it any wonder that that sort of arrogance was rewarded on the weekend with the sorts of swings and the sort of massacre that took place in country Victoria? It will go on again. You are in trouble in Dunkley, you are in trouble in McEwen and you are in trouble in Ballarat. (Time expired)15:19:008378McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—It is no surprise that the jackals were going to get up on Monday to dish out a bit of humility to the coalition. Of course there was an element of surprise in Saturday's Victorian election. It seemed to be a weekend of underdogs. Carlton won, the Melbourne Storm won, and Bracks did all right. But do not think that you have won government yet. I think you are jumping the gun. Just remember that you are over that side. If you think that in any way, shape or form this is going to reflect in a federal vote, you are absolutely kidding yourselves. Make very sure of that, on any analysis. In fact, I heard one commentator on the weekend say that this was a `protest vote gone too far'. That struck a chord with me, and we will see, if necessary, when the results come down in the Frankston East by-election. That will really tell the truth of things. It is still in the balance. Do not count your chickens. Talk about getting arrogant on Monday morning! You have learnt nothing. Where is the humility in you? Why aren't you humbled by the vote of the Victorian people, you bunch of arrogant—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator McGauran, it would be more appropriate if you were to address your remarks through the chair.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—All the points made by the previous government speaker, Senator Patterson, are correct. You will just revert back to kind in Victoria, for all the promises made by Bracks—who did a fair and good job; he is the only one at the front—because we know what is behind him. Senator Carr is behind him. If Mr Bracks gets in as Premier, are you going to return home? We know how you got up here: they shunted you up here, warehoused you here in 1992, when you had absolutely destroyed the Victorian Labor government. They shunted you up here to warehouse you, in the vain hope that they might get back in. Surprise, surprise! I suspect that you are going home if the Labor government gets back in, but you will go back as a staffer. They will wheel out Mother Russia again and give her some obscure job in the government. Senator Carr will go home to take up some major appointment, and it will be all back to the old days again.Nothing will have changed. It will be the same old faces, and the only person who will be different is Mr Bracks himself. He will be the only different face in the Labor Party. All the promises, all the spending, all the debt, all the old faces like Senator Carr's will return. That is something the Victorian people do not want. We know Senator Carr's record. We know why he got shunted up here, just for starters, because we only have to read John Cain's book John Cain's Years. Power, Parties and Politics. This book is absolutely riddled with references to Senator Carr. He has taken the full venom of John Cain regarding the years when he was a public servant, I believe. Were you a public servant? Good God. He was a public servant in the Cain government and the Kirner government!Allow me to give you some choice quotes from the book about Senator Carr's efforts when he was working for the previous state government, because John Cain really cuts loose on him. There are so many of them I do not know where to begin and time will no doubt run out. But I want to put them on the record.During December 1986 the heavy work on the Left members of Cabinet and Caucus continued. George Crawford and Kim Carr were responsible for `summoning' members to attend meetings of the Left executive.That is cabinet members. The quote continues:When ministers are `summoned' to meetings with party officers who can exercise considerable factional clout over their election or re-election to positions in Cabinet and/or their pre-selections, then you have got real problems in the government.That is the sort of muscle work you were doing, Senator Carr: telling them how to spend the money and how much. It goes on and on. Time is going to run out but let me give you another choice quote:As Kim Carr, a public servant in Joan Kirner's department, was leading the charge on this, I told Joan that she—Where is the rest of this quote? I am missing a page. What a disappointment. I must speak to my secretary. I can tell you what John Cain probably told Joan Kirner: to get rid of him, get rid of Kim Carr. I have read the book that many times I can tell you what the quote is: `Get rid of Kim Carr. Shunt him off somewhere. Pension him off.' And what do you know: we have got him in the Senate. (Time expired)15:24:008379Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I want to pick up on a point that Senator McGauran made, because I think it takes us back to the question—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Only one?GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Yes, only one, Senator Conroy. Senator McGauran asked: `Where is the humility?' This rabid raving we have heard on this issue really astounds me, so I have referred back to what the original question was, and I want to just paraphrase it again: what were the federal lessons from the state result, and what do certain Kennett policies on issues such as industrial relations, privatisation, regional issues, pet projects like car races and casinos and, finally, the government's arrogance mean for the federal government?What response did we get to that? We started out during question time with Senator Alston's response, which I would characterise as simply continuing the arrogance and the approach that Kennett has applied to Victoria. That is why I asked him whether he was going to submit his CV for more of the same. He stood here today in question time, and his collar got hotter and hotter and rose up his neck and he had to stick it back under. That was the response.We now go to this session on taking note and we look at the responses we got from other senators. Senator Patterson went down the same path—that they are all a pack of union stooges et cetera. I want to correct the record on at least that one. I was not concentrating properly to hear the full diatribe from Senator Patterson, but it was the usual comments about the pack of union staffers involved in the Labor Party. She mentioned Ms Jenny Lindell, who I hope will succeed as the candidate for Carrum. We will probably know by the end of this week if that is definitely the case. Jenny Lindell, to my knowledge, never was a union staffer. She was an ALP staffer—she worked for me. Prior to that, she had many years of work in the community as a radiographer.I am starting to get absolutely sick to death of these coalition references to anyone with an ounce of experience with the Labor Party or the union movement as being totally discredited. There are many people in the Labor Party and many people in the union movement who have very valuable and extensive community experience in professions like teaching and a variety of areas. Simply because someone has spent a few months perhaps in a Labor Party office or in a trade union does not write off the contribution they can make to this parliament. Again, the government continues to completely misrepresent that situation. I would challenge senators such as Senator Patterson to actually look at the full CVs of the people she refers to rather than just selectively pick out any tainted connection with a union or with the Labor Party—as she would characterise it.Let me go back to Senator McGauran, who ponders over where the humility is. Can I suggest, Senator McGauran, that you should not blame your secretary for your own inadequacies. If you cannot find something in a speech, perhaps you could accept responsibility for it for yourself.Again, what are the differences? The question was: what are the differences between the federal and the state level? I would argue that what we have had from the government today demonstrates that there is very little difference. You have not learnt from the level of arrogance that has been put into play in Victoria. Again, I want to highlight what Mr Bracks did on election night. That demonstrated humility. What Mr Bracks did was not claim some great personal victory; what he said was, `This is a victory for Victorians and this was a victory for democracy.' And that is what has come into play in Victoria. That is essentially what was also highlighted in today's editorial in the Financial Review. Yes, it is a big question about what is going to happen to Jeff now, because Jeff cannot lead in a democracy. He does not know how. All Jeff Kennett can do, all his style is suited to— 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Senator Collins, would you please refer to the Premier of Victoria by his correct title.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—My apologies. All Mr Kennett can do is lead in an autocracy. That is all he knows. He will not be able to adapt to the new environment in Victoria.Terry McCrann in today's Herald Sun sees it as the demise of leadership. But many Victorians are pleased to see an environment—and in McCrann's schema there is an analogy with the Senate—that is based on consultation, cooperation and working with people and across a variety of groups. That is what Victoria can now experience rather than the autocracy that has been in place for many years. I am one of several who actually see that as an advance rather than a step back in leadership. (Time expired)15:29:008380Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We have had the usual superficial analysis of what went on in Victoria. The most important thing is what people had to say about the Labor Party, who seem to spend most of their time trying to paper over the cracks and hide the factionalism and tribal warfare that has been going on there for years, all the branch stacking that Mr Beazley does not have the stomach—and I use the term advisedly—to get in there and clean up.Essentially, they ran a pretty negative scare campaign and hoped that somehow they would improve their position sufficiently for the next three or four years when they could start to do some policy work. That is why respected commentators like Professor Brian Costar were saying on Saturday night that Labor did not deserve to win because they had not done any homework. That is the tragedy of it.People in rural areas, who have a number of legitimate concerns, fell for Labor's three-card trick: do not worry about the problems, just vote for us and somehow we will get something going for you later on down the track. It will come very horribly unstuck and all the smart words after the event will not disguise the fact that no serious policy work had been done. That is the trap that federal Labor fall into as well. They thought they could get away with it for the first three years. Mr Beazley got a dream run, there was no real pressure on, everyone knuckled down because they thought, `We'll get back in 1998.' But, of course, they discovered they did not have any policies. We take the bush very seriously. We understand they have problems. They do not want promises; they want action. That is why we delivered them action.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Why did you gag the minister so they couldn't debate the policies?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—In stark contrast, people like Senator Conroy are getting up in caucus and saying, `We're going nowhere under Mr Beazley because he has no idea what motivates rural Australia.' That is very true. He does not. He dislikes going out there. As a last resort he is dragged out there by Cheryl Kernot and he scurries back home as quickly as he can.These are no substitute for policies. You have to spend a bit of time out there and really address the issues. Of course, if you do not have a trade union network out there, you have no motivation. I could understand why Senator Conroy prefers to just wander around the CBD, up to Lygon Street and out to a few of the usual suspects and make sure the numbers are okay, but that is nothing to do with policy formulation.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That's a lovely office in Castle Hill Place that you used to have.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Do you mean in St Kilda Road?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Yes.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes, it was, until it was taken over by your mentor. That is very true. I must say that I do not aspire to return to it in the near future. There are serious issues in rural Victoria as there are in rural Australia. The Labor Party will always choose to ignore that there was a desperate need to get Victoria back on its feet. It was seriously depressed after the Cain-Kirner years.Senator Conroy interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I heard Senator Conroy say, `What goes around comes around,' which I presume means that Bracks would do it all again. I heard John Cain say it a couple of years ago. He was up at Bendigo or Ballarat celebrating a 100th anniversary and they asked him about those years and he said, `I'd do it all again.' It is a bit hard to educate people if they have that sort of mind-set. If you think that because you managed to pick up a few seats on the swings, many of which were ones that you never expected to—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—A few seats!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You had to win 15. You still have not won them.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—On the record now, is Jeff going to be Premier in a month's time?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I remember Mike Rann in South Australia got pretty close, didn't he? But getting close does not matter. And Neville Wran in fact won by only a couple of seats and powered away from it. Do not kid yourself. Even though there are commentators who are saying that Mr Beazley did very well at the last federal election, you know in your heart of hearts how very difficult it is. The next time around has nothing to do with the last time around. If you do not win, you start from scratch. You have to get down to the serious policy work. Enjoy it while you can. It is a nice little Indian summer that you are having. You picked up a lot of seats you did not expect to win.Senator Conroy interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Are you backing Mr Bracks, are you? Maybe there is a place for you back there. Maybe you could go back and give him some sensible advice. You would have a lot better prospects down there than I would have thought most of your colleagues would have up here. If it is a market opportunity, you should take advantage of it, Senator Conroy. There may well be undreamed of opportunities to actually get onto the front bench in Victoria that simply will not exist here in the foreseeable future.Question resolved in the affirmative.838210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:83821195LD4Alston Sen RichardTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows: that we, the undersigned Early Childhood Educators, Doctors, Professionals involved with young children, and parents of young children hold strong concerns for the psychological welfare of young Australian children due to the influence of violent TV shows and gams. In our work and daily lives we have had ample evidence that young children are strongly influenced by the violence they see on television programs rates G and PG, shown during their waking hours, and that such programs have adverse effects on their social conduct.Your Petitioners ask/request that the Senate should: Look into the immediate enforcement of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice section 2.19 `The following categories indicate what will invariably be unsuitable for television: 2.19.1 Violence: Sustained, relished or excessively detailed acts of violence.' Ensure much more stringent classifications where violence is concerned (for instance, `Xena The Warrior Princess' is rated PG at the present time and accounts for much violent play behaviour). Ensure the immediate cancellation of all shows depicting violence (particularly the morning programs which include cartoon shows) until 8.30 pm. Ensure the immediate removal of Rage (Channel 2, Saturdays 6am-9am), and Video Hits (Saturdays, Channel 10, day 9,.00-11.30 and Sunday 8.30-11am) from morning broadcasts to a time after 8.30pm. Set into motion the design and mass distribution of a government-sponsored pamphlet on TV violence freely distributed to parents of young children through hospitals, health care centres doctors surgeries, and child-care centres. The pamphlet should warn parents of the possible long-term psychological and social effects of watching television violence, as well as violent video, computer and arcade gams. The pamphlet should also recommend alternative, more appropriate activities for young children, using examples of healthy play activities.Senator AlstonLD4Senator Alston(from 1,195 citizens)838293DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of the sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 93 citizens)8382137DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows strong disappointment in the Australian Government's inadequate protection of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area from the destructive practices of prawn trawling. Prawn trawling destroys up to 10 tonnes of other reef life for every one tonne of prawns while clearfelling the sea floor. There are 11 million square kilometres of Australia's ocean territory of which the reef represents just 350,000 square kilometres.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support the phasing out of all prawn trawling in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by the year 2005.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 137 citizens)838214984LMcLucas Sen JanThis petition of the undersigned shows that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission to independence.Your petitioners request that the Senate should:(a) Withdraw Australia's original de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Suspend Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions to suspend all financial assistance to Indonesia;(d) Advise the Indonesian Government to direct forthwith the Indonesian Army to disarm the pro-Jakarta militia in East Timor; and (e) Advise the Indonesian Government to authorise forthwith the UN to dispatch a peacekeeping force to East Timor.Senator McLucas84LSenator McLucas(from 149 citizens)83837891X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable President of the Senate and members of the Senate assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transition to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to: Withdraw Australia's original de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor; Suspend Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia; Advise the Indonesian Government to direct forthwith the Indonesian Army to disarm the pro-Jakarta militia in East Timor; Advise the Indonesian Government to authorise forthwith the UN to dispatch a peacekeeping force to East Timor Urge the Australian Government to increase funding of the ABC to re-establish the Radio Australia transmitter on the Cox Peninsula near Darwin, and Urge the United Nations to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the atrocities that have transpired in both East and West Timor.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 789 citizens)Petitions received.Notices838383838383Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 10 standing in my name for 10 sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1).8383Senator Gibson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 23 September 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999.Senator Ferris to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Select Committee on Information Technologies be authorised to hold an in camera meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 14 October 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into on-line gambling.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Codex Allimentarius, the Food Safety Agency of the United Nations representing 101 nations globally, ruled unanimously in August 1999 to support a moratorium on Monsanto's genetically-engineered hormonal milk (rBGH) which has been operational in Europe since 1993, (ii) the moratorium was based on findings by two independent committees of internationally-recognised experts established by the European Commission to review the scientific literature on rBGH on veterinary and public health, (iii) Insulin-like Growth Factor One (IGF-1) and its potent variants present in rBGH milk were found to pose major risks of breast and prostate cancer and inhibiting apoptosis (promoting cancer cell invasiveness), and (iv) rBGH milk has been available for consumption in the United States (US) since February 1994 when it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and(b) calls on the Government to: (i) review European systems of independent testing procedures for genetically-modified foods and endorse similar measures for application in Australia, (ii) deem US FDA approval alone inappropriate to establish public and environmental safety of genetically-modified foods, and (iii) arrest introduction of all genetically-modified foods in Australia until an appropriate independent monitoring and testing regime is established.Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 22 September 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office.Senator Brown to move, on Monday 27 September 1999:That the Senate—(a) welcomes the progress made by the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in Western Sahara, through the organisation of a free and fair referendum to enable its people to exercise their right to self-determination, in July 2000;(b) calls on Morocco to abide by the UN-OAU peace plan and to fully cooperate with these organisations in their efforts to organise the referendum; and(c) urges the Australian Government: (i) to extend all due assistance to the UN mission in Western Sahara, and (ii) to establish formal contacts with representatives of Polisario, the movement representing the people of Western Sahara.Senator Bartlett and Senator Woodley to move, two sitting days after today:That the Senate—(a) notes the Forest Agreement for south east Queensland, which was signed on 16 September 1999 by the Queensland Government and representatives of the timber industry and conservation groups;(b) commends the Queensland Premier, Mr Beattie, for negotiating an agreement which is supported by such a broad range of groups in the Queensland community, thus avoiding the significant ongoing social conflict which is occurring in other states, and demonstrating that long-term job creation and native forest protection can go hand in hand;(c) congratulates those from the conservation movement and the timber industry who were willing to work together, constructively and cooperatively, for the long-term benefit of the community and the environment in south east Queensland; and(d) calls on the Federal Government and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation (Mr Tuckey) to indicate support for the south east Queensland Forest Agreement and to provide appropriate Commonwealth funding commensurate with that provided for other states' forest agreements.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Convention on Climate Change (Implementation) Bill 1999 be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report in conjunction with the committee's inquiry into the progress and adequacy of Australia's policies to reduce global warming.Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the Victorian State Election results; and(b) congratulates the Victorian Australian Labor Party leader, Mr Bracks, for the manner in which he has represented the deep concerns of ordinary Victorians at the withdrawal, by the Kennett Government, of much needed community services.Senator Cook to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the Victorian State Election results; and(b) congratulates the Victorian Australian Labor Party leader, Mr Bracks, for the manner in which he represented the deep concerns of the Victorian people and stood against the arrogance of the Kennett Government.Committees838483848384Motion (by Senator Forshaw, and at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 be extended to 28 September 1999. Notices83858385Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 September 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Murray for 21 September 1999, relating to the disallowance of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 163, postponed till 22 September 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) for 21 September 1999, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 11 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 304 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, relating to unemployment in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales, postponed till 22 September 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till 22 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 136 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on superannuation and financial services, postponed till 22 September 1999. Leave of Absence8385Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senators Bishop, Crossin, Eggleston and Lightfoot for the period 20 to 23 September 1999, and to Senator Ray for the period 20 September to 19 December 1999, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.Miscellaneous8385Motion (by Senator Ferguson)—as amended, by leave—agreed to: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;(d) 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;(e) expresses its continuing concern for the welfare of Pratt and Wallace's CARE colleague, Branko Jelen, who remains imprisoned; and(f) implores the Yugoslavian Government to free Branko Jelen on humanitarian grounds.Committees838683868386Motion (by Senator Brown) not agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the last day of sittings in 1999:The Australian complementary health industry and profession, with particular reference to:(a) the provision of professional training and preferred options for registration of practitioners;(b) the existing regulation of, and preferred options for national standards for regulation in: (i) complementary health care professionals, and (ii) complementary health services to consumers;(c) the extent to which consumers of complementary health care services: (i) are assured of freedom of choice, including choices between access to orthodox medical and health services and complementary services, and (ii) have, or should have, access to Medicare and private health insurance, in respect of complementary medicines and services; and(d) opportunities for co-operation between the providers of orthodox and complementary health care services and medicines.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—It is obvious that I had my support for that motion registered, but I ask that that be specifically done.Miscellaneous83868386Motion (by Senator Forshaw) agreed to: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.Committees838683868386Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Quirke) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy be extended to the last sitting day in December 1999.Miscellaneous8386Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes the resolution of the Senate of 12 August 1999 on nuclear weapons and year 2000 (Y2K) computer problems; (b) welcomes the recent decision by the Government of the United Kingdom to move the `notice to fire' for its submarine fleet from minutes to days;(c) calls on the Government to adopt as policy that nuclear weapons be taken off hair-trigger alert, in accordance with the recommendations of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons (1996) and subsequent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly; and(d) urges the governments of the United States and Russia to take their weapons off hair-trigger alert before the Y2K roll-over period.Documents83878387838710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Pursuant to standing order 166, I present the following report of the Auditor-General:Report No. 10 of 1999-2000—Financial statement audit—Control structures as part of the audits of financial statements of major Commonwealth agencies for the period ended 30 June 1999: Summary of results.Bills8387r888838710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Pursuant to standing order 38, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings which were presented to the Deputy President on 15 September 1999.15:46:008387Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I wish to make a few comments about the report that has been tabled.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Sherry, you do need to seek leave.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I wish to seek leave to make some remarks.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?15:46:008387Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—This bill is listed on today's Notice Paper . The Senate references procedures make it quite clear in the standing orders that reports from legislation committees, which were designed to take away much of the committee work done in the chamber of the Senate, were designed to be tabled without any debate. I would have thought that it is an abuse of the standing orders, as well as the intention of the Senate in designing the committee system, particularly on a day when the Senate will be debating that legislation, to create a debate on the report at this stage.Again, as I have done on a number of occasions, I remind the Senate that creating a debate on the tabling of a report is indeed not envisaged by the standing orders. That is why Senator Sherry needs to seek leave here. On granting Senator Sherry leave—which I would never on normal occasions refuse, particularly to him—I would certainly remind him that this bill should be on for debate within a matter of a few hours this very day. I am just reminded that I am talking about a different bill. So, Senator Sherry, I give you leave immediately, but my points still stand.15:47:008387Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I think you were talking about the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , Senator Campbell. I will not speak at length on this matter. I just want to highlight a couple of points in this report. There will be an opportunity at a later date, as Senator Campbell has inaccurately reminded us.This is an important report because it deals with the highly controversial so-called superannuation surcharge or tax. I want to draw to the Senate's attention that this legislation will be the third package of amendments to the superannuation tax. It deals with a number of critical issues. It deals with the removal of the requirement for the Commissioner of Taxation to determine an advance instalment of the so-called surcharge; it provides for a self-assessment regime for certain superannuation providers; and it allegedly clarifies the definition of surcharge contributions and how they are to be calculated.I do want to draw to the attention of the Senate the contents of the Labor senators' minority report, and I will do so briefly. As I have said, it is particularly disappointing that this bill represents the third major legislative policy change to the superannuation surcharge tax. On many occasions the Liberal government, particularly the current Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, have been forewarned about the inherent flaws in the superannuation tax collection mechanism—not just by the Labor opposition but by almost every commentator, economist, accountant, actuary and financial planner who is involved in the superannuation industry in some way. It was Mr Noel Davis from Clayton Utz, amongst many others, who passionately highlighted the very problems of determining a notional surcharge contribution factor as it applies to defined benefit funds.What we have in respect of the first aspect of the legislation is a complete backflip by this government, as represented by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, in respect of removing the advance instalment provisions for the collection of the so-called surcharge or tax. I can recall that when this legislation originally went through the Senate I pointed out the following question to the chamber and to the government: how can you collect an advance instalment of a tax when the tax office does not know what the income will be of people at some future date? I submitted at that time, some 2½ years ago, that that was a fairly fundamental flaw in respect of collecting the advance instalment.We are not talking about peanuts in terms of revenue collection; we are talking about $120 million in revenue. The government has done a total backflip on this aspect of the legislation and decided to abandon the advance instalment collection of the so-called superannuation surcharge. When I asked Senator Kemp about this issue at the Senate committee hearings, Senator Kemp maintained, `We still feel that the original bill was sound.' If the original bill was sound, what is the explanation for the government abandoning an advance instalment that collects $120 million in revenue? What is the explanation? Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, as is his wont and his record, could not provide any explanation whatsoever for the abandonment of a commitment to collecting $120 million in revenue.The Liberal government cannot have it both ways. If they are abolishing the advance instalment, then either the surcharge tax is flawed and the advance instalment cannot be collected and that abandonment is a result of a substantial policy change, or, as Senator Kemp argued before the committee some two weeks ago, the original bill is sound. Senator Kemp's and the government's position on the advance instalment and its abandonment is a total contradiction. There is a total lack of adequate justification for the government's policy changes with respect to the abandonment of the advance instalment, as advanced or not advanced on this occasion by the Assistant Treasurer.It may perhaps be that the original criticisms of the advance instalment as advanced not just by me, I might say to the Senate chamber, but by every reputable commentator in the area of superannuation—every actuary, every economist, every accountant and every financial planner—that you could not collect an advance instalment of a tax when you do not know what the income levels of persons in future will be is a very basic flaw. That is one of the issues that is highlighted in this report. I do not want to take all of the 10 minutes that are available to me because there is a range of other matters I will be commenting on when this legislation comes before the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees838983898389Motion (by Senator Bourne)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the development of the Hinchinbrook Channel be extended to 27 September 1999.Miscellaneous83898389838915:55:008389Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee relating to the budget estimates hearing for 1999-2000.Bills8389r79783898389The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)10000PON/A10—I present the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing on the provisions of the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999, together with a submission and a letter.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous83898389The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)10000PON/A10—The President has received a response from the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Carr, to a resolution of the Senate of 12 August 1999 concerning indigenous Australians, together with a Statement of commitment to Aboriginal people .Bills8389Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws:Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999Bills8389A message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendment made by the Senate to the following bill:Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999Bills8389r892Billsr829Billsr828Billsr830Billsr8668389Bills received from the House of Representatives.8389Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have two of the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.839015:59:008390Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the social security package of bills and an additional explanatory memorandum relating to the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999. I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999The initiatives foreshadowed for the Veterans' Affairs portfolio in this year's budget build on our commitment to provide generous compensation and assistance recognising the special standing of the veteran community.The Veterans' Affairs portfolio is responsible for providing income support and health care to one in four Australians over the age of 75 years. This Government has given priority to programmes designed to help ageing veterans live independently in their own homes, if this is their wish. This year the Government has also focused the National Healthy Ageing Strategy on the International Year of Older Persons.The Department of Veterans' Affairs' main initiative during the International Year of Older Persons is HomeFront—an initiative designed to reduce falls and accidents in and around veterans' homes.This initiative provides eligible veterans and war widows a free home assessment and up to $150 in financial assistance towards recommended aids and minor home modifications per year.HomeFront also provides a range of information and helps link veterans and war widows to other support programs and services for which they may be eligible.HomeFront is currently available to all Gold Health Care Card holders. This bill will allow HomeFront to be available to all White Health Care Card holders as well—bringing the total eligible to approximately 340,000 members of the veteran community.Complementing this extension, the bill will allow the Government to introduce the Home Support Loan Scheme, which was foreshadowed in the Budget. It will provide low interest loans of up to $10,000 for home modifications and essential maintenance.Loans under the Scheme will be available to certain persons eligible under the Defence Service Homes Act who have an outstanding loan of less than $10 000. Eligibility for the Loan Scheme will be extended beyond those eligible for a Defence Service Home advance. This new Loan will be available to Australian veterans, members of the Defence Force, and members of a Peacekeeping Force covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act, and to their widows or widowers.The student children of older veterans who receive an extreme disablement adjustment will also benefit under this bill.Currently only children of deceased, extreme disablement adjustment veterans, are entitled to assistance under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme. This bill will ensure that the children of living extreme disablement adjustment veterans become eligible for such assistance as well, providing these student children with full access to all of the benefits available under the Scheme—including financial assistance, educational guidance and counselling.Further, this bill provides a mechanism for setting out the specific circumstances and criteria for determining whether a person is permanently incapacitated for work, for the purposes of an invalidity service pension and income support supplement on grounds of invalidity.Currently the criterion for permanent incapacity for work purposes, does not specify the assessment methodology to be used in determining the degree of incapacity.The current test lacks reference to objective criteria and is susceptible to subjectivity in its application.From 1 January 2000, there will be three measures of permanent incapacity for service pension purposes:. Blindness;. The receipt of the special rate disability pension, for total and permanent incapacity; and. An objective assessment of the person's impairment, combined with the person's capacity to work.The impairment assessment will be made by reference to the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions, so bringing consistency with an existing test that is widely known and accepted within the veteran community.I assure the House that veterans found not to be permanently incapacitated as measured by these new criteria, will continue to have access to Australia's extensive income support safety net, including disability support pension, sickness allowance and Newstart allowance.A further provision of this bill will allow the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to declare, by gazettal, the deployment of non-Australian Defence Force personnel as a Peacekeeping Force for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.I commend the bill to the Senate.SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999Since forming Government in 1996, this Government has sought to implement its commitment to a simpler and more coherent social security system that more effectively meets its objectives of adequacy, equity, incentives for self-provision, customer service and administrative and financial sustainability.That commitment can be met in part by seeking to ensure that social security legislation is routinely reviewed to improve its readability and to ensure that it is easier to amend so as not to impede the implementation of new policies.The aims of enhanced readability and adaptability to implement change are not new to social security legislation. Indeed, the Government recognises the efforts of the former Government in rewriting the social security law in 1991, culminating in the Social Security Act 1991.But just as the 1991 exercise recognised the need to make social security legislation more comprehendible and adaptable, subsequent experience with the Social Security Act indicates that these aims could be better achieved by consolidating the technical rules provisions of that act.A technical rules simplification project has been conducted in my Department, in conjunction with Centrelink, with the aim of simplifying the technical rules provisions.The objectives of the project have been to implement simpler policies for the Social Security Act through legislation that:. is consistent across payment types;. facilitates movements between payment types;. is easy to administer;. reflects current and desired best practice in administration and customer service;. is easy to amend;. facilitates the introduction of emerging technologies;. is in clear English and has a logical structure and flow; and . is as short as possible because it avoids unnecessary repetition.This bill is the result of that project, simplifying the technical rules by standardising them and locating them and other administrative provisions separately from the other provisions of the Social Security Act.The bill deals with technical rules relating to:. claims;. start days (this concept replaces the somewhat misleading concept of "provisional commencement day");. payment into bank accounts;. payment by instalments;. protection of social security payments;. information gathering;. comparable foreign payments;. provision of tax file numbers;. rate increase, reduction, cancellation or suspension determinations;. changes to payments by computers;. date of effect determinations;. review of decisions;. offences; and. use of emerging technologies.The bill covers social security payments and concession cards. However, the bill does not contain any provisions relating to qualification, payability, rates, overpayments, debt recovery, portability or international social security agreements.Like the 1991 exercise, this bill does not involve any major policy initiatives and it does not have any significant financial impact.The policy initiatives implemented by the bill relate to:. streamlining the claims process and providing enhanced flexibility in how claims may be made;. making it easier for a person to be transferred between income support payments;. making it easier for a person to be placed onto the correct payment where the person has applied for the incorrect social security payment;. introducing generic provisions applicable to all payment types wherever possible—for example, commencement provisions being events based rather than being payment type based (and so varying from payment type to payment type); and. reducing the number of instalment rounding provisions. The bill also gives effect to some recommendations of the Guilfoyle Report, including:. giving the Social Security Appeals Tribunal the ability to consider matters without having to convene an oral hearing if it considers that a review may be conducted adequately without an oral hearing; and. establishing a 12 month time limit in which a customer may lodge an application to a Centrelink authorised review officer to appeal a reviewable decision (although there will be scope to extend the time limit in special circumstances).A significant outcome of the bill will that there will be much less social security legislation—about 500 pages less—and it will be more consistent. This should be of benefit to Centrelink in administering the social security law.This bill is not, nor is intended to be, an all singing, all dancing exercise. Just as the Government's commitment to a simpler and more coherent social security system is ongoing, so is the need to constantly review the legislative basis underlying that social security system. The Government trusts that this bill will receive the same bipartisan support afforded to the 1991 rewrite of the social security legislation.I commend the bill to the Senate.SOCIAL SECURITY (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1999This bill accompanies the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and the Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999.The bill:. provides for the consolidation of existing social security international agreements into a separate act;. provides for new social security international agreements to be added to the Social Security (International Agreements) Act (once enacted) by way of regulation; and. provides for existing social security international agreements to be varied by way of regulation.I commend the bill to the Senate.SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1999This bill accompanies the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and the Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999. Together, they form part of the measures being undertaken by the Government to give effect to the Government's commitment to implement a simpler and more coherent social security system that more effectively meets it objectives of adequacy, equity, incentives for self provision, customer service and administrative and financial sustainability.The bill:. amends and repeals provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 consequential upon the enactment of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999;. provides for the repeal of Part 9 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (when enacted) as a consequence of the commencement of provision of that act which contains a single rounding provision that applies to all social security payments; and. amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 to insert a new section that provides for a time limit for applications for review of decisions by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, consistent with the approach taken in the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (PAY AS YOU GO) BILL 1999This bill will replace the outdated income tax collection systems with one comprehensive modern collection system called pay as you go, or PAYG.The bill, together with another I will introduce in Spring, will also implement a number of administrative reforms announced by the government before the last election. One important reform is the introduction of a single activity statement reducing the number of interactions businesses have with the Australian Taxation Office. For many this will mean only four statements and payments each year.The new PAYG will replace provisional tax, company instalments, pay as you earn, prescribed payments and reportable payments. It also draws together into one system all of the other withholding arrangements, like non-resident withholding, tax file number (TFN) withholding and withholding from mining and natural resource payments.Under PAYG, payment dates will be aligned. Businesses in GST will pay their income tax instalments at the same time, quarterly, after their income is earned.Currently most taxpayers pay a percentage of last year's tax and individuals also pay an uplift factor. PAYG instalments will be based on actual income. This will mean that the payments will fluctuate with trading conditions. Taxpayers will pay less when they earn less and more when their income increases. Taxpayers will be able to vary the amount of their instalments, for example, in the event of an unforeseen downturn in trading conditions. In certain circumstances this could lead to a refund.Individuals not in the GST system will be in the PAYG system for investment income. Where they are large payers, they will pay quarterly. There will be an option to pay quarterly notional amounts if they prefer not to make quarterly instalment calculations.PAYG takes advantage of the opportunities provided by the GST and the single activity statement. Businesses in GST will calculate their quarterly income tax instalment based on the GST sales they report.The new integrated PAYG withholding system will reduce compliance costs by removing uncertainty and reducing the amount of paperwork and the number of payment dates. In line with the government's earlier announcement, withholding will be required from payments to employees and other office holders, payments to workers by labour hire firms, payments under voluntary agreements and payments where the payee's Australian business number, or ABN, is not quoted. The new withholding arrangements do not try to make contractors employees. PAYG does not fall back on generic descriptions and deeming provisions. It describes the payments that are subject to withholding.The new arrangements will provide more flexibility. It will be possible to add additional categories of withholding if it is desirable to do so. This will ensure that the withholding rules are able to evolve and stay relevant over time. Withholding rules should not be an obstacle to more efficient ways of doing business.It will also be possible for businesses and their contractors to choose to enter into a voluntary agreement. Under these agreements, the business will withhold and, in most cases, the contractor will not have to charge GST. Finally, the new `no-ABN' withholding will impact on the cash economy by making it harder for unscrupulous operators to evade their fair share of tax.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills8393r6728393Debate resumed.16:00:008393Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I would like to make some comments to wind up the debate on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . I might bypass the general introductory remarks and go straight to the things that need to be said. In relation to the role of commissioners, a major reform in the bill involves the consolidation of the three complaint handling schemes contained in the racial, sex and disability discrimination acts into a single uniform scheme contained in the one act. The new scheme will simplify the complaint handling process and incorporate best practice procedural provisions. In addition, the president will be responsible for complaint handling under the new scheme. Centralisation will overcome deficiencies in the existing complaint handling processes and improve the commission's capacity to utilise its resources and to deliver services in a more efficient manner. It should also assist in promoting consistent and coordinated practices for all complaints.That is not to say, however, that the expertise of commissioners will not be utilised in relation to the acts for which they are primarily responsible. Commissioners will have a new role in which they will be able to appear as an amicus, or friend, of the court in order to explain how they consider the antidiscrimination acts should be interpreted. The commissioners' expertise will also be utilised in the complaints area. The work done by commissioners in relation to their areas—in particular, any guidelines or reports prepared by them—will be taken into account in relation to the general approach to be taken on complaint handling. Thus, while commissioners will not be involved in handling individual complaints, as this would present conflicts of interest in relation to their amicus role, the president will have their assistance in the broader direction to be taken in relation to complaints.I note that some have criticised the bill on the grounds that it may make it more difficult to pursue a complaint. This criticism appears to be based on factors such as the more formal nature of the Federal Court proceedings and the exposure to fees and costs. In response to those criticisms, the following points need to be made. First, the existing system, introduced by the previous government, can hardly be described as efficient or cost effective. There are potentially three levels of dispute resolution, two of which are unenforceable, causing unnecessary delay and expense. Under the proposed scheme, if conciliation is unsuccessful, the parties have direct access to the Federal Court, where they will be able to obtain an enforceable determination of their respective rights. The scheme has the potential to address significant delays in the current system and to reduce the costs associated with obtaining a binding determination in antidiscrimination matters.Second, it has been claimed that the fees and costs to take cases to the Federal Court will be prohibitive. This bill has not proposed anything different from the current system. People seeking now to enforce determinations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in the Federal Court are subject to standard court fees and cost regimes. In this context, I also note that it is planned that the proposed Federal Magistrates Service will have jurisdiction over human rights complaints which have not been satisfactorily conciliated in the commission. Legislation to establish the magistrates service was introduced into parliament on 24 June 1999. One of the attractions of the service is that it will keep costs down for litigants. It will utilise streamlined procedures in a less formal judicial culture, which should allow for quicker resolution of cases. There should be reduced delays in having matters dealt with, which should lead to fewer interlocutory procedures and fewer court appearances by litigants and their representatives. Procedures before federal magistrates will be simplified, which will also act as a factor to reduce costs. Many litigants in the human rights jurisdiction are expected to be unrepresented, and they will also be helped by simplified procedures. All of these factors should help reduce costs and result in savings for litigants both in terms of time and money.In relation to costs, the bill leaves open the possibility that a person taking a case to the Federal Court may be exposed to an adverse costs order. As I have said, this is no different from the current regime. The government has considered alternative approaches and, noting the Federal Court's wide discretion in this regard, considers that the standard regime provides the best protection for all parties and should continue to apply. Thus, while generally costs are awarded to the successful party, the court may decide that the special circumstances of a case indicate a different order should be made. The government considers that one of the main advantages of allowing the normal costs rules to apply is that more lawyers will be encouraged to represent indigent applicants in human rights disputes where a case has real merit.This view was supported by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in its evidence to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee back in 1997. The commission indicated that the growth in contingency arrangements—that is, don't win, don't pay—and the potential for a costs order against the opposing party are likely to give complainants a better chance of getting lawyers to act in discrimination cases without the payment of up-front legal fees. The commission has recently reiterated its view that normal costs rules should apply. The Law Council of Australia also supports the government's position.It is not necessarily the case that people will need to engage lawyers to represent them in proceedings. The bill provides that parties may be represented by people who are not barristers or solicitors unless the court is of the opinion that it is inappropriate in the circumstances for the other person to appear. This will allow parties to be represented by a particular interest group or peak body—for example, by their trade union, a disabilities advocacy group, an Aboriginal legal service or a women's support service—or any other organisation providing assistance to people in the sex, race and disability discrimination fields. Senators should also note that, where there is hardship, either party to a proceeding will be able to apply to the Attorney-General for financial assistance for the proceedings. This will also assist in reducing the costs faced by a party to proceedings in the court.On the matter of fees, while the government considers that the usual rule as to costs should apply in relation to human rights litigation, the government has noted the concerns raised in discussions with the commission, the Australian Democrats and disability groups in relation to court fees. I am pleased to advise the government has agreed that a flat $50 fee will apply to bringing discrimination cases before the Federal Court. This fee will be the only fee payable for human rights cases in the court. This change will be achieved by amending the Federal Court regulations, as is appropriate, rather than amending the bill.The government regards the special fee arrangement as appropriate in the context of a system where the usual rule as to costs will apply to human rights cases in the Federal Court. Of course the normal rules under the Federal Court regulations as to a waiver of fees for those in financial hardship continue to apply so that those human rights litigants who qualify for a waiver will not be required to pay any fees. This measure, in combination with the introduction of a Federal Magistrates Service, will significantly reduce the costs associated with human rights litigation under the new arrangements.There have been some general matters raised in relation to access and equity, and the bill contains a number of initiatives designed to reduce formality in Federal Court proceedings which will possibly lead to less reliance on legal representation. The court will be able to adopt informal procedures as it will not be bound by technicalities or legal forms. Although the bill makes no provision as regards the rules of evidence, the court will have the usual discretion to waive the application of the rules in appropriate circumstances.In addition, the commission is naturally interested in the conduct of human rights litigation in the Federal Court and currently reviews case law as part of its responsibilities for administering human rights legislation. The commission has indicated that it would continue to undertake this role and would draw the government's attention to any concerns it may have if it considers that formality or technicality has compromised decisions and therefore the effectiveness of this legislation. The Attorney-General's Department of course also monitors the case law and would bring any such concerns to the government's attention.When the bill was being debated in the House, the opposition moved amendments seeking to extend the definition of a discriminatory act under an award beyond the provisions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act. The Sex Discrimination Act currently includes a power to refer discriminatory awards and agreements to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and discriminatory determinations to the Remuneration Tribunal or the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. The opposition's amendments sought to extend this referral power to the Racial Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act.The government has no in principle objection to the opposition's proposal, but the drafting resources required to properly give effect to the proposal are substantial and we consider that it would be better to leave consideration of this issue until a later date. The Attorney-General's Department is currently undertaking a review of all Commonwealth human rights and antidiscrimination legislation, with a view to consolidating that legislation into one act. The government undertakes to ensure that the opposition's proposals are considered in that process.In the debate Senator Evans criticised the government in relation to recent processes for the prescription of laws pursuant to 47(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act. That act indicates that responsibility for consultation with relevant stakeholders lies with the individual state or territory which is seeking to have its legislation prescribed. To ensure that this process occurs, the Attorney-General has undertaken to seek formal assurances from the relevant state or territory minister that any necessary consultation with all stakeholders has taken place before any prescriptions under the act are undertaken. In addition, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Office of Disability in the Department of Family and Community Services will be consulted on any future proposed prescriptions.Senator Bolkus and Senator Cooney raised the issue of legal aid funding for human rights matters. The proposed new section 46PU of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act provides for a scheme of financial assistance for matters arising in the Federal Court. The scheme provides that applications for assistance may be made to the Attorney-General by a person who has commenced or proposes to commence proceedings before the Federal Court and the Attorney may authorise assistance if satisfied that to refuse assistance would involve hardship and it is reasonable in all of the circumstances to grant the application. Any grant of assistance may be made with or without conditions.Discrimination matters which are likely to be of public benefit continue to be a Commonwealth priority for assistance. That is reflected in the priorities and guidelines the Commonwealth has established in the legal aid funding arrangements that it has made with the states and territories. In addition, the Commonwealth will continue to provide funding for assistance in disability discrimination cases through the community legal service network. I think that covers the points that were raised that need to be answered. I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8396The bill.16:13:008396Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I table supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to the bill. The supplementary explanatory memoranda were circulated in the chamber on 20 September 1999. I move government amendment No. 1 on sheet EB214:(1) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 8), after item 10, insert:10A At the end of subsection 31(1) Add: ; and (f) the access to or the use of any premises, by persons with a disability, that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to enter or use (whether for payment or not).The amendment will add a new paragraph (f) to subsection 31(1) of the act to empower the Attorney-General to formulate standards under the Disability Discrimination Act with respect to the treatment of persons with a disability in relation to the access to or the use of premises by persons with a disability.16:14:008396Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I indicate that the opposition supports this amendment. The minister mentioned earlier on, as I did, that there have been some fruitful discussions in recent days. I understand that this is the product of some of those discussions.16:15:008396Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I too indicate that the Democrats are supportive of this amendment and its initiative. It is clear that there has been some consternation in some disability advocacy groups in this regard and, to that extent, this amendment is to be complimented.Amendment agreed to.16:15:008396Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet 1262:(1) Schedule 1, item 50, page 18 (lines 29 to 31), omit the item, substitute:50 Subsection 8(6) Omit "paragraphs 11(1)(f) and 31(b)", substitute "subparagraph 11(1)(f)(i), paragraphs 11(1)(aa) and 11(1)(ab) and subparagraph 31(b)(i)".This amendment concerns the reporting of complaints to the parliament. We agree with the submission put by the commission that it would be inappropriate for the executive president to individually report to the parliament on the outcome of complaints heard by the executive president or his or her delegate. The contention is that such reports must necessarily discuss the appropriateness of a conciliation process adopted and would result in either the executive president or the specialist commissioner reporting on themselves. Just as we believe that the specialist commissioner should provide input into the conciliation framework, we also believe that it would be more appropriate for the reporting process to be subject to peer review. We believe that any report to the parliament on the outcome of conciliation should therefore be made by the commission reporting as a whole, and amendment No. 1 on sheet 1262 gives effect to this intention. It is, in a sense, a minor amendment but an important one in providing for peer review on the way to parliamentary accountability.16:17:008397Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government does not support this amendment. I will not go through all the reasons; I think they are evident from the remarks I made in summing up the second reading debate. I have two points to make: it would effectively require that first the president and then the members of the commission would need to familiarise themselves with the intricacies of a complaint, and that is likely to lead to greater delays in processing complaints. I just remind senators that proposed section 46PV of the bill provides that commissioners can assist the court as friends of the court in proceedings which have significant implications for the administration of the relevant acts or where it would be in the public interest to do so. That provision clearly recognises the role that commissioners should play. The government therefore does not support the amendment.16:17:008397Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I indicate that the Democrats will not be supporting this amendment.Amendment not agreed to.16:18:008397Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I move government amendment No. 1 on sheet EB228:(1) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 4), after item 56, insert:56A Paragraph 31(b) After "any act or practice", insert ", including any systemic practice,".This amendment to paragraph 31(b) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act makes it clear that, when the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquires into any act or practice that may constitute discrimination, it may inquire into systemic practice.16:18:008397Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats are particularly pleased to support this amendment because it is an accommodation that has been arrived at between the Democrats and the government. As most senators will be aware, individual acts of discrimination are frequently only symptomatic of greater `glass ceiling like' issues. HREOC will now have the power to inquire into these areas and to address the real problems behind the individual acts associated with societal attitudes and practices. It is a greatly enhanced role for HREOC and is welcomed and supported by the Democrats.Amendment agreed to.16:19:008397Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 2 and 3 from sheet EB214:(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 26 (after line 25), after subsection 46PK(2), insert: (2A) The person presiding at the conference must ensure that the conduct of the conference does not disadvantage either the complainant or the respondent.(3) Schedule 1, item 59, page 27 (after line 7), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) If, in the opinion of the person presiding at the conference, an individual is unable to participate fully in the conference because the individual has a disability, the individual is entitled to nominate another person to assist him or her at the conference.Amendment No. 2 provides that the person presiding over a compulsory conference being held as part of the conciliation process for a complaint of unlawful discrimination must ensure that the conduct of the conference does not disadvantage any party—the complainant or the respondent. This will be achieved by amending item 59 of the bill to provide a new subsection 2A in proposed section 46PK.In addition, amendment No. 3 provides an entitlement for a person with a disability who is unable to participate fully in the compulsory conference because of that disability to nominate another person to assist him or her at that conference. That will be achieved by amending item 59 of the bill to provide a new subsection 5A in proposed subsection 46PK.16:20:008398Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I am pleased to indicate that the Democrats are supportive of both these amendments.16:20:008398Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition also supports these amendments.Amendments agreed to.16:21:008398Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 13 and 14 from sheet 1262:(13) Schedule 1, item 59, page 28 (after line 26), after subsection (1A), insert: (1B) Where 2 or more persons are affected persons in relation to a complaint terminated by the President under section 46PH, in respect of which the President has given a notice to any person under subsection 46PH(2) in relation to the termination, one or more of those persons as representing some or all of them may make an application to the Federal Court, alleging unlawful discrimination by one or more of the respondents to the terminated complaint. (1C) A representative proceeding may be commenced whether or not all the members of the representative group are seeking the same relief.(14) Schedule 1, item 59, page 28 (lines 25 and 26), omit the note.These two amendments go to the questions of representative complaints or class actions and the importance of the capacity to use representative complaints or class actions in combating discrimination. We believe that greater flexibility should be provided in the Federal Court of Australia Act and the rules of the Federal Court to allow for class actions in discrimination cases as a starting point. In this regard, the current rules that apply to com plaints and to the commission should apply in the court—namely, that two or more people may bring a class action. Under the Federal Court act the current minimum number is seven.The government has gone some part of the way towards addressing our concerns with the inclusion of proposed subsection 46PO(5) from the 1998 bill, which ensures that you can have a representative action on the basis of two or more people in the conciliation part of the process but not in the court part of the process. We would like to see consistency apply with two being sufficient for both conciliation and for the court part of a process emanating under this legislation. I would contend that our amendments are stronger and express a greater commitment to these types of actions.We also support the concerns raised by the Human Rights and Discrimination Committee of the Combined Community Legal Centres Group of New South Wales that class actions should be permissible even when members of the class are seeking different remedies to address the same cause of discrimination. These two amendments attempt to give effect to these concerns and will provide complainants with greater flexibility as to how they wish to bring their representative actions. In particular, we anticipate that these amendments would ensure that the rules will apply in addition to other rules of the court which allow for the joining of actions or the simultaneous hearing of disputes. These amendments, Nos 13 and 14, provide a greater capacity for group actions with less barriers to jump over in terms of getting a representative or class section up and also accommodate those situations where flexibility is needed and where members of the class may very well be seeking a different remedy.16:23:008398Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government does not support these amendments. What would effectively happen is that you would establish a representative complaints regime that would be inconsistent with standard provisions for representative actions in the Federal Court. Section 33L of the Federal Court act provides that if at any stage of a representative proceeding it appears likely to the court that there are fewer than seven group members, the court may on such conditions, if any, as it thinks fit order that the proceeding continue or order that the proceeding no longer continue. This provides the court with the discretion to hear matters if there are fewer than seven group members.I also note the Federal Court can hear applications jointly if complaints arise out of similar circumstances. If, therefore, two or more people have jointly pursued a complaint in the commission, there is nothing to stop the complaint also being joined in the Federal Court proceedings. Representative proceedings are generally taken in relation to the more complex matters, and the case law is developing in this area. To establish a separate representative proceedings regime could give rise to complications and inconsistencies between human rights complaints and other complaints pursued in the court in other areas.16:25:008399Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats indicate their opposition to these amendments.16:25:008399Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I ask Senator Greig why the Democrats are opposing these amendments.16:25:008399Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I simply point out to Senator Bolkus that we see them as being unnecessary and unwarranted.Amendments not agreed to.16:25:008399Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet 1517:Schedule 1, item 59, page 30 (after line 2), at the end of section 46PO, add: (9) If the Court is satisfied that a person made an application under this section vexatiously or without reasonable cause, the Court may make an order for costs against the person. (10) If the Court is satisfied that a party to the proceeding has acted unreasonably in failing to discontinue the matter before the Court or to agree to terms of settlement that could lead to the discontinuance of the matter before the conclusion of the proceedings, the Court may, on an application under this section by the other party to the pro ceedings, make an order for costs against the first-mentioned party. (11) An application for costs under this section must be made within 14 days after the determination or discontinuance of the proceedings before the Court. (12) Without limiting, by implication, the generality of the items of expenditure for which costs may be awarded, costs may be awarded in respect of: (a) legal and professional costs and disbursements, including party-party costs and solicitor-client costs; and (b) expenses arising from the representation of a party by a person or organisation other than on a legal professional basis; and (c) expenses of witnesses.In explaining the amendment, I indicate that the awarding of costs has never been a feature of the handling of discrimination law cases in Australia. The Labor Party believe that it is not appropriate for the standard `costs follow the event' rule to apply. This rule would only enable the institutionally stronger party in discrimination cases to threaten the weaker party with retribution should the claimant's case fail. That is one of the major motivating factors as to why the costs regime that was reflected in the legislation has not applied the costs follow the event rule.While we accept that the application of the costs follow the event rule would benefit those able to access lawyers prepared to work on a continuance basis, the truth is, we believe, that lawyers are only likely to do so where the prospects of success are high and where the amount of damages is likely to be substantial. There would be exceptional circumstances where lawyers with high commitment may act in other circumstances—high commitment, high involvement—but I think it is very fair to say that in the overwhelming proportion of cases lawyers would be looking for a prospect of success and a likelihood of high damages.The unfortunate thing about that is that, in respect of many discrimination complaints, particularly in the disability discrimination area, those complaints are not of this prerequisite nature—because of their varied circumstances and lack of precedence, success is more difficult to judge—and because many of these complaints occur outside the field of employment, the likely damages payouts are not great. That is not to say that there is no public interest in bringing these actions. Often it is many of the smaller acts of discrimination—for example, whether a person can access premises—that make a substantial difference to the quality of one's life. When a ruling is brought down by the commission or by the court, that ruling can have an impact on the lives of many people. In those circumstances, under the anticipated application of costs follow the event rule or contingency arrangements, those people would be excluded and would basically be imperilled in having to face the costs of lawyers or the costs of the other side.Impecunious litigants in these cases are likely to be warned off bringing an action by threats of costs awards being made against them should they bring a borderline case and fail. As I say, these borderline cases are quite fundamental to the understanding of the extent of obligations that we as a community have to those Australians living with a disability.Labor accepts that, at the end of the day, whether you support the costs follow the event rule or a no costs regime, it is a delicate balancing act. However, we do believe that the public interest favours the maintenance of the current arrangements. In saying that, can I also indicate that that is not to say that cost penalties should not apply in all cases. Where a complainant or a defendant has acted in a frivolous or vexatious manner the court should retain a discretion to award costs against the party concerned. In such cases, costs should be able to include not merely party to party costs but also solicitor-client costs.The approach adopted by Labor in this case is essentially the same as that accepted by the government in relation to unfair dismissal cases in section 170CJ of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Our new amendment has drawn on the principles set out in our old amendment 18 on sheet 1261. We have amended it to comply with the form used in the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Unfair dismissal cases are, we believe, another example where the power imbalance between litigants necessitates the application of special costs rules. I should also note and place on the record that the Australian Law Reform Commission specifically endorsed the application of a no costs rule for unfair dismissal and discrimination cases in its 1995 report Costs shifting—who pays for litigation.I indicate here that we have waited for some two years for the Australian Democrats to consider this issue. They have as yet refused to reveal to us and to others their position on this amendment, despite intense lobbying from disability support groups. I urge them not to betray in the Senate today the interests of those most vulnerable Australians. If they were to do so, they would have some pretty obvious questions to answer—on the one hand: why? There is actually no political need for you to do so. The numbers would well and truly be against changing the cost regime. The combined impact of the Democrats' vote and ours would ensure that. Good public policy would also necessitate against bringing in a costs regime.I fear, I must say, that the only reason the Democrats have not revealed their position to date has been to avoid the public scrutiny of the disability support groups and to avoid a backlash from their own members. Once again, we are in a situation where at the end of the day the Democrats have yet to reveal their position. It is one of those situations where you close your eyes, grin and bear it and see what happens at the end of the process. That is what those vulnerable groups in the Australian community are fearing. So I urge Senator Greig not to adopt a costs regime and to support the opposition in proposing a continuation of an existing structure as amended to pick up elements of the workplace relations costs regime.16:32:008400Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government does not support this amendment. Since Senator Bolkus chose to put on record the Law Reform Commission's views on aspects of the amendments, I might say that the Human Rights and Equal Oppor tunity Commission and the Law Council of Australia support the government's position on costs in this matter.Under the current system, parties to an action to enforce a determination of HREOC are subject to the court's discretion to order costs. The opposition proposal would prevent complainants from getting a costs order in their favour. Section 43 the Federal Court of Australia Act provides that the awarding of costs is at the discretion of the court or judge. This leaves it open for the court to award costs in favour of the party where the circumstances or merits of the case warrant such an approach.Lawyers are more likely to take cases on under a costs follow the event regime. As the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has noted, parties have often been unable to secure legal representation for proceedings in the commission because it is a no costs jurisdiction. A costs follow the event regime will encourage contingency fee arrangements.The opposition's amendment appears to be—and this is claimed by Senator Bolkus—modelled on the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act about the awarding of costs against a party who makes a frivolous or a vexatious application in certain types of proceedings under the act. The provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, however, follow from a different costs regime. They make no sense in this context. The outcome for complainants would be exactly the same as under our proposals. With the usual Federal Court costs regime applying, an applicant who makes a frivolous or vexatious application would pay the costs under a costs follow the events regime, because they would lose their case. The wide discretion available to the Federal Court under section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act allows the court to take into account any considerations that it considers appropriate in making a costs order.Although there are special rules for workplace relations cases, there is no justification for treating human rights litigants in a manner different from others. The respondent may be a small business or an employee who, for example, has been accused of sexual harass ment. It is preferable to leave costs issues to the discretion of the court so that these issues may be addressed.A concern has been raised that public interest test cases, particularly where there is a lack of precedent in relation to a particular question of law, might be discouraged by the normal rule that costs follow the event. In relation to that point, the government would seek to highlight the ability of the commission to act as a friend of the court to assist in such cases. In addition to this, people suffering from financial hardship would be entitled to apply to the Attorney-General for financial assistance to run court proceedings in human rights matters.Of course, this bill envisages a scheme where court costs would be reduced because of the emphasis on informality. Initiatives to reduce costs include that HREOC may assist an applicant in his or her court application forms, the development by the court of simplified forms and that HREOC commissioners may, with leave of the court, appear as a friend of the court. So the government does not support this amendment and, in fact, thinks it works in a way that is quite the opposite to what Senator Bolkus intends.16:36:008401Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Senator Bolkus was just saying that we Democrats had not declared our hand as to how we might vote on this particular amendment. I would say to him that that is entirely dependent upon his answer to these questions. Senator, as I understand it, to summarise your amendment, it is basically designed to dissuade the prosecution of vexatious or frivolous or misconceived cases from respondents. Fair enough. What happens when a wealthy respondent decides to outprice a not so well off complainant?For instance, if a large multinational corporation is complained against by a person on a disability support pension, what would be the case after several years of protracted court battles, perhaps even an appeal to the High Court, if the person finally wins? In the end they have a win of perhaps $15,000 in damages awarded to them but, in addition, they have also run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Should they not be able to recover those fees from the multinational corporation that has discriminated against them? Senator, how does your amendment address this?16:38:008402Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think Senator Greig has probably confused two aspects of the amendment. I did say in my contribution that, in cases of vexatious or frivolous litigation, there are rules there already and the process allows for an awarding of costs in those circumstances. What you have to address is a situation where, in the circumstances that you mention or any other circumstance where someone is to take a discrimination matter before the court, at the moment that person has to be concerned about their costs. What will really run against them and determine whether they proceed with their applications and can actually seek redress is whether costs will be awarded against them if they lose the case.The bigger the respondent, the more likely they are to feel intimidated by the fact that that respondent has immeasurable resources to pursue its interests and go to higher and higher courts. The fear of having to cop two sets of costs is going to weigh very strongly against that particular person. Let us face it, in most circumstances it is not just an individual; there are community people with an interest in the case who also lend a degree of support. They would be concerned that, at the end of the day, the actual applicant would have to pay costs that were in many ways outside of their control.It is not as simple as what you say. Your scenario is one that has always been on the agenda, one that has always been taken into account and considered. As I said, the Law Reform Commission is one body that in recent years has also had that attitude. It has for a long time been held that the fear of the possibility of having to pay the costs of the other side compounds the financial considerations that an applicant has. Keep in mind that we are talking here about those who are the victims of discrimination. They are individuals who are more often than not against organisations, companies and corporations. It is a case of the powerless, in a financial sense, taking on those with resources.If you are going to say to those who are powerless, `Before you go any further, don't worry about the fact that you might have a lawyer supporting you on a pro bono case and you may not have to lose your house. If you go any further, you are going to lose your house, wheelchair and everything else,' that is the sort of thing you need to take into account. Senator Greig, this is not a new issue. It has been around for a long time. That is why we urge you not to junk the current regime that applies in this legislation and that has applied for quite some time.16:41:008402Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I wish to say something about the question of costs generally. It has been put by the minister that, as there is going to be informality in the matter and perhaps rules of evidence not being followed, that is going to make things cheaper and the matters shorter. I would be very interested in what sort of evidence you have to show that. You might find that the more informal matters become, the longer they will tend to go and the dearer they will become. Your advisers, who no doubt are in court day in and day out, would have personal experience of that.16:42:008402Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank you, Senator Cooney, and welcome you to the debate. It is always a pleasure to see your charming face, and to have a contribution from you and the opportunity to participate and debate with you. I feel truly honoured, Senator Cooney. You obviously heard if not all then at least a portion of what was said in relation to the costs matter. You come in here and you assert that you believe things are made more expensive by being made simple. That is a bit like saying to me that the sky is not blue. It is blue. Things that are simpler are generally less expensive. If you have evidence to the contrary, we would be happy to hear about it. But every intuitive piece of thinking leads to the conclusion that the simpler things are, the cheaper they will be.In any event, the point remains that the court has very wide discretion in relation to costs. Having a normal cost follow the event regime will encourage solicitors to take matters on that they otherwise might not when there are no costs and there is nothing for them to collect. That is not to say that solicitors do not have any philanthropic portions of their business, but there is a limit to how much of that they can take on. Where there is a chance of cost following the event, we believe there will be greater representation for clients in these matters, as does the commission and the Law Institute. We seem to have a number of people on our side who are not always on our side. If the commission agrees, as I have indicated it does, and the Law Council agrees, what are you suggesting, Senator Cooney? Some unholy alliance here against the interests of the disadvantaged? I cannot believe you are suggesting that.16:44:008403Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—You see, when you say `simple', you really mean that the rules of evidence do not apply, and therefore any sort of evidence can be introduced. The proceedings then chase every rabbit there is down all sorts of burrows—which tends to lengthen the proceedings. One thing about the rules of evidence is that, if properly used, they do cut down the length of time that is taken and also make sure that the relevant evidence is the evidence that is led in.On your analysis where you say that the costs `follow the event', it means, as has been said by Senator Greig, that a person who is faced with the prospect that a matter is to be taken up to the High Court is certainly not going to be able to risk anything beyond the first phase of the proceedings, and then not for long—because, if he or she loses, he or she has to pay the costs of the other side. As you say, big bodies that litigate, such as big companies, have the money to spend on very expensive counsel and very expensive lawyers, whereas the others have not; and you do get an imbalance between the sort of representation you have got and between the sorts of consequences of the loss. If the poor and the downtrodden have to go to legal aid, then the consequences of them winning and the big company having to pay is not a big impost on the company but, if it is the other way around, then the person has to pay very big money to the successful respondent. That is just how it happens.16:46:008403Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I thank Senator Bolkus for his earlier answer. I am not sure that I agree with it, but I would like to ask him another. Senator, in relation to your amendment, how will this arrangement operate so that a complainant and their solicitor do not end up slugging it out over an award for damages, so that someone who may win a case has to then hand over that money or pay out more money to their solicitor?16:47:008403Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Senator Greig, it would operate as it operates now: that is the simple answer. Can I ask you a question? What makes you think that you know better, in terms of what happens on the ground, than all those disability groups that have been making representations to us and to you for two years? What makes the Australian Democrats think that they know better, in terms of what suits their purposes, than all these groups which have lifelong experiences in terms of running these cases and fighting discrimination battles and lobbying for discrimination laws, and who have on the ground experience in these matters?They have been working under the existing regime. They are concerned and they fear that, if you toss in another element of having to pay the other side's costs, then they will not be able in the future to run the cases that they have a capacity to run now—because, as I say, they will then have to anticipate uncontrolled costs of the other side being awarded against them. The other side is quite often using senior counsel and a whole array of counsel. What makes you think that they are not legitimate in having those fears and not legitimate in saying to us that that sort of cost anticipation will deter many of their people from seeking redress?As I said to you at the start, what would happen in your scenario is what happens now. Quite often, as we know, coming from the community sector, people do work on a pro bono basis and do work for politically motivated reasons and so on; but the other side's lawyers do not do that, and the other side is quite often not limited to one or two lawyers. They are quite often using an expansive range of senior counsel, experts and whatever. So my question to you is this: why do you know better than those who are actually operating in the field?16:48:008404Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I do not want to prolong the debate, but I would like to clarify the government's position here. We believe that there would be an advantage to litigants with a `costs following the event' rule. We accept the advice of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which has not been known to be a commission that goes to supporting some mechanism that is going to badger disability groups in an unfair way. Nor, for that matter, is the Law Council of Australia known to be a body that is keen to disadvantage disability groups at all. I understand that there is a difference of opinion as to how these two proposals will work, but I wish to underline that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Law Council of Australia support the government in its position with respect to costs.16:49:008404Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—This has always got to be looked at in terms of the whole issue of legal aid. What has really been put is that the financial interests litigation will have to be done on a contingency basis, because that is the only way it is going to be financed. As the minister says, that is a point of view; and what we come down to here is the issue of how best to resource litigation in the community—litigation that you are sure to have. But the issue of legal aid should not be left out of this equation because of that.There have been all sorts of problems about legal aid, and this is an attempt to get over that by inviting lawyers to take cases that might bring them money through the success of such cases. If you are going to use that method rather than the legal aid method, you are going to dampen a trend that ought to be set in Australia, one where the courts lay down precedence in terms of the human rights legislation or the rule of law legislation that we have, as I prefer to call it. So I think that the opposition's proposition makes it more likely that people will take action which will develop precedence in the human rights area, which otherwise is not going to come forward. If we do not have the legislation—as they do in most other countries, such as New Zealand, Canada and now the United States—you are going to have to do it through the courts.The problem you are going to have with your plan of the costs system—and, as you say, it has respectable advocates—is that you are not going to have the precedent set which our way of settling the cost question will enable to happen. You could do it through having legal aid but, clearly, legal aid is off the agenda in terms of there being sufficient legal aid to set the sorts of precedents that we need as a country. So I do think that the opposition's approach in these circumstances is the better one.16:52:008404Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I wonder if I could put some questions to the minister about this legislation and, in doing so, say that for us this has been a very difficult matter to deal with. No doubt, all senators in this chamber have had correspondence from disability groups, and I want to raise a few of the questions that they have raised with us. Firstly, I ask the minister about the question of the constitutional implications of the ALP's amendment. As I understand it, it is problematic for the parliament to be instructing the courts—Federal Court or others—in relation to costs. Could the minister comment on the ALP amendment in that regard?16:53:008404Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator, obviously I have only just heard that question, but what comes to mind, for example, is the no cost, no legal representation schemes that exist in some of the states—the small jurisdictions areas. I do not know that there is a constitutional difficulty that I can see. I simply think they are mistaken and misguided, and that under the system the government is proposing there will be more legal advice available to people. It is important, since you have given me the opportunity in raising this, to remind senators of the arrangement to ensure that a relevant commissioner can act as a friend of the court. For example, in test cases on a very public issue that might relate to disability, the commissioner can act as a friend of the court and, for that matter, almost run the entire matter as a friend. So I think those points have been overlooked by the opposition.16:54:008405Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—It would appear to me, Minister, that a lot of the concern with disability groups and individuals is relating to the fact that they perceive that this change will mean that all complaints will need to be taken to the Federal Court. For the record, could you indicate what the process of making complaints will be and what percentage of complaints are likely to end up in the Federal Court.16:55:008405Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—It is important that disability groups who may be concerned appreciate that they can of course still take matters and have them conciliated before the human rights commission. What they cannot get is what they cannot get under the existing system anyway, and that is an enforceable decision. So this is providing the mechanism for them to get an enforceable decision, should they want it. But there are cases, as I am advised, that are conciliated, that come to an agreement and are implemented—there is no need to go further and get an enforceable decision.16:55:008405Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—If I can just work through the issues that have been raised with me, I think it would be helpful, Minister. I will just read from this submission:The risk of an adverse costs order will simply mean that most people with a disability will not proceed to the hearing stage of a complaint. Further, there are strong indications that people with disabilities will be discouraged from pursuing their rights at all in this jurisdiction or will settle on unsatisfactory terms.16:56:008405Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I have just received some advice that we apparently estimate that some two to three per cent will continue on to the Federal Court stage. I repeat, in relation to the question you just asked, that people will still be able to go to the commission. It is when they want an enforceable decision that they will need to go to the court. Staying as we are does not allow them to have an enforceable decision through the commission. I do not know whether that point was lost on the opposition or whether perhaps in the to and fro of public debate that is not clear to disability groups. I would hope that it is clear that they have the opportunity for conciliation and of course have the opportunity, should they be in the two to three per cent that want to go to a court decision, to have the relevant commissioner acting as a friend of the court in that matter. One would assume, of course, that if the matter is one that affects a wide range of disability groups—or even a small niche—and that is of interest to disability groups, the disability commissioner would have an interest in acting as a friend of the court.16:57:008405Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—When the minister says that two or three per cent will go on, that has to be seen in the context that that is what happens with most litigation—not most litigation, but most disputes are settled. So what you are always talking about—whether in this area or in any other area, whether it be corporate law, contract, tort or whatever—it is only in that two, three, four or five per cent of cases that the issue of costs is going to arise. When the disability groups say that they are frightened about an order for costs, that is consistent with what litigants of slender means say. If you are, say, a small builder who is up against a very big construction firm, that big construction firm can stare you out in terms of the litigation it can bring against you. For example, it can just keep appealing on points and put off the resolution of the case you bring to the point where you are not only exhausted financially but exhausted emotionally and in terms of time. Indeed, there are some firms, some lawyers, who use that as a deliberate strategy. I do not know what can be done about that except to rely upon a sense of ethics and a sense of fairness.The question that Senator Allison asks is a very pertinent one, and it relates not only to this area of litigation but to litigation general ly. The real problem is: how can you, as a small person who has a right, try to vindicate that right through the courts when you do not have legal aid and when oftentimes the person against whom you are going to litigate has very deep pockets?17:00:008406Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I would also like to make a few comments about this because I think we are on the verge of another Democrat sell-out to the government. It needs to be placed on the record that they are doing it once again. You can smirk all you like, Senator Greig, but it had to come, didn't it—the environment movement, indigenous Australians and now disabled Australians and those discriminated against? Your maiden speech was all about discrimination, and yet the first act that you will take in this place will be basically to serve the death knell on access to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the courts of the country for many of those people whom you are concerned about. There is a lot of distance between your first speech and what you are doing here today. Just keep that in mind.Senator Allison asks, `Can't the commission take cases to court?' In an ideal world, the commission can do lots of things, but the world is a lot less ideal now than it was a couple of years ago. They now have half the annual funding they had in 1996, Senator Allison. One in three staff have gone. The resources are pretty skint. They are doing away with specialist commissioners and giving them generalist types of roles. Even in previous days they did not have the capacity to run the cases they wanted to run, and now they have half the annual funding, one-third of the staff have gone, there are fewer specialist commissioners and, as Senator Cooney rightly says, less legal aid is available and there are new guidelines ensuring that cases like the ones we are anticipating here would not get legal aid. This is not going to be the sort of ideal world that you are anticipating, Senator Allison.The degree of naivety that has come upon the Democrats in the last few months is epitomised here again today. I do not see this as a funny matter or a laughing matter, Senator Greig and Senator Allison. You can smirk all you like. But, if you work out in the field in these areas and you try to get legal aid, you will not be able to get it. If you go to the commission and try to get them to run a case for you, you will not be able to get it. If you go to a lawyer who does the work pro bono, you have to worry about the costs on the other side.Senator Allison may laugh all she likes, but what she has not answered is: what makes her think that she knows a lot better than all those disability groups that have been approaching us for quite some time? Let the record show that there is laughter, giggling and smirking by the Democrats as they knife another important constituency.There is no need to do this. The government has got from you just about all it wants. You do not have to do this. You do not have to impose a fees regime, as you are talking about here. You do not have to vote with it. The numbers would be against it, if you were to vote for a continuation of the current regime. You are not selling out; you are giving away all those principles and concerns.Senator Greig, you came in here making highfalutin sounds about antidiscrimination. Discrimination is felt on the ground and discrimination has to be fought on the ground with resources. When you have a commission that does not have them, when legal aid is cut back enormously and when legal aid guidelines preclude these sorts of cases, you cannot say to someone who is going to take on a discrimination case, `You might be okay in terms of your lawyer but, if you lose this, you might have to pay the costs of a whole bevy of senior counsel on the other side,' and expect them to not be afraid of running a case. Get real!17:03:008406Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—It is interesting that Senator Bolkus, in his litany of legislative anomalies, failed to talk about the RFA and failed to talk about youth wages. If you want to talk about discrimination, let us talk about young people and whether or not they should be paid according to merit. You are quite right, Senator, my first speech was dedicated to talking about my work in human rights and equality and justice issues, as I have done for 10 years.You pose the question: what does that mean now? It means that I have learnt a hell of a lot about discrimination in my life, as have many other people. For that reason, I would never and could never support an amendment or a piece of legislation if I believed it further disadvantaged people. That is why I put to you the two questions that I did seeking further information in relation to your amendment, and you failed to comprehensively answer them in any adequate way which was intelligent or reasonable. For that reason, we cannot and will not support your amendment.17:04:008407Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I should have indicated before that the government has already indicated in other places that we would undertake a review of the regime following some reasonable period of operation. Given the very small number of matters which might be expected to go to the court—and we assess that to be somewhere between two and three per cent—a reasonable period of time might be two to three years. I am not sure the opposition knew that we are going to do that.17:05:008407Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I do not think it is a matter for Senator Bolkus to give evidence about how cost affects people and litigants; I think it is a matter of asking people and asking disability groups. There is one test you can do yourself. If you wanted to sue a newspaper for libel and the consequence of your losing was a couple of hundred thousand dollars in costs, you yourself would realise the sort of terror at bringing such litigation.You do not have to go to disability groups to realise the terror of costs. If you injured yourself after tripping over a hole in the footpath and wanted to sue a council well resourced when you were not, it would clearly be a real problem to go ahead. I do not think it is a matter of asking Senator Bolkus; it is just a matter of using your own reasoning to realise the terror that costs can bring to litigants.17:06:008407Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—If I can put another question to the minister, again from the material which has come to us from disability groups: this question relates to assessing the risks and prospects of success for cases which, they say, is difficult anyway in new areas of law. They say:There are many uncertainties in this area of law as the jurisdiction is relatively new. This makes it difficult to assess the risks of proceeding to a hearing. Where a person with a disability—who is often on a low income and expends a considerable amount of that income on their disability needs or whose income, study or accommodation are at threat—risks having to pay the respondent's legal costs, a prudent lawyer's advice would most likely be that the risk is too high. This is not because the case is not strong but because the ambit of the law is unknown and the level of representation many respondents can afford to obtain is high.Further:If a lawyer cannot properly assess the prospects of success of a case, they will be disinclined to proceed, as even a positive outcome would not result in significant fees for the lawyer. Risks of litigation in discrimination complaints far outweigh financial benefits in proceeding for both lawyers and clients.Minister, can you comment on that?17:08:008407Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I think the important point there is the help people can get from the commission prior to deciding to continue and the help they can get if they decide to continue, which is a factor to take into account when there is any uncertainty, having a specific commissioner in an area work as a friend of the court. It is not as if people doing these things are going to be necessarily doing them in isolation, and certainly not in areas where there is some groundbreaking to be done in relation to the law.17:09:008407Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Another question is about the following:Disability discrimination complaints are mostly made by individuals who have low incomes against large organisations and government bodies, which are legally well resourced. These organisations can over-utilise their significant legal resources in defending a complaint of discrimination because of the possibility that those costs will be recovered. Therefore, the risks of litigation are overwhelmingly greater for a person with a disability than for a large organisation. Furthermore, as many large organisations spread their legal work between a range of law firms, there may be a number of conflicts of interest in lawyers acting for complainants where the complaint is against a larger organisation.There are further concerns about:Other potential problems arise from debate about alternative possibilities and remedies in relation to this jurisdiction, and changes in proceedings for disability discrimination or any other human rights jurisdiction are unlikely to be accommodated due to the precedent that this will set.17:10:008408Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Before the minister answers, I put it to Senator Allison to tell the Senate whether this is something she actually believes. It is a really cute process we are embarking upon here: put submissions from disability groups to the minister, let the minister argue against them and then Senator Allison can go off and say, `I did the right thing. I was a good little senator. I raised your concerns, but the minister assured me there were no problems with them.' Senator Allison, tell us: are these the concerns you have? Do you believe this is the case? If so, why are you going to vote for the government's proposal?17:10:008408Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—As I said in my concluding remarks, the bill provides for a scheme for financial assistance for matters arising in the Federal Court, which seems to have been forgotten by the opposition. The scheme provides that applications for assistance may be made to the Attorney by a person who has commenced or proposes to commence proceedings before the Federal Court. Discrimination matters which are likely to be of public benefit continue, of course, to be a Commonwealth priority for assistance. In addition, the Commonwealth will continue the funding for assistance in disability discrimination cases through the community legal service network.17:11:008408Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—What the minister has just said shows the point we have been making: you really need legal aid in this area. The difficulty in this area is that you are not going to get legal funding for the cases where you want to set the precedents. I ask the minister—and, Minister, you ought to listen to this—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—I am fascinated, Senator Cooney.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—You will be. Minister, what would you have done about the legislation that gave rise to Brandy? Who was right and who was wrong in that decision? Did the committee that you then belonged to get very strong advice from a very learned counsel? Would you finance a case that might win or might lose on the advice of counsel? What are you going to do? If you say you are going to allow resources for these cases that are going to test the line, how much in the way of resources are you going to contribute and what sorts of tests are you going to apply? What happens with legal aid is that the tests applied are too severe and people do not get a go in the courts, and they will not get a go in this area, as we all know.17:12:008408Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Minister, the view is put that running a representative complaint will be too risky. The submission says:The inclusion of the representative provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 has allowed some of the systemic issues of disability discrimination to be addressed. Running such a complaint, which is usually large and costly, will simply be too risky and complainants would opt out of the complaint.17:13:008408Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator, I think the problems you refer to there can be handled in the way that I have already indicated. The question of representative actions was covered in earlier discussions. It is always relevant to the question that you put—that the commissioner can act as a friend of the court—and, of course, it is always relevant that financial assistance can be sought.What is even more relevant is that, under the old arrangements, you were not able to get an enforceable decision, and that just cannot be forgotten. But in providing a mechanism to get an enforceable decision, we have taken note of the options the Federal Court has to put hearings together. That is why we did not accept the earlier amendments, and perhaps you were not here when that matter was discussed.What we are focusing on now is the cost issue related to any proceedings that are brought. The government is putting a view—which is accepted by the human rights commission and accepted by the Law Council of Australia—that a cost following the event position is the better position. We say that will get for people a better representation, a greater likelihood of representation, stopgaps when they do not get representation with the commissioners being able to act as a friend and an opportunity to go for assistance from the Attorney. I think that package answers each of the points you have raised so far.17:15:008409Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The point that has not been answered yet is that of the costs not following the event and each party paying their own costs except in exceptional circumstances. It is not so much about getting representation as paying the costs of the other side. What the minister has not explained yet is the issue of a litigant who fails—somebody who brings an action where he or she has got solid advice that the action is a sound one and he or she pursues that action and loses. It is not so much the fact that he or she has to pay the costs of his or her own lawyers but he or she has to pay the costs of the other side, which are going to be very big. There has been no satisfactory answer given to that in this debate.17:16:008409Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—With respect, I do not know whether Labor is not ready to bring on the next bill or what, but we have canvassed this matter time and time again. Senator Cooney, you were here. It has been made abundantly clear. Section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act, which I am sure you are clearly familiar with, provides that the awarding of costs is at the discretion of the court or the judge. That leaves it open to the court to award costs in favour of a party where the circumstances or merits of a case warrant such an approach. That matter has already been raised, Senator Cooney.We can go on and on about this until 10.30 tonight if you like, but I think what we might like to consider is that we just have a different point of view. There is no attribution of bad faith here, Senator Cooney, to you or to Senator Bolkus. It is just that, having considered the matter carefully—and I am sure the Democrats have as well and I am sure you have—the government happens to have come to a different view. That is why we have parliament—to resolve these issues. We have considered the matter and we have decided our position.17:17:008409Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I understand exactly where you are coming from and, as I said before, you have some support. From the questions the Democrats asked, it does not seem to be clear in their mind that the real issue for a complainant or an applicant or a plaintiff, whatever you want to call the person, is not so much the costs of him or her going to court for his or her own representation but the threat of the costs of the other side. So a complainant or plaintiff—or whatever you want to call the person—could go and represent himself or herself and still end up having to sell his or her house to pay the costs of the other side. That is the real threat in all of this. That is what the Democrats do not seem to comprehend. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Bolkus's ) be agreed to.17:22:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)25Bolkus, N. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *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.Murphy, S. M. Quirke, J. A.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.37Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Greig, B. A. Harris, L.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.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.Bishop, T. M. Reid, M. E.Crossin, P. M. Abetz, E.Faulkner, J. P. Heffernan, W.Lees, M. H.Coonan, H.Lundy, K. Hill, R. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Eggleston, A.Ray, R. F. Lightfoot, P. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.17:26:008410Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:(20) Schedule 1, item 59, page 31 (line 3), omit "or legal forms", substitute ", legal forms or rules of evidence".I am moving this amendment in an amended form by deleting the word `the' before `rules of evidence' in the first part of the amendment. I also note that, with respect to the second part, the government was seeking some amendments to that which were very minor and very technical. With respect to those amendments, the advice from the Clerk of the Senate is that the amendments the government wants will be picked up in the normal detailing function of the parliament. So I will not seek to even explain what they are, but they will be picked up in the amendment process.This is an important amendment as well. It is one that goes to the question of rules of evidence. Discrimination complaints have not previously been bound by the rules of evidence. This fact itself has been a great assistance in determining complaints and a great assistance to those victims of discrimination who, more often than not, do not know the language, do not have access to resources and who quite often are not in employment. Basically, to drag them through a process of rigorous rules of evidence was deemed at the start of this discrimination legislation as not being appropriate. I think the record has proven that we should maintain the current system and not have the processes here bound by rules of evidence.We most recently picked up this principle and endorsed it in the context of native title legislation where it was recognised that there should be some deviation from the rules of evidence. It is recognised in this debate that quite often it is not just the gays of eastern Sydney who are discriminated against: it is migrants, it is indigenous Australians, it is women, it is the disabled—people who, as I say, do not have the resources and the know-how to get over court processes. Quite often they are intimidated by them.With regard to this particular issue, I note with concern the evidence of Associate Professor Tahmindjis that clause 46PO of the 1996 bill, which is now 46PR of the 1998 bill, would not prevent the operation of the rules of evidence in accordance with the ruling of Justice Spender in Aldridge v. Booth. Similarly, we must note the evidence of the National Federation of Blind Citizens that it has received legal advice that the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 will apply to discrimination matters under this government's legislation. The Legal Aid Office of Queensland and the commission have also commented on this particular point.Despite the evidence of the Attorney-General's Department that the Evidence Act 1995 has been greatly simplified and that section 11 in particular has given greater flexibility for the application of the rules of evidence in federal cases, we believe that the court should not be bound by the rules of evidence in hearing discrimination cases. We believe that to do so would make discrimination cases unduly legalistic.We think there is merit in pursuing this amendment. We think that merit was endorsed by the Senate in the way that we handled native title legislation. But if we were to look for extra support for our position, we would not need to look any further than the federal magistracy legislation. The government is proposing a similar approach to what we are proposing here for discrimination matters if and when they are transferred to the federal magistracy service. We believe that attitude is right. We also believe there should be a consistent approach taken regardless of whether these discrimination matters find themselves in the Federal Court or in the federal magistracy. On the basis of that, I urge and hope, one, that the government does not pursue its opposition to the opposition amendments and, two, that the Democrats can find some flexibility and support them.17:31:008411Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I admire Senator Bolkus's reminder to us that hope springs eternal, but often it is dashed. The government does not support the opposition amendment. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 already provides that the court is not to be bound by technicalities or legal forms. The court already has a discretion with respect to the rules of evidence under the Evidence Act, which was introduced by Labor to simplify the system. The rules of evidence can protect complainants and, if the rules are discarded, there is the potential for cases to be extended and costs to blow out. While there is some precedent for such a provision—for example, in small claims procedures and in inquiries regarding elections under the Workplace Relations Act—human rights cases do not warrant such consideration.The Federal Court rules provide that the court may at any stage of the proceedings dispense with compliance with the rules of evidence for proving any matter which is not in bona fide dispute or dispense with compliance with the rules of evidence where compliance might involve unnecessary or unreasonable expense or delay. Section 190 of the Evidence Act provides that the court may, if the parties consent, dispense with the application of a wide range of provisions of the act, including hearsay, opinion, admissibility of documents, examination and cross-examin ation. These provisions are perfectly adequate to cover human rights litigation before the Federal Court, and there is no need for a special provision in the bill to deal with the application of the rules of evidence.17:32:008411Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The rules of evidence are set there to ensure that only the truth comes through. I understand what the minister is saying, but I would have thought that if you are going to relax the rules of evidence anywhere, you would relax them in the area of discrimination. If there is anything that is hard to prove through direct evidence, it is discrimination. People are not going to come along and say, for example, that they have not given a person a job because he or she has a disability, is of a particular sex, is of a particular racial group or anything else. If you are going to relax the rules of evidence anywhere, as apparently is going to be the situation under the magistrates courts services, this is the area. It seems strange that this is the one area where you want to keep the rules of evidence—the very area where it is going to be very difficult for people to prove their case without the rules of evidence being relaxed.17:34:008411Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Minister Vanstone, is it a fact that the federal magistracy bill provides for a much more flexible approach and, unlike this legislation, does not make specific reference to the Evidence Act applying?17:34:008411Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The difference is that in the magistracy we are aiming to establish a new body with a new judicial culture and much more informal procedures. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about taking important matters, human rights matters, to the Federal Court, which has a completely different culture.17:35:008411Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Will human rights discrimination matters be able to be taken to the federal magistracy under that legislation?17:35:008411Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The point that you might like to focus on, if you want to see the government's perspective on this, is that the simpler matters will go to the magistrates service where there will be a different culture and more informal procedures. But the Federal Court remains an option, and that has a different culture. I assume you do not disagree with that; I assume you appreciate it has a different culture. If you want the human rights matters dealt with in the Federal Court, you take the culture that comes with the Federal Court.17:36:008412Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—We are saying that discrimination matters will be able to be heard either in the magistracy or in the Federal Court. As a consequence, you will have a choice between rules of evidence or not rules of evidence. The fact is, Minister, that despite your statement earlier that discrimination matters are too serious to be held in an informal manner, it is the government's own proposal that discrimination matters will be heard in the magistracy under the government's legislation.17:36:008412Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Bolkus, you perhaps have not quite got a grip on it yet. As I am advised, things will go to the magistrates service but, if they are more complex or more difficult, they will be referred. We are providing an option—or a venue, if you like, which might be a better way to describe it—for dealing with both types of matters. It is not an option. If it is more complex and more difficult, it must be referred.17:37:008412Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—That cannot be quite right. If you take the Workplace Relations Act, the magistrate's court has unlimited jurisdiction in that, as has the Federal Court. To say that you have a different culture in the courts seems quite extraordinary. Justice must be done and be seen to be done. It seems that you have to have that culture throughout the system. To say that the rules of evidence apply in the Federal Court, where by definition the quality of judges and decision makers is going to be higher than in the magistrate's court, and yet deny a person that higher quality—the right to look at whatever he or she wants—seems an extraordinary proposition.17:38:008412Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The advice I have is that the chief magistrate will make a decision on what is referred up. There is a capacity for things to go up or down depending on their complexity. As I say, I would have thought that providing the appropriate venue for the hearing of a matter, depending on its level of complexity, is something you would have agreed with.17:39:008412Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Minister, is it not a fact that, under the government's proposals, a person can actually choose to go to the magistracy as opposed to the Federal Court? It is not up to anyone else to make the decision; it is up to a particular applicant. Then it is up to the magistracy to determine whether it should go to another court. The initial point is that, under your own legislative regime, people can make their own decisions as to whether to initiate these cases. That is the first point.Secondly, isn't there a real problem with inconsistency, in terms of discrimination cases, where you have one regime in one court and a different one in another? It will not be within the government's control as to which cases go to the Federal Court; it will be within the control of the magistracy.17:39:008412Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Bolkus, I think perhaps you do understand that, yes, the initial choice is that of the litigant, as I indicated in the previous answer. I am sure you understood that matters can be referred up or down. That is, if it is a very simple matter that someone chooses to go to the Federal Court with, the Federal Court can send it down to the magistracy, and vice versa if it is more complex.17:40:008412Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—This is extraordinary. I think the magistrate's court, for example, has a jurisdiction of $300,000 as far as family law matters go. That is an incredible sum of money—perhaps not to some people in this chamber, but for the sorts of people who are going to go to litigation, and to me, it is. To have this division is an absurd proposition. You can have a case dealt with by a person who is, though of high quality, not of as high a quality as a Federal Court judge, and that person is able to pick and pluck whatever sort of evidence he or she wants. Yet at the same time you can deny a person—by definition of higher quality as a decision maker—access to the evidence that might otherwise be available. That seems to me to be extraordinary. That is the first point.The second point is one that I keep making. If you want a relaxation of the rules of evidence anywhere, you probably need it in this area because discrimination is very difficult to prove. I do not know whether any of your advisers, for example, have ever tried to run a discrimination case, but it is very difficult to run. If you have to prove discrimination, there will be some other reason given. People will not say that it is because of a disability; they will say it is because there are other people more suitable. You might have to go to the chance remark or the chance demeanour that you observe. It seems extraordinary that you would put the proposition that you are putting.17:41:008413Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—It appears that the minister is not prepared to answer Senator Cooney. Minister, is it a fact that there will not be any definition of what is or is not complex in the magistracy legislation? How would a magistrate be able to determine what should go to the Federal Court and what should not?17:42:008413Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I assume that the sum total of what you are saying is that you do not believe magistrates or judges should be given discretion to refer matters. If that is the proposition that you agree with, it is not one we agree with.17:42:008413Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—What you are saying is that you have actually lost yourself up the creek without a paddle on this one. The reality is that you came in here at the start of this part of the debate and said that discrimination matters are too important not to have rules of evidence. Now you have discovered, step by step, that not only is your own government proposing a regime without the rules of evidence for discrimination matters but also your initial defence that the more complex ones will go to the Federal Court is also without support, because you have acknowledged that there is no such definitional division between the Federal Court and the magistracy court. What you are proposing is a two-regime system. People can go wherever they like, choose whatever jurisdiction they like—federal or magistracy—and there is no imperative on the court to send matters up or down. However, they get to see each other at the end of the day. But, depending on where they choose to go, they can have rules of evidence or they cannot. Would you acknowledge now that your initial point, where you said that discrimination matters are too important to be heard without the rules of evidence, is a wrong one?17:44:008413Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I do not intend to delay the proceedings of the committee by continuing this repartee with Senator Bolkus where he chooses to hear what he wants to hear, repeats only what he wants to repeat—out of context or otherwise—and then chooses to paraphrase what he thinks someone said in words that suit his argument. If I had no job and I was not paid to be getting on with my work, I would sit here and do it with him all day, but this is an important debate. We have been over this. He knows the government's position. He has had it very clearly explained to him, and I am not going to indulge him by further delaying the question because someone is not ready to do the next bill.17:45:008413Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—This minister's response is as clear as the mud that she is bogged down in. There is nothing clear about her response. This is not a trivial issue. The minister resorts to personal abuse and criticism but, no matter how jocular she wants to make it, it really does not avoid the issue.The issue here is the one that I raised earlier. It may be a simple or trivial one to you; it might be getting close to 6 o'clock and you might want to get going; but this is a matter of immense importance to those who run cases, as Senator Cooney quite rightly said. If you are running a discrimination case, your client, more often than not, is not likely to know the language for a start and will not know the rules. Discrimination is a very difficult thing to prove. If you look at the body of law and practice that has developed over the last 20 years or so without rules of evidence, you will find that processes have developed that accommodate the sorts of disabilities that people who are trying to run discrimination cases have.You come in here totally unbriefed and ill informed and argue that discrimination cases need rules of evidence when your own legislation provides that you can have people go into the magistracy jurisdiction and not have rules of evidence. You have exposed yourself as not knowing exactly what your government's plans are in this area. The basic point is that it would be totally unfair to incorporate, in the strict way that the government is suggesting, the rules of evidence through this legislation. It would make matters unduly legalistic. My last question is to Senator Greig: will he tell us what the Democrats will be doing on this particular amendment?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Bolkus in amended form be agreed to. I just clarify for the record that the amendment, as modified, is to omit the words `or legal forms' and substitute `legal forms or the rules of evidence'.17:47:008414Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I note that Senator Greig has not taken up the invitation to answer the question. Can I ask whether he needs a bit of extra time to get advice from his advisers, or will he tell the Senate what he is going to do and why he is going to do it? His constituency needs to know, but the fact is he is sitting there mute on this question. It is like extracting wisdom teeth to try to get an answer out of him on this particular issue. Tell us why you are doing what you are going to do, Senator Greig.Amendment not agreed to.17:48:008414Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—For the record, I indicate that the opposition did not call a division on this, although we were keen to see our amendment get up. I also note that Senator Greig was not even bold enough to yell out his position. He whispered no.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The opposition will not be proceeding with the final amendment. The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.17:48:008414Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Again I indicate that, even though the opposition have quite fundamental problems with the legislation that has passed the committee, we will not be opposing the legislation. We will be committing ourselves to a fundamental review of it when we return to government.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.8414Bill (on motion by Senator Vanstone) read a third time.Bills8414r7788414Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Senator Vanstone:That this bill be now read a second time.17:50:008414Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 is intended to give effect to the government's 1998 budget changes to the regulation of small superannuation funds—do-it-yourself or excluded funds—and to a recommendation of the financial system inquiry, the Wallis inquiry. Primarily, it amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993—SI(S) Act for short—and a range of other related financial services, taxation and superannuation acts to implement three main changes. First, it will establish a new category of small super fund with fewer than five members, to be called a self-managed fund, where all the members of the fund must have a business or family relationship—non arms-length—and must become trustees of the fund. Second, it will transfer the regulation of self-managed funds from the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority to the Australian Taxation Office with effect from 1 July 1999. Finally, it will provide for a reduced supervisory levy, from $200 to a maximum of $50, to be payable by self-managed super funds.The arguments that the government has proposed for the changes contained in this bill are some of the weakest that have been presented before this Senate. According to the 1998 budget papers, there is no revenue implications involved in this policy change, while the explanatory memorandum states that changes to the superannuation supervisory levy are expected to have a budget revenue cost of around $19 million in each of the financial years 1999-2000 to 2001-02. The Treasury stated in a briefing on this bill that they expect this revenue to be recouped through user charging principles applied by the ATO and APRA. So this is clearly not a savings measure. It is difficult to determine exactly why the government has proposed this bill, other than to create even more confusion in the superannuation industry, which must shudder at budget time and whenever the government mentions tax system changes or an inquiry into the financial services sector.The government does seem to be trying to make a case that there are some members of excluded superannuation funds who are perhaps not able to best represent their interests in the fund. These members might be at arms length from the trustees of the scheme and are more than likely to be employee members of small employer sponsored funds. However, the government has offered absolutely no evidence in support of the proposal that arms-length members are being somehow misrepresented in their fund. Indeed, it is simply asserted that this is the case or may be the case in the future. So, based on no evidence and armed with nothing more than a theory, the government has presented this bill and expects the Senate to pass it in its current form. While this is the prerogative of every government—although perhaps not the prerogative of what is left of the Kennett government—it is the responsibility of the opposition and all senators in this place to ensure that laws which pass this Senate are sensible and do not impose unfair or unnecessary burdens on those who are affected by them. It is Labor's view that this legislation in its current form will impose a range of burdens on the trustees and administrators of excluded superannuation funds. It will also have an adverse impact on the same sex couples who operate an excluded superannuation fund, as well as members of funds who are not related to each other.The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has examined this bill in detail and reported on 22 June 1999. Labor senators found that the bill in its current form would increase complexity and confusion by introducing the ATO as a third superannuation regulator, increase costs to excluded funds which may be forced to restructure as a result of the provisions in the bill, trigger a CGT liability and possibly a stamp duty liability for funds which have no other practical option but to transfer ineligible members out of the fund, discriminate against same sex couples who are currently legitimate members or trustees of excluded superannuation funds and contradict the key objective of increasing protection for arms-length fund members who are currently in excluded funds. With that in mind, Labor will be moving an amendment which is designed to ensure that the disruption and additional costs imposed on excluded superannuation funds are kept to a minimum while still ensuring that the government's bill remains largely intact.It ought to be noted that the government's delay in introducing this bill has caused unnecessary uncertainty and cost, especially amongst small business owners. This measure, which was first announced on 12 May 1998, was not introduced into the parliament until 31 March 1999. An exposure draft was released but with only two weeks for comment. This sort of delay is simply not good enough. The government has been the master of government by press release, and it has found itself in trouble as a result of it on more than one occasion. The Liberal government says that it represents small businesses, but all it is doing with this bill is unnecessarily introducing more red tape, more cost and more confusion. Think of the cost to small businesses which operate superannuation funds in dealing with the superannuation surcharge tax nightmare as well as the GST nightmare on main street. Small businesses must be wondering where it will all end. It is clear that the passage of this bill will cause increased complexity and confusion for members, trustees and administrators of do-it-yourself funds.However, the opposition is willing to give qualified support to the public policy intention of this measure—that is, we are supportive of the case that some arms-length members of excluded superannuation funds may not best be able to represent their interests under the current framework. This is specifically the case with employees who may be members of employer sponsored do-it-yourself funds. The often unequal nature of the relationship between employees and employers means that some employees may not be able to best represent their interests in these types of DIY funds. This could still be the case even if the employees were to become trustees of the fund. We will be moving an amendment which will prevent employees being members of employer sponsored DIY funds but will allow non-employees to remain or become members of the fund provided they also become trustees.The opposition considers that the increased cost and confusion resulting from the measures in this bill could be largely overcome by a government commitment to an effective education campaign following the passage of the bill. Funding for the education campaign could come from existing ATO resources or possibly from a small increase in the significantly reduced supervisory levy. Ensuring appropriate compliance with the law will be an integral part of appropriate supervision, and education is an important part of getting best practice levels of compliance. An example of this is the high rate of compliance with the superannuation guarantee legislation as a result of the highly successful education campaign conducted by the Labor government. Unfortunately, money earmarked by the Labor government in 1995 for a community superannuation education campaign was cut completely by the coalition government in the 1997 budget, to the detriment of the understanding of superannuation by the general community. That money was obviously not part of Mr Howard's core promises. The fact that Labor's superannuation guarantee education campaign has resulted in such a high compliance rate and a growing understanding of the importance of superannuation is a good lesson and one that a smart government would take note of.This bill proposes three major changes. The first is a new definition of self-managed super fund and fund membership changes. DIY super funds are currently subject to less onerous prudential regulations than larger funds which come under the control of the SI(S) Act and regulations. This is based on the presumption that most DIY fund members are closely associated with the fund and its trustees and are likely to be able to represent their own interests as non arms-length members. Some 16 per cent or approximately 30,000 of the 180,000 DIY funds contain arms-length members who, the government claims, might not be able to protect their interests in the superannuation fund and who do not have the full prudential protection of the regulator. To overcome this potential problem, the bill requires all members of a self-managed fund to be family members or business relations, on the assumption that family members or business partners will be able to look after their own interests. In addition, all fund members will be required to become trustees. Under the bill, a member who does not fit into one of these categories will be transferred out of the fund. Alternatively, the fund may not wish to be a self-managed fund, in which case it might appoint an independent trustee and will be regulated by APRA. The fund also has the option of winding up.The government has not provided any evidence in support of this change which will inconvenience many small superannuation funds, many of which are run by small businesses. The bill will also force fund trustees to expel some arms-length fund members, potentially incurring substantial costs to the fund, its members and the transferring member. There is no sound public policy purpose for requiring fund members to be related either by family or through business but not through an employer-employee relation. The government argues that related fund members are better able to represent their interests in the fund—an argument that statistically is unsustainable and inconsistent with divorce, bankruptcy and other white-collar crime statistics such as theft and fraud. Just because you are somebody's daughter, wife, sister, grandparent, uncle or business partner does not mean that you will not be ripped off by that person. The provision requiring fund members to be related creates problems for friends and/or same sex members of existing DIY funds and will potentially cause a capital gains tax liability. For example, a fund member who is not related will force the trustees to take one of two possible actions: first, roll the non-related person out of the fund into another fund which is likely to be APRA regulated; or, second, change the structure of the fund to an APRA regulated small fund which requires the appointment of an improved trustee.Either one of the above options will result in increased costs for the fund, the possibility of a CGT liability—as assets may have to be liquidated to pay out an ineligible fund member's interest—and the exclusion of friends and/or same sex partners from their existing fund if they do not have a business relationship. This outcome is otherwise largely preventable by maintaining the provision that permits all self-managed fund members, except employees, to become trustees of the fund and allowing the option that fund members do not have to be related. By becoming a trustee of the fund, a former arms-length fund member should be better able to protect their own interests. The opposition's amendment will allow more flexibility for existing DIY fund members and trustees and will also allow some arms-length members currently in DIY super funds to continue with their current fund arrangements.A problem also arises for some funds that may have difficulty in finding and appointing an approved trustee if they are required to restructure to become an APRA regulated small fund. APRA has a discretion to ensure that the fund is complying, and it is hoped that APRA will exercise its discretion in an appropriate and fair way.A question has also arisen concerning the validity of not permitting employer sponsored funds with fewer than five members to access the equal representation provisions which are available to employer sponsored funds with more than four members. Fewer than five members funds with arms-length members which do not become self-managed funds must restructure and appoint an approved trustee. This issue appears inconsistent and may require further amendment, although the opposition will not be pursuing this at this stage.Second, the proposed regulatory transfer to the ATO has been described by one commentator as `like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank'. Small superannuation fund operators and their accountants and administrators are worried that the ATO may not only crack down on persons allegedly rorting the system but also take a stricter line with funds which appear to be operating within the law. While this is in line with a Wallis inquiry recommendation, it appears to be based on the fact that it is impractical for the APRA to do anything but superficially regulate these funds. APRA generally conducts field audits and would require large additional resources to have any hope of auditing the 180,000 DIY funds it currently regulates. There are only around 5,000 industry, retail, corporate and public sector funds.APRA's incapacity to effectively regulate excluded funds presented governments with a twofold problem of ensuring DIY funds were complying—and, hence, eligible for concessional taxation treatment—and had an appropriate level of prudential regulation to protect arms-length members, often employees in small employer funds. Arguably, if APRA cannot effectively regulate DIY funds, this could lead to an abuse of investment rules and possible taxation avoidance. Transfer of the regulation to the ATO may curtail this if it is occurring.Before the Wallis inquiry, superannuation funds were regulated only by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. The transfer of prudential regulation for self-managed super funds to the ATO will result in superannuation being regulated by three different entities: APRA, ATO and ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. This is in direct contrast to the main Wallis recommendation that essentially only two bodies, APRA and ASIC, should be responsible for the regulation of the financial services sector. However, Labor will not be opposing the transfer to the ATO, which should result in better compliance regulation. It is pleasing that the ATO seems to have adopted a positive approach to this role from the start. The opposition's proposed amendment permitting some fund members to become trustees should similarly ensure better protection of members' interests.Third is the matter of the reduced supervisory levy to be payable by self-managed super funds. Until the formation of APRA on 1 July 1998, all superannuation funds paid $200, plus larger funds paid a percentage of their assets, to cover the costs of their regulation. APRA claims that the $200 paid by DIY funds cross-subsidised the prudential regulation of larger funds. Changes to the levy structure within APRA and the removal of the supposed cross-subsidy by capping the amount payable by DIY—Senator Kemp interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am trying to complete this debate as fast as I can, Senator Kemp, so I would happily avoid your interjections, if you can control yourself. I know Carlton have made the grand final, and it is an exciting thing for you, but can you just settle down over on that side.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Brilliant adlibbing!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Senator McGauran, I would stick to trying to find those pages that you lost before.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—The National Party did okay on Saturday too, didn't they?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Senator Quirke. I will take that interjection.10000Conroy, Sen StephenThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! Senator Conroy, return to the matter at hand.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The Democrats had a brilliant showing there as well.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, perhaps you could return to the bill.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That means lower retirement incomes on the part of members of larger superannuation funds, who are more likely to be low and middle income earners.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Who had a lousy Saturday?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Kempy was okay. Kempy did not get to show and tell, so you could not tell who he voted for. Very few low and middle income earners would be in DIY funds, which are predominantly recommended to persons with more than $100,000 to invest, although some may be arms-length members. There has been no evidence produced to support the assumption that DIY fund levies were subsidising larger superannuation funds. However, larger funds have not rebutted this assumption nor opposed the lowering of the DIY fund levies. The government may also be counting on using the lowering of levies for self-managed funds as an offset to other changes, including changes to investment rules, which are the subject of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 , to which Labor is currently opposed.Labor will not be opposing the reduction in the supervisory levy. The opposition will be moving an amendment to this bill to make it fairer and to reduce the cost and complexity this bill forces onto small excluded superannuation funds. It is an amendment which is welcomed by small businesses and the businesses which currently administer excluded superannuation funds, which are often small businesses themselves.The government's complete lack of evidence as to the necessity of these changes is alarming. There is no revenue involved in this measure. One would anticipate that, if the government were concerned about some sort of rorting, it would provide evidence of lost revenue. That has not been forthcoming. The government should not, however, expect to successfully use the same tactic to get its bill containing changes to the investment rules applying to superannuation funds through the Senate. That bill, which will be examined by a Senate committee, will require substantial evidence in support of it before it gets the support of the opposition.18:06:008419Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 sets out various changes to the prudential regulation of the superannuation industry between the Australian Prudential Regulations Authority, or APRA; the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, or ASIC; and the Australian Taxation Office. It broadly offers the recommendations of the Wallis inquiry into financial services. Most of the bill is non-controversial and, as these provisions have been adequately dealt with by the minister's second reading speech and in the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, I do not propose to repeat them here.One aspect of the bill that has become controversial is the proposal to deal with self-managed funds. Currently, funds with fewer than five members are excluded from most of the prudential supervision provisions of the SIS legislation. The Wallis inquiry endorsed this approach, recommending that the prudential regulation for self-managed funds be reduced to a minimal level of supervision. It also recommended that this be accentuated by moving the role of regulator from APRA to the ATO. However, the report was concerned to ensure that small funds that had members who were beneficiaries at arm's length should be subject to the full protection of prudential supervision. The report said:At present, some excluded funds have beneficiaries who are at arm's length from the trustee. This is unsatisfactory to the extent that there is little protection of the interests of these third-party beneficiaries and because there is little scope for effective prudential resolution of such funds. The Inquiry considers that funds which have third-party beneficiaries should not be regarded as excluded funds. On balance, the Committee would prefer to discourage this particular configuration of superannuation schemes. The Committee believes that there is an opportunity to improve the prudence and compliance of excluded funds by requiring all beneficiaries of such funds to be trustees.The Democrats broadly endorse this approach. However, we are concerned that the govern ment, in implementing this recommendation, has gone too far.This bill seeks to deny the status of excluded funds to all but those funds where all members are either related or in business together. This approach would exclude a number of arrangements, such as the family accountant becoming a member of the relevant super fund, a same sex partner being a member, or a close friend or distant relative being a member. As such, many groups such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Taxpayers Association and the Law Council were very critical of the proposed narrow relationship definition used to define `not at arm's length'.The Democrats have long supported the principle that people capable of managing their own superannuation funds should be able to do so. In 1993, when the SIS bills were enacted, we were instrumental in ensuring that small funds were not as constrained as larger funds in terms of assets and supervision. However, we share the concern of the Wallis inquiry that these provisions lessening prudential supervision should not be used to the detriment of the interests of non armslength beneficiaries.The key question for us in this bill is: whom are we trying to protect? Before we inflict a $6,000 to $7,000 cost impost on small funds by requiring independent trustees, we need to ask: whom are we trying to protect? The fundamental aspect of the occupational superannuation system is that it is about making sure that superannuation is invested in the interests of employees, and that employers do not have access to the funds of their employees just to prop up their own businesses. Similarly, the Democrats have always been concerned to ensure that trustees act in the interests of employees, and that the entire super scheme is structured to deliver maximum benefit to employees.In terms of reducing the level of prudential supervision of small funds, we would answer the question by saying that it is the interests of employees that we are trying to protect. Thus, where employees are members of a super fund, it is reasonable to insist that independent trustees be appointed. In other cases where business partners, family members or friends join together to manage their own superannuation, provided all members become trustees and have full access to all information about how their funds are invested, it is reasonable that the level of regulation should be minimised. Thus, in the committee stage the Democrats will be supporting amendments to delete the various definitions of relationship determined by the government and instead defining an excluded fund as one that does not include employees of a trustee. This mechanism will ensure that the interests of employees are adequately protected by independent trustees whilst giving self-managed funds more freedom to operate free from excessive regulation.18:11:008420Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The legislation we are dealing with, Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , can be summarised by the theme that it deals with the structures of investment for the regulation of self-managed superannuation funds, particularly important for small business. It should be examined in conjunction with Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 , which deals with the way in which superannuation moneys can be invested. That is an issue for another debate, but it is related.There are two schedules to this legislation. The first establishes a new category of small superannuation fund with fewer than five members. It also transfers the regulation of self-managed superannuation funds from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, known as APRA, to the Australian Taxation Office, known as the ATO. There is a new definition of an excluded superannuation fund. In addition to requiring the fund to have fewer than five members, all members of the fund will be required to have a business or family relationship to the trustees of the fund.The ATO will have responsibility for ensuring that self-managed superannuation funds comply with the non-prudential requirements of superannuation law. A fund that has fewer than five members and that is not self-managed will continue to be subject to prudential supervision of APRA and will be required to appoint an independent trustee.The second schedule of the legislation provides for a reduced supervisory levy for self-managed funds. By way of background, there are 180,000 excluded funds. Sixteen per cent, or about 30,000 of them, have armslength members. The majority of excluded funds consist of one or two members. There is $42 billion in assets. This comprises 97 per cent of the total number of superannuation funds but represents only—although it is a substantial only in monetary terms—12 per cent of the total assets in superannuation funds and 1.8 per cent of fund members.A fund is self-managed if it satisfies a number of criteria. Firstly, it has to have fewer than five members. Secondly, all members of the fund must be trustees and there can be no other trustees. Thirdly, there must be a family or business link between each member of the fund.In the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which considered this legislation, a number of adverse impacts are highlighted by several expert witnesses. There will be a number of unfortunate impositions as a consequence of this legislation. They can be broadly categorised into four main concerns. Firstly, there will be increased complexity and confusion by introducing the ATO as a third superannuation regulator. Secondly, there will be increased costs to excluded funds, who will need expert advice on the impact of this bill as a minimum, and may need to restructure—obviously leading to further flow-on costs. Thirdly, there will possibly be a triggering of the capital gains tax liability and the possibility of stamp duty liability. Fourthly, there is discrimination against some relationships, such as of friends; but in particular we should take note that same-sex couples who are currently legitimate members or trustees of an excluded superannuation fund will have to cease the trustee relationship.For the record, we were disappointed in the evidence given by Treasury and, in particular once again, in that given by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. There clearly was side-stepping and evasiveness once again about the tax liabilities that in particular may be triggered by this legislation. If we look at the government's proposed case for change, the case that is put for changes to the regulation of excluded funds is that arms-length members of excluded funds are not able to best protect their interests in their fund, because it is not regulated by APRA or an approved trustee. There has been little evidence provided for this argument to suggest that arms-length members are not able to best protect their interests in excluded funds. There is a theoretical case that can be put in support of this argument from the Liberal government, but it did not, as usual, present any evidence.Similarly, the government did not provide evidence in support of the need to transfer the regulation of excluded superannuation funds from APRA to the ATO. It seems that the main reasons for the transfer are twofold. I quote from the evidence given to the committee:The tax office is better geared and more experienced than APRA in dealing with the large number of returns that would be expected from the small funds. It has the electronic lodgement arrangements and so on that APRA is yet to develop. The facts that, firstly, they do not require prudential supervision—and APRA is a prudential supervisor—and, secondly, the fit in efficiency and processing suggest that the tax office would be a better regulator of these particular funds than what APRA would be.That is the evidence in support. This evidence does raise some significant concerns. APRA and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, its predecessor, seem to be admitting that they have not been very successful in regulating, in either prudential or compliance terms, excluded superannuation funds in the past.If this is the case—and there is evidence that excluded funds require further regulation—the transfer of the regulation to the ATO may be—`may be'—prudent public policy. This policy is, however, likely to cause a number of adverse impacts on superannuation funds and their members which must be balanced against any perceived public policy benefits arising from the proposed changes.There was a range of evidence about adverse impacts on superannuation funds. A number of witnesses suggested that this bill would add to the already enormous complexity and confusion surrounding superannuation regulation in Australia. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia told the committee that the transfer of regulation from APRA to the ATO would create a third regulator where there were previously only two. Superannuation originally had only one regulator, the ISC. This will cause increased confusion among superannuation members, trustees and administrators. Employers are also likely to be confused by the addition of a third regulator—particularly small business will be confused, hurt and hit with increased regulatory complexity yet again.The Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants suggested to the committee that the introduction of a third regulator for superannuation was anti-Wallis, in that it contradicts the spirit of regulatory consistency and competitive neutrality that was at the heart of the Wallis financial sector inquiry reforms. This evidence directly contradicts Senator Kemp's claim that it is implementing a recommendation of the Wallis report.ASFA also suggests that having three regulators is likely to result in an inconsistent philosophy applied to the regulation of superannuation. It can be no more inconsistent than the current government's approach philosophically and practically to superannuation matters. If this does occur and the regulators do apply different interpretations to superannuation laws and regulations, greater confusion will occur, to the detriment of retirement incomes policy. The Liberal government has consistently chopped and changed the superannuation rules since it introduced the administratively complex and costly superannuation so-called surcharge—in effect, a tax.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I knew it. I won my bet.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Senator Kemp can laugh about what is a very serious issue, the superannuation surcharge tax. We tabled a report today about the abolition of the advance instalment. The retirement incomes policy of the country has been a continuous casualty of the constant confusion caused by these sorts of changes. Further confusion is more likely to occur under the government's legislation, as some small superannuation funds may move between regulators as their circumstances change.Senator Kemp interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Senator Kemp would be better advised to go back down to Victoria and chase up the former Treasurer who retired at the last election—and, in fact, to chase up the Premier, who may be retiring—and just see what they have done about collecting that super tax. As I understand it, nothing has been done about it by Senator Kemp; and he should better concentrate his energies on that particular sort of problem.I would like to comment now on some aspects of increased costs. One of the alleged purposes of this bill is to reduce the cost of supervision for excluded superannuation funds. Many of the expert witnesses who presented evidence before the committee or made submissions argued that costs are likely to increase, at least in the short term. The answer of the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, to a question on notice from the committee chair, Senator Ferguson—not from Labor—was that the costs could be between $300 and 1.5 per cent of the fund assets. What Senator Kemp in his obfuscation was very careful to avoid—and I think it was a deliberate evasion yet again—and what he did not say in his answer was that, in order to be cost effective, accountants and superannuation consultants generally only recommend excluded superannuation funds to persons with more than $100,000 to invest in the fund. One point five per cent of a fund with a minimum balance of $100,000 would result in a fee of at least $1,500 to appoint an approved trustee.We should also have a look at the increase in fines for contravention. There can be inadvertent contraventions of the legislation. It is certainly not to be condoned, but it can happen, particularly when you have a government that is chopping and changing superannuation regulations so frequently and then having to review the changes it makes. The fine of 100 penalty units in the event of contravention is a doubling of the current maximum fine of 50 penalty units. The survey by the National Institute of Accountants also stated that the creation of a distinct class of small superannuation funds is likely to in crease the cost of establishing a small fund as members seek extra professional advice.It is also clear to everyone but the government—in particular, Senator Kemp—that there may be adverse tax consequences due to the application of this bill, particularly in the area of capital gains tax, which we hear so much about from the government. This liability can be borne by the superannuation fund and fund members. So we have, on the one hand, the government waxing lyrical about doing something about capital gains tax; on the other hand, in respect of this legislation, members may in fact incur a capital gains tax obligation—I see Senator McGauran listening very intently—on small business.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I think you are struggling, Nick.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—If you want to see a real struggle, you should see Senator Kemp try to perform before a Senate committee answering these questions. But I did refer a direct question to Senator Kemp and asked him to provide a detailed answer. He avoided the practical applications with respect to the possible tax liabilities of the proposed change. The argument that a fund would not necessarily have to restructure in a way which would trigger a tax liability is spurious at best and actually goes against the stated aim of the government's bill.I want to refer also to very impressive questioning from the other side. Again, the chair, Senator Ferguson, and Senator Watson—one of the few in the government who know anything about these issues—directly raised the issue of the sale of assets with the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, and received a very unsatisfactory answer. I quote:Senator WATSON —I think this question is for the minister:—that is, Senator Kemp—given the difficulties of funds which may have to change because of the new rules, is there any possibility of capital gains rollover relief?Senator KEMP —My understanding is that the current rules provide sufficient capacity to deal with the issues where capital gains may occur. The legislation which exists at the moment provides relief.Senator WATSON —Where, for example, a fixed asset has to be sold?Senator KEMP —We are unconvinced that we need new rules to cover that. Obviously if there were particular views put forward we would listen to them, but I would have to say that the government's position coming to this hearing is that—CHAIR —this is Senator Ferguson intervening—For example, say you have some real estate and you have to sell it—wouldn't there be capital gains tax under that situation?Ms Lejins dashes in to intervene to assist the minister and says:If the underlying fund actually disposes of an asset and, in the case of the disposal of that asset, a capital gain is realised, that fund will be liable for capital gains tax.I emphasise that again:. . . that fund will be liable for capital gains tax.And the chair finally declares:So there will be capital gains tax?All of this is despite Senator Kemp's elusive and evasive evidence about that issue.I briefly mention some aspects of concern about discrimination. This legislation, by requiring members of the funds to be family members but excluding same sex families or people in a business relationship, will force excluded funds to restructure and it will be no longer possible to ensure benefits that are directed to a same sex partner in the event of death. We see that as an absurd contraction of the existing rights and entitlements of persons. It may not be a same sex partner, as was indicated in some of the evidence before the committee. It may just be that a person does not want a relative or a person with whom they have a business relationship as a trustee—they may want a friend. In this particular case, I do not think the witness was willing to trust the relative being a trustee of the fund—for perfectly good and legitimate reasons. That is their choice.Finally, this bill again reinforces the perception and the fact that this government has little or no regard for a coherent retirement incomes policy. Several aspects of this bill contradict the Liberal government's own retirement income principles—alleged principles, I should say. Firstly, they increase complexity and undermine public confidence in superannuation. People are less likely to invest additional contributions in superannuation if they do not understand—or have confidence in—the regulatory environment surrounding their retirement nest egg. Secondly, increased costs will result in lower retirement incomes. Simple arithmetic suggests that increased compliance costs must come out of the retirement income of fund members. Finally, the potential for capital gains tax liabilities triggered as a result of complying with this bill will further erode retirement incomes.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:008423Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In my remarks, I will respond to some of the issues which were raised during the debate on the second reading, and we will undoubtedly deal with those which I do not respond to during the committee stage. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1999 to change the regulatory arrangements for excluded funds, sometimes referred to as do-it-yourself funds. The bill is designed to ensure that all members of a do-it-yourself fund are in a position to participate in the management of that fund. That is, for the first time, the bill will allow the members of these funds to actually do it themselves with only nominal regulatory interference.The bill will replace the existing definition of an excluded superannuation fund with a new definition of a self-managed superannuation fund. In addition to requiring the fund to have fewer than five members, the new definition will require that all members of the fund be trustees of the fund or directors of the body corporate trustee.As I mentioned in my second reading speech, the financial systems inquiry found that, under the present system, there is little protection of the interests of beneficiaries who are at arms-length from the trustees of an excluded fund. In addition, there is little practical scope for effective prudential regulation of such funds. As such, the inquiry concluded that excluded funds should not have beneficiaries who are at arms-length from the trustees.Under the new definition, members of self-managed superannuation funds will be able to protect their own interests. Because of this, these funds will be subject to a less onerous prudential regime under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the SI(S) Act. The bill has been considered by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which recommended that the bill be passed.Let me now turn to some of the issues which were raised during the debate on the second reading. In relation to the ATO as a regulator, the bill will also transfer the regulation of self-managed superannuation funds to the Australian Taxation Office. While regulation of all other funds will remain with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the ATO will be responsible for ensuring that self-managed superannuation funds comply with the non-prudential requirements of superannuation law. Nevertheless, some have expressed concerns about the approach the ATO will take to its new responsibilities under the bill. The primary aim of the ATO as a regulator of self-managed superannuation funds will be to ensure that these funds are complying with the relevant provisions of the SI(S) Act.The ATO has developed a compliance model on which its regulation of self-managed superannuation funds will be based. There are four stages to the model: education, communication and service, self-regulation, assisted regulation and enforced regulation. The ATO expects to spend most of its time and effort at the first two stages to assist self-managed superannuation funds to regulate through education and communication. This reflects the ATO's belief that the vast majority of self-managed funds wish to comply with the law or would comply if made fully aware of the rules.Changes in the administrative arrangements have given the government an opportunity to address the supervisory fees levied on small superannuation funds. Proposed changes to the supervisory levy for self-managed superannuation funds are expected to lead to a reduction in revenue collected from such funds of around $19 million in each of the financial years 1999-2000 and 2001-02. I should also mention for completeness that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority will continue its more extensive role as the prudential regulator of all other funds.Concerns have been raised about the consequences for self-managed funds should one of the members reside overseas. It has been suggested that the fund would lose its Australian residency status under the superannuation legislation. All complying superannuation funds have to be a resident superannuation fund. This applies to all funds, not just self-managed funds. The requirements of being a resident superannuation fund are not being changed by this bill. One of the requirements of a resident superannuation fund is that the central management and control of the fund remain in Australia.Under the bill, all members of a self-managed superannuation fund will need to be trustees of the fund or the sole directors of a body corporate that is a trustee of the fund. If issues arise about the location of the central control and management of a fund with member trustees overseas, consideration should be given to switching to an approved trustee. Any changes to the requirements of a resident superannuation fund would need to be considered in the broader context of determining the circumstances in which Australia's superannuation tax concessions should be available to non-residents.Capital gains tax was an issue raised by Senator Sherry. It has been suggested that the bill will require some self-managed funds to pay capital gains tax in order to restructure to meet the requirements of the bill. The changes to the SI(S) Act made by the bill do not require funds to restructure in a manner that gives rise to a capital gains tax liability. All funds will have the option of retaining their current membership and appointing an approved trustee. Where a fund appoints an approved trustee or specific amendments are made to the trust deed to comply with the SI(S) Act, existing rollover provisions in the taxation legislation will apply.There are a number of issues that Senator Sherry in particular raised, and I have looked in vain to see whether there are any amendments to be moved in relation to those issues that Senator Sherry raised. As there are no amendments being proposed by the Labor Party in this area—with one exception—one wonders why he bothers to pursue these matters. If the Labor Party truly believed in some of the things that Senator Sherry said—and I would understand that there would be qualifications from anyone in fully accepting some of Senator Sherry's diatribes—one would have expected some serious work to have been done, and that apparently was not the case.There is an opposition amendment which removes the family business linkage requirement while ensuring that employees cannot be a member of their employer's self-managed superannuation fund, except where they are relatives. The government's preferred position is that which is introduced in the bill. Of course, we will have to see how the debate proceeds.In conclusion, the fundamental aim of the government in introducing this bill is to ensure that the regulation of small superannuation funds reflects the needs of members of such funds as well as the government's retirement income goals. At this point, I would like to foreshadow that the government will be moving a minor amendment in the committee stage to change the commencement date of the bill from 1 July 1999 to royal assent. I thank senators for the debate on this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate. I notice that, in relation to the opposition's amendment, it does seem to have the numbers in this chamber, so we will see what precisely happens.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You want a division.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I understand, but I would just like to make sure we are all clear on exactly what is going to happen. My understanding from the Democrats is that they will be supporting the amendment which has been moved by the opposition.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8425The bill.19:38:008425Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 17), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the day on which it receives the Royal Assent".This amendment changes the commencement date of the bill from 1 July 1999 to the date of royal assent. I also table a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the amendment.19:38:008425Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—We are supporting this government amendment, but I just want to make the following points. As I said earlier, it should be noted that the government's delay in introducing this bill has caused unnecessary uncertainty and costs, especially for small business owners. This measure which was first announced on 12 May 1998 was not introduced into parliament until 31 March 1999. An exposure draft was released but with only two weeks for comment. This sort of delay is simply not good enough. The government has been a master of government by press release, and it has found itself in trouble as a result of it on more than one occasion.19:39:008425Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Normally, I let these things go through to the keeper. Just for the record, if the Labor Party wants to spend inordinate amounts of time debating bills which come before this chamber, there is no doubt there will be a hold-up in the legislation. In that period that Senator Conroy raised, we had the longest debate since Federation on the ANTS tax package. I just point out to the chamber that, if people want to have these extremely long debates in this chamber, that is precisely what causes delays.19:40:008425Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I am forced to respond to Senator Kemp's outrageous speech. We have a situation where the government are incapable of sorting out their legislative timetable. They consistently go running to the Financial Review . You do not go a week without the Financial Review getting a leak from somebody on the govern ment side saying, `That opposition just keeps delaying all our bills.'What we have here is an absolute object lesson to people about how the government conduct themselves in terms of making announcements and then waiting nearly a year before introducing an exposure draft for comment. That timing had nothing to do with the GST. I do not know why Treasury took so long. They did not do anything on the package. They did not model it. They did not do anything about the GST. They just kept it a secret.What we have here is the minister trying to provoke debate. He is all excited because Carlton are in the grand final, and that is a fair enough thing. Who would have thought that rubbish team would have made the grand final. I do not want you to think I am an Essendon fan—I am not an Essendon fan—but, hopefully, Wayne Carey will sort them out this weekend.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Order! Senator Conroy, I think you should return to the matter we are supposed to be debating.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Sorry, I have been provoked. I just want to make the point, Senator Kemp, that if you want to keep issuing press releases and then legislating a year later, that is fine but do not run off to the gallery and do not run off to the journos and tell them we are holding up your program.Amendment agreed to.19:41:008426Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 7 (lines 25 and 26), omit paragraph (e), substitute: (e) no member of the fund is an employee of another member of the fund, unless the members concerned are relatives;(2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 1 to 7), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) if the trustee of the fund is a body corporate: (i) the member is the sole director of the body corporate; or (ii) the member is one of only 2 directors of the body corporate, and the member and the other director are relatives; or (iii) the member is one of only 2 directors of the body corporate, and the member is not an employee of the other director; and (aa) if the trustees of the fund are individuals: (i) the member is one of only 2 trustees, of whom one is the member and the other is a relative of the member; or (ii) the member is one of only 2 trustees, and the member is not an employee of the other trustee; and(3) Schedule 1, item 22, page 9 (line 15) to page 10 (line 3), omit subsection (6), substitute:Extended meaning of employee in certain circumstances(6) For the purposes of this section, a member of a fund, who is an employee of an employer-sponsor of the fund, is also taken to be an employee of another person (the other person ), if the employer-sponsor is: (a) a relative of the other person; or (b) either of the following: (i) a body corporate of which the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a director; (ii) a body corporate related to that body corporate; or (c) the trustee of a trust of which the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a beneficiary; or (d) a partnership, where: (i) the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a partner in the partnership; or (ii) the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a director of a body corporate that is a partner in the partnership; or (iii) the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a beneficiary of a trust, if the trustee of the trust is a partner in the partnership. Note 1: An effect of this subsection is that a fund will not be a self-managed superannuation fund if a member is employed by an employer-sponsor of the fund, and another member (who is not a relative) has a specified interest in that employer-sponsor: see paragraph (1)(e). An example of this would be where the employer-sponsor is a company of which another member is a director. Note 2: Another effect is that a fund will not be a self-managed superannuation fund if its single member is employed by an employer-sponsor of the fund in which the other trustee of the fund (who is not a relative) has a specified interest: see subsection (2). (6A) Subsection (6) does not limit the meaning of the term employee. Regulations (6B) For the purposes of this section: (a) a member of a fund is taken to be an employee of a person belonging to a class specified in the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; and (b) despite subsections (6) and (6A) and section 15A, a member of a fund is not taken to be an employee of a person belonging to a class specified in the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.The opposition is moving amendments which are designed to make this bill fairer, less of a burden on small business and more equitable. The opposition's amendments will essentially leave the policy intent of the bill intact but base it on a more realistic public policy preface. That preface is that, in an excluded fund, a member is a trustee of the fund and does not have an employment relationship with the sponsor of the fund. That person can represent their interests in the fund. If a person is a relative of the sponsor, then they can be a member of a self-managed fund provided they agree to become a trustee of the fund.In its bill, the government seems to be trying to assert that there are some members of excluded superannuation funds—funds which are not subject to full prudential regulation—who are perhaps not able to best represent their interests in the fund. These members might be at arms length from the trustees of the scheme and are likely to be an employer or members of small employer sponsored funds.It is disappointing that the government has offered absolutely no empirical or other evidence in support of the proposal that arms-length members are being somehow misrepresented in the fund. It is especially disappointing because this bill will have a significant impact on a range of groups and sectors, including small businesses that operate excluded funds; trustees and administrators of excluded superannuation funds, many of whom will be forced to restructure as a result of the bill; same sex couples who operate an excluded superannuation fund; as well as other members of the funds who are not related to each other.Despite the lack of evidence in support of the government's bill and the impact the bill will have on certain groups, the opposition is willing to give qualified support to the public policy intention of this measure. We are supportive of the case that some arms-length members of excluded super funds may not best be able to represent their interests under the current framework. Specifically, arms-length members of excluded funds who are employees of employer sponsored DIY funds are often in an unequal relationship with their employer and may not be able to best represent their interests in these types of DIY funds. This can still be the case even if the employees were to become trustees of the fund.However, in indicating our support for the broad public policy principle underlying the bill, Labor is seeking Senate support for our amendments, which are designed to ensure that the disruption and additional costs imposed on excluded superannuation funds are kept to a minimum. Our amendments will prevent employees from being members of employer sponsored DIY funds unless related to the employer but will allow non-employees to remain or become members of the fund provided they also become trustees.The main impact of the opposition's amendments is that they remove the requirement that all fund members of excluded funds must be related to each other either through family or business. It is considered that an employee who is a relative of an employer-sponsor will be able to represent their interests in the fund provided that they become a trustee of the fund. The provision in the government's bill requiring fund members to be related creates problems for friends and/or same sex members of existing DIY funds and will potentially cause a capital gains tax liability for no sound public policy reason.The opposition's amendments will allow more flexibility for existing DIY fund members and trustees and will also allow some arms-length members currently in DIY super funds to continue with their current fund arrangements. The amendments will be welcomed by small businesses and businesses which currently administer excluded superannuation funds which are often small businesses themselves. It should also be welcomed by the groups supporting the move towards recognition of same sex relationships in superannuation laws. While it does not go as far as some would like, it is a step in the right direction and it also saves the government on this issue.I say `saves the government' because the recent Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, which passed this place with full opposition support some time ago, allowed for the provision of binding death benefit nominations. This was seen as a positive change for same sex couples that can be recognised through wills and estate planning processes to receive the proceeds of a death benefit. However, the provisions in the government's bill before us today discriminate against same sex couples who may operate DIY super funds by not permitting them to remain members unless linked by business. That is something which Labor's amendments will remedy in the main and will allow the status quo to continue and future DIY funds to be set up with same sex partners as trustees of the fund. In this way they bring an element of equality into the superannuation laws which has not been there before.The opposition had originally intended to move an amendment that would have allowed virtually any person to be a member of an excluded fund provided they became trustees of the fund. However, discussions with the government primarily and also an indication of the position of the Australian Democrats on this issue have, among other things, resulted in Labor taking the view that employees should not be members of employer-sponsored excluded funds except if related to the employer-sponsor.I wish to thank the government, particularly Senator Kemp's office and the Treasury, for their advice on the opposition's earlier amendment and for their drafting experience and expertise. In addition, a matter was raised with the opposition this morning concerning unintended consequences of our amendments. The issue concerned was to do with the situation where a company has two directors or where a body corporate has two directors who are members of an employer-sponsored DIY fund. The directors are both trustees of the fund and meet all of the qualifications of the opposition's amendment but are not related to each other. Under our earlier amendment, these directors could be seen to be employees of each other. In such a case they would not be ordinarily able to be members of the fund because they are not related.However, again with the government's advice, the opposition's amendments will allow for regulations to be made that will enable certain classes of employees to be members of an excluded fund in certain circumstances. They will also allow certain classes of employees to not be members of an excluded fund in certain circumstances. It is hoped that if these amendments are successful the government will follow through with regulations which will mean that the directors of a company who are unrelated can be members of an excluded or self-managed fund, and we seek some indication from the minister about his intentions in that regard.Labor has consulted widely in determining our position on this bill. It is hoped that if our amendments are successful they will alleviate the pain that this bill will inflict on small businesses and others right around Australia.19:47:008428Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Conroy, for your remarks. If this bill is going to inflict pain on people right around Australia it is amazing that we are seeing only one particular set of amendments from the opposition. What surprises me is that we get this effort of grandstanding—and we have seen some examples of that this evening, not for the first time from Senator Conroy. We do have an indication from the Democrats that they will be supporting the amendments that Labor has proposed.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No division.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, could you wait until I complete my remarks, please? Senator Conroy, we have had an indication that the amendments moved by the Labor Party will have the support of the Democrats and, naturally, as we do not have the numbers in this chamber to defeat these amendments, the Labor Party has approached us and asked us to check whether their amendments achieve the goal which they are setting out to achieve. I think that is the context in which Senator Conroy's remarks should be read. We still prefer the approach the government took, but the government recognises that we do not have the numbers. However, the amended bill will still ensure that all members of self-managed superannuation funds must be trustees. It will prevent one member of a self-managed superannuation fund being an employee of another member of the fund except where they are relatives. In the government's view, the bill, as amended, will not go as far as we would have wished, but it will continue to improve the ability of members of self-managed funds to protect their own interests. Given the numbers in the Senate, the government proposes to accept the amendments.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.8429Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Bills8429r7178429Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.19:52:008429Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I wish to address some remarks on the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 . In doing so, if my remarks tonight seem to lack a central theme and the normal continuity of argument which I hope to bring to my speeches it is because this bill is very much an omnibus bill with a range of separate and at times unrelated measures. So it is quite hard to do justice to a theme or a broad approach in the bill because there is not one.I also understand that the government have circulated a set of amendments that seek to address a range of issues that have arisen because of the delay in having the legislation passed. I understand that they had a start-up date of 20 September for a number of measures. Because the bill has not yet been passed by this chamber, they have had to revise those arrangements. At the outset, the proposed amendments that they will be moving will be acceptable to us and we understand the reason for those.First of all, there is a range of initiatives in this bill that the opposition supports. Many of the changes are beneficial. Some are technical corrections that we consider to be worth while. There is also a range of measures that close loopholes and correct anomalies in current social security rules. We will seek to support those as well. However, we will be opposing three provisions in the bill that we regard as extremely harsh and unfair. These relate to the Community Development Employment Project, or CDEP, the employment and education entry payment and the liquid asset waiting period.Labor will move in the committee stage to amend schedules 2, 3 and 9 which contain these provisions. The government argues that these measures are also reasonable corrections of anomalies and loopholes, but we feel that they are unfair and fail to take account of the circumstances of the people who will be affected. Given the length of the bill and the broad brush of the bill, I do not propose to discuss each of the 11 schedules but simply to put forward some reasons for the amendments which we will be supporting in the committee stage.Schedule 2 contains some beneficial and some detrimental changes to the Community Development Employment Program, the Aboriginal community employment program established in 1977. In essence, CDEP partici pants work for the dole on projects beneficial to their communities. Despite the image of Aboriginal welfare dependency, many Aboriginal people have in fact been doing work in exchange for income support since the late 1970s. According to the government, there are now some 26,000 participants. Each receives a payment equal to Newstart plus $6 per fortnight. Currently, this amounts to a fortnightly payment of between $299 and $358, depending on age, marital status and whether or not the recipient has children. CDEP workers are ineligible for a range of ancillary benefits such as rent assistance, bereavement payments, telephone rental allowance, pharmaceutical allowance and pensioner concession cards to which other income support recipients are entitled. Participants are eligible for health care cards but, as these are not automatically issued and awareness of them is slight, the take-up rate is low.Recently, the $20 per fortnight available to Work for the Dole participants to cover work related expenses has renewed concerns about the absence of such benefits in CDEP. This schedule corrects some of these discrepancies and to that extent is to be supported. Labor supports the proposal to make CDEP workers eligible for the $20 per fortnight supplementary payment which applies to other social security programs. This measure ends an unfair inconsistency in CDEP entitlements. For the same reason, we support making CDEP workers eligible for additional benefits such as rent assistance. These benefits are available to other low income Australians and it would be discriminatory to deny them to CDEP workers.The government's bill, however, contains what we consider to be an unfair measure concerning sole parents who take part in CDEP. At present, unlike other CDEP workers, sole parents have been able to access the sole parent pension—now the parenting payment (single)—in addition to a limited CDEP payment. Accordingly, they have also been entitled to ancillary benefits such as rent assistance. CDEP income has been treated as ordinary income, as it would for any other sole parent pensioner—that is, there is an income free area and any income in excess of that reduces the parenting payment by 50 cents in the dollar. Sole parents working on CDEP have usually been paid CDEP income of up to $124 a week, which is the income threshold for parenting payment. In addition, they have received parenting payment.While benefits payable to sole parent CDEP workers have been more generous than those available to other CDEP workers who are ineligible for social security benefits, their treatment is equivalent to that accorded to sole parents who receive the parenting payment (single). Again, CDEP income has been treated like any other sole parent's pension income. We believe this consistency is fair and the current entitlements should be retained. I understand that under the government's proposal approximately 4,000 sole parents would be worse off. Sole parents experience particular difficulties in joining the work force and their more generous treatment compared with other CDEP participants attempts to overcome this particular disadvantage. The bill, however, would reduce parenting payment by $1 for each dollar of CDEP income up to the amount of the parenting payment benefit, so there would be no income free area at all. Parenting payment would also be reduced by 50c for each dollar in excess of this amount.Labor opposes this change because it reduces the incentive to work. The government is constantly telling us that it wants to get people off welfare and into work, but you could not find a clearer example of a work disincentive than those contained in the government's proposed CDEP changes. Every dollar of CDEP up to the level of parenting payment will reduce that payment on a dollar for dollar basis. Admittedly, sole parents would be entitled to the $20 participation supplement and other ancillary benefits, and they could also retain 50c for each dollar of CDEP income in excess of the parenting payment threshold. Our clear advice, however, is that the new entitlements would be worth less than the new penalties and that sole parents who persisted with CDEP could be worse off by approximately up to $100 per fortnight. While Labor supports a responsible approach to public expenditure, we are not convinced that the best way to achieve savings is to penalise by some $100 per fortnight sole parents who choose to work on CDEP. This is the kind of disincentive to work that you find when you look beyond the government's rhetoric about reducing welfare dependency. The government justified this change as a way of bringing consistency to the treatment of sole parents within CDEP. Yet, given the work barriers facing indigenous sole parents, we believe it would be wiser to retain the additional incentives which are currently available. These are consistent with the entitlements of sole parents outside the CDEP.It is a pity that the government are breaching the principle of equal treatment and are proposing a measure that would raise barriers to employment in communities which already suffer social deprivation and a higher level of unemployment. I am sure that is not their intention, and I ask them to reconsider their position. Labor will move amendments in the committee stage to maintain the current parenting payment entitlements for sole parents who work on CDEP. The government have introduced an amendment to apply the same changes to the youth disability allowance supplement—that is, to disability pensioners aged under 21 years who also participate in the CDEP. The opposition will oppose this amendment for the same reasons that we oppose the changes to sole parent rules. The alterations would reduce incentives to work for people who face particularly severe barriers to work force participation.I turn now to schedule 3 regarding the employment and education entry payments. The opposition will also seek to amend schedule 3. This schedule would replace the current $100 employment entry payment—which I think is at $300 for disability support pensioners—and the $200 education entry payment with a repayable advance. The employment entry payment was introduced by Labor in 1991. In the last financial year, the EEP was paid to 137,000 people at an outlay of $15.5 million. The government has tried twice before to abolish the EEP and each time has been defeated or deferred by the Senate. The government's current proposal is to abolish the employment entry payment, which is a non-refundable grant, and replace it with a repayable advance. The advance would range from $50 to $500, but you would have to pay it all back once you began work. Again, the government's measure would create a disincentive to work.The government must have no notion of the purpose of these payments. They are intended to make it easier for people to enter education or the work force. I understand the government believes the payment is too small to provide an incentive to start work. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that someone who has given up looking would take a job for the sake of $100, but this argument ignores the value of the payment in meeting expenses incurred in starting work. The amount would seem small to many wage earners but could provide valuable assistance for an unemployed person. In place of this grant, the government would saddle the job taker with a new debt and force them to repay it at a time when they are trying to re-establish themselves financially and, in many cases, to repay other debts accumulated to family, friends and institutions. Again, this debt creating advance is payable only if you find work. This is the third time that the government has tried to abolish the employment entry payment. The Labor Party believe it is persisting in a folly, and we will maintain our opposition. We accept that there is some merit in providing some flexibility, and our amendment will offer people a choice of either taking the kind of loan the government has proposed or taking the grant that is currently available.There is even less that can be said to be good in terms of the government's proposal for the education entry payment. They are proposing to abolish it for allowance recipients—that is, those on Newstart. At the moment, if you are unemployed and you start a TAFE course, for example, you are entitled to this grant to help with the cost of books, et cetera. Now that will be abolished. What does that say about the government's approach to those people who are trying to fulfil their side of the mutual obligation system—trying to better themselves and advance their prospects of work? Labor will move an amendment to maintain the current entitlement to assist Newstart and other allowance recipients who are trying to improve their work force skills.I turn now to the third area, which is schedule 9, the liquid asset waiting period. Schedule 9 will also be the subject of opposition amendments. Currently, an unemployed person with liquid assets greater than $10,000 does not become eligible for Newstart until he or she has waited 13 weeks from the time he or she became unemployed. In some circumstances, an unemployed person who studies during this time can count that period of education as part of the 13 weeks. But schedule 9 would require Centrelink to disregard any such time spent in education. This means that the 13-week wait could begin only once that person had withdrawn from their course.The government claims again that its change would promote equity. This is spurious, however, as no double dipping is possible. No-one whose study time is deemed to be part of their 13-week waiting period can claim Austudy or Youth Allowance during that time. On the contrary, they live on their own resources, and that is what is supposed to be happening during the 13-week wait. If you take an education course, you have to serve two waiting periods. If you do not choose education, you have to undergo only the one waiting period. The measure would make study a less appealing prospect, in our view, for some unemployed people. Labor will seek in committee to prevent the government from introducing what we see as a short-sighted and unfair measure. Just as the CDEP and employment entry payment changes create a disincentive to work, the changes to this schedule create a disincentive to study. We believe those schedules are fundamentally flawed, and we will move in committee to amend them.I will confine my comment to those remarks. As I said, it is a difficult bill to address, given the nature of the bill and the disparity between the measures contained in it. On this occasion, I have adopted the approach of talking about the specific meas ures in which we wish to see some change. I reiterate my opening remarks: there is much in the bill that is beneficial and that we will be supporting. I have not sought to cover all that ground because of time constraints and the detail of the various schedules. We will be supporting many of those measures. Many of them are necessary improvements to the current regime. I have sought to outline what Labor see as necessary amendments to the bill to make it a fairer and more equitable bill. We will be advancing those in the committee stage of the bill.20:06:008432Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats to this particular social security bill, the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 . It contains a significant number of measures. As Senator Evans has indicated, it is quite a wide range of measures which are not necessarily linked to each other. It is a range of different measures and is, as is often the case with bills of this sort, from the Democrats' perspective a bit of a mix of good measures, housekeeping measures, reasonable measures and measures that we have some concerns about—and I will touch on those briefly in the second reading contribution and a bit further in the committee stage of the debate.This particular social security bill is one of just a number. It is our comment frequently when we are debating social security matters in this place that the Social Security Act is an extremely large and very complex act which is, along with the tax act and the Migration Act, not only one of the larger acts at a national level in this country but also one of the most frequently changing, not just in terms of the principal legislation but also in terms of delegated legislation or disallowable instruments legislation and rulings and the like.That makes it very difficult not just for legislators like ourselves—that is part of what our job is supposed to be—but more particularly for those meant to be the beneficiaries or the customers, which is what I think the jargon is these days. They are subject to acts such as the Social Security Act, which is so complex and so frequently changing. It also does not make it easy for the people in Centrelink and the social security department who have to enforce the various components of the act when it is changing so frequently and it affects so many people in so many different ways.I know that the government has given some commitment over time to try to simplify the act, and that is a laudable aim. However, you need to be constantly on the alert that what is called simplification is not used as an excuse for lowest common denominator savings measures. That has often been the case in the past, and it is something that we are frequently concerned about. I think this particular piece of legislation contains a few more examples along those lines.Senator Evans has outlined some of the aspects of the bill and the different schedules contained within it. The amendments relating to the CDEP are interesting and important. Overall they provide some positive changes, but we do have some areas of concern in relation to the bill's impact on sole parents. I will be exploring those issues further in the consideration in detail stage of the debate.The special employment advance is another interesting area which seeks to replace the employment entry payment—something that has come into this chamber a number of times over the years, where the government has attempted to abolish the employment entry payment without success. The Democrats believe, whilst it is not a major payment, that for those people entering employment after a significant period out of work smallish payments such as that can be quite significant. It will provide extra assistance to people in the form of a kick-start back into the work force, and it will ensure that the poverty which frequently envelops people when on income support does not stay with them for a long period of time.That period when people first re-enter the work force can be when they are at their most vulnerable, particularly if they have been out of work for a long period of time. They need to adjust to a different approach, and having extra financial burdens placed upon them is the last thing they need. I am sure the govern ment would say that, with this new concept of a special employment advance, they are catering for such people. To the extent that they are, that is an improvement on previous attempts to simply abolish the payment. If you look at the explanatory memorandum and the financial impact statements that are contained there, you will note the special employment advance in the current financial year—although the date of its effect will change somewhat because it has taken so long for this bill to be brought on by the government for consideration—which in its first main year of operation was detailed as costing the government $1.5 million. That sounds like a generous contribution to assist people who are re-entering the work force. However, if you look at the savings for abolishing the employment entry payment, you will see that in the corresponding year it is a saving of $14.1 million; nearly 10 times the amount in savings as would be provided in outlays under this new advance.If you look at the years following from that, the outlays under the special employment advance drop over time, perhaps partly because the government believes unemployment will drop. I am not quite sure of the rationale for why the outlay would drop over time, but the saving in terms of employment entry payments would increase over time. So, once you get a couple of years into the future, the outlay is less than $0.9 million a year whilst the potential or expected saving is seen to be over $18 million. I think that shows this up for what it is. It is basically a savings measure. It is another attempt to abolish the employment entry payment with a bit of a smokescreen over the top called the special advance.The aspect of that which the Democrats have extra concern about is the fact that that advance is, as it says, an advance. That means it has to be repaid. So it takes the form of a debt. As a party that has consistently opposed the introduction of tertiary fees or HECS fees, which were originally brought in by the Labor Party and which have now got to a stage where they provide a significant debt load for many students, this would be the first introduction of a similar concept in the Social Security Act. That is something that the Democrats would be very concerned about. The thin end of the wedge may be a cliche, but many times it is a cliche with some validity.The introduction of such a concept causes the Democrats great concern, particularly given the anticipated outlays in relation to this new employment advance. They are meagre, but from the Democrats' point of view they seem to be opening up far too great a precedent for very little gain whilst ensuring that a very significant number of people would cease to be eligible for any form of extra assistance when they do re-enter the work force.The introduction of a crisis payment, which is covered under schedule 4 of the legislation, has some positive aspects in relation to the extra assistance that it will provide to people, particularly those fleeing incidences such as domestic violence. We have concerns about the possibility that it may lead to a less helpful form of assistance for some people being released from prison, and we would seek to explore the potential impacts on those people during the consideration in detail stage of the debate. Schedule 5 relates to newly arrived residents' waiting periods, an issue that I have raised concerns about a number of times in this place over the last couple of years. This is perhaps where the concept of the thin end of the wedge is borne out. This measure was brought in when the ALP was in power. It introduced a six-month waiting period for newly arrived migrants for some social security payments and the philosophy, if you like, of newly arrived migrants not being entitled to assistance when they first arrive or not expected to come to this country unless they are able to provide for themselves in certain circumstances. That seed of an idea—germ is probably a better word in this case—was expanded on considerably by the coalition when it came into government. It extended the waiting period from six months to two years and extended the waiting period to virtually all social security payments except special benefit under very limited circumstances. I suspect that it was more by inadvertent omission than anything else that this did not apply to health care cards, and the government seeks to rectify that omission via schedule 5. I suppose it is fair enough, as the government says in its explanatory memorandum, that this measure is put forward to ensure consistency in the application of the newly arrived residents' waiting period. I guess it makes the measure consistent so that newly arrived migrants dip out across the board rather than having that tiny sliver of assistance via the health care card.The Democrats believe that a significant degree of hardship has been visited on quite innocent people—people who have come to this country wanting to make a contribution and to start a new life—and extending that hardship, even by the small amount contained in this measure, is something that the Democrats are opposed to. Again, it is a measure that aims to save over $13 million a year in the not too distant future. This means that the more than $13 million worth of assistance currently being provided to newly arrived migrants will no longer be provided under this measure. It is a matter of ongoing concern to the Democrats that this approach is continuing to be followed through.Another significant amendment is a measure that expands the definition of `suitable work', requiring people to accept work even further away from home under certain circumstances. It is a curious measure that in itself is aimed at saving only about $3½ million a year in the near future. One has to wonder how much savings would be applied to such a measure that by definition is somewhat curious in its potential application and that in a sense is aimed at providing an extra incentive for people to ensure that they take up work that is offered to them. It is another one that the Democrats have concerns about and where the principle being outlined in this particular schedule may end up being extended over a period of time as not only the social security department but also Treasury continually search for more and more areas to nip, tuck and cut in the welfare budget. It is an area that again causes the Democrats some concern. Schedule 8 relating to moving to areas of lower employment prospects is another measure that was brought in many years ago, the intent of which the Democrats expressed concern over at the time. To some extent, the principle seems reasonable, but in its application it is almost impossible not to hit a number of people who are not trying to rort or to avoid anything but who are simply moving to a different area, as people do all the time in Australia.It creates a situation where a particular class of people—namely, people on income support—have a more restricted freedom of movement than others in the community because of their lower form of income, which creates an extra hurdle for people at the best of times. It also creates an extra legal impediment that others in the community do not have to face in order to be able to move from one part of the country to another. Nonetheless, whether or not one supports the overall component that already exists in the Social Security Act of penalising people for moving to areas of lower employment prospects, this particular schedule closes an existing loophole that presumably is used, although, looking at the savings that are expected, it is not used by very many people. We understand the argument at least of ensuring that the intent of the measure, whether or not one agrees with it, is able to be implemented across the board.Schedule 9 relates to the liquid assets test waiting period. This is another measure where, on the surface, if you look at the explanation that is put forward—trying to rationalise inconsistencies in its application, simplifying it and ensuring the liquid assets waiting test operates the same across the board—obviously it is a good idea to have something as important as that apply consistently across all payments. It is easier for staff to administer and easier for applicants to understand how it works.It always seems to be the case when we are rationalising inconsistencies that it also tends to save the government some money at the same time. That in itself sounds like a nice idea but it is not just a matter of saving the government money; it is a matter of people who are often amongst the poorest in the community—people who are potentially eligible for the liquid assets test are certainly those who by definition have virtually no liquid assets—not having access to that amount of money in income support. Whilst $1½ million a year does not sound like a lot and any extra assistance we can get in ensuring that taxpayers' money is not wasted is always laudable, it also means $1½ million of assistance that is currently provided to people with virtually no liquid assets will no longer be provided. That is the flip side of measures such as these.It is similar with the following schedule, schedule 10, which introduces a two-tiered payment structure for the Austudy pensioner education supplement which relates to the study undertaken by the student. Whilst this measure exempts disability support pensioners and disability pensioners from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, a very important area—an area sufficiently important that a Senate committee is considering Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 tonight; I am supposed to be at that hearing considering that piece of legislation, but unfortunately I cannot because I am here considering this piece of legislation, such is the difficulty of managing the legislative workload in this chamber—it is one that, by virtue of creating that two-tiered system, sets in place an extra complication. But the principle of simplification goes by the board if there is a bit of extra money to be saved—in this case, about $6 million a year.I think all parties would readily agree this is an area which is so important—providing encouragement for people who want assistance to get education to increase their learning and their qualifications to improve their employment opportunities. Indeed, the Minister for Family and Community Services has spoken a number of times recently of the need to provide extra assistance for people who want to get back into the work force. I note again that this measure does not apply to disability support pensioners—one of the groups the minister has been talking about—who need to have extra assistance to get back into the work force, an aim with which I certainly concur. But there are other pension ers or income support recipients—parenting payment recipients in particular—who will be hit by a measure such as this.From our point of view, the Democrats find it hard to see the purpose of measures such as this for people who are trying to obtain education. Other than that, the only purpose that seems apparent is the savings measure. I hasten to add that trying to limit unnecessary budget expenditure is a goal that all people in this place would support but, if it is at the expense of reducing incentives for people to get back into the work force or undertake education, or at the expense of reducing income support and assistance for people who are amongst the poorest in the community, that seems to the Democrats like a pretty poor saving in many cases. However, we will have the opportunity to explore some of these measures a little bit further in the committee stage of the debate, so I will restrict my remarks at the moment and perhaps ask a few questions of the minister in a little bit more detail when we get to that stage.20:25:008436Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank senators for their contributions. I would like to speak briefly about CDEP because that was something which I think was well done by the previous government. It was an initiative which showed the way, if you like, for the Work for the Dole scheme, which has now been extended to the rest of the Australian community. CDEP was therefore, I think, a pathfinder in terms of programs, and it is one which has enabled remote communities in particular to have some feeling that they are contributing to their own wellbeing rather than simply getting sit-down money. CDEP was designed as an employment initiative and participants who sign onto the program are required to forgo their entitlement to social security benefits.The government commissioned the report by Mr Ian Spicer, who is well respected in the community. The Spicer report recommended that, with the success of the Work for the Dole scheme, participants in CDEP should be able to obtain similar income support benefits. The proposals eliminate the imbalances by qualifying CDEP recipients for certain add-ons such as the $20 CDEP scheme participant supplement, rent assistance, bereavement payments, telephone allowance, pharmaceutical allowance and the health care card. In addition, the reforms to CDEP include amendments to redress a disparity in relation to CDEP recipients who are lone parents and who receive what is now known as parenting payment (single). This appears to be an area about which some senators in the chamber have a concern. The government, however, believes that it is only equitable and fair that all people on CDEP payments should be treated in a similar manner. But, currently, as the CDEP scheme is drafted—and perhaps there was not careful thought given to this—this particular category of people is not required to forgo the social security benefit, as is everybody else on CDEP, in order to participate in the scheme. That seems pretty unfair and, with a reform of the scheme and an increase in benefits—the add-ons, as I have just mentioned—it would seem pretty reasonable that this is the proper occasion to put everybody in the CDEP scheme on the same level.I think the Senate should be alert to the fact that I have in front of me now a copy of a letter which was sent by the Chairman of ATSIC to the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees, asking for the Democrats' support in securing the passage of this legislation, the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 , and referring in some detail to the CDEP scheme. The letter points out that the board has given its in principle support to the package of measures contained in the initiative and considers successful implementation of this initiative important for providing access to these benefits.The board did express concern over the potential impact of the new income treatment arrangements on lone parent pensioners on CDEP. The board also acknowledges that this is an equity issue between the income treatment arrangements afforded to other pensioners and those on CDEP. The board acknowledges the government's strong argument that the introduction of new income treatment arrangements will address the potential double funding by government of CDEP participants who are also lone parent pensioners. In light of the independent review by Mr Spicer and his recommendation on this point, in light also of ATSIC's strong view about the need for this legislation to go through and its recognition of the government's strong argument about this particular part of the CDEP reforms, I urge the Senate to not impede what is a considered and careful reform to a very important initiative which was introduced by the previous government.I also would like to speak briefly about the special employment advance. I believe that this is an important reform. It means that there will be much greater coverage and provision of advance payments to income support recipients taking up work. Currently, for example, there is a number of people who are not able to access the employment entry payment. Certainly the new scheme will be available to a wider range of people, and it will offer a higher range of financial assistance. For most people the EEP was limited to $100. It was available only to people who could demonstrate they would be no longer receiving an income support payment. By contrast, the special employment advance will be a maximum of $500. It will be available to help people who have an offer of employment of at least six weeks duration which reduces their income support payment by at least 50 per cent—that is, it will assist people in the work force, even though they may still require further reduced income support, such as those participating in part-time work.The special employment advance will also assist people who have unreceived earnings. When I first got the job of Minister for Social Security, a steady stream of letters came my way from people who had earned income—by being relief teachers, for example—and had not been paid under the arrangements of their employment with a state government authority, for example. There were some weeks and sometimes months before they actually got paid, but they were prevented from getting income support because they had unreceived earnings. That seemed to me to be something that badly needed redressing, and one the reasons for introducing the special employment advance is to deal with people in those circumstances. Currently, where a person has unreceived casual earnings, their income support payment is reduced, even though they have not received the earnings. That can lead to financial hardship, as senators would recognise.The availability of the special employment advance will remove the risk of hardship. It is obviously an incentive for people to take up work in circumstances where it may previously have been unattractive. The employment entry payment scheme offered no assistance in those circumstances. Senator Evans earlier was talking about incentives in the system and disincentives to work and to study. I think the arguments that can be mounted for this special employment advance are such that it is quite clear they do provide incentives where, in fact, the previous system had disincentives. So I do urge the Senate to have a rethink about that matter and be prepared to support it.The crisis payment, I believe, will be very well received. I have spoken to community organisations. I have spoken to women who have an interest in women escaping domestic violence, and I have also talked to people who help prisoners on release from prison. All of them believe that a crisis payment, as proposed in the legislation, would be a very useful adjunct to the social security system. There have been some concerns about prisoners in some parts of Australia who may be released at odd hours of the night or when they cannot easily get to a bank. The amendments from the government are designed to enable an early payment in these circumstances, so I think that the only problem that anybody has seen in the crisis payment will be redressed.I do not know that anything can be served by my continuing on these matters, except I did want to say something about the application of the liquid assets waiting period. The bill does remove inconsistencies in the operation of the liquid assets test waiting period for claimants of Newstart allowance and sickness allowance where the claimant or the claimant's partner is an education leaver. The underlying rationale for the waiting period is that those with sufficient financial resources should support themselves for a period prior to accessing income support, but the waiting period provisions have been found to operate inconsistently when applied to education leavers. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has decided that in certain circumstances a person may be treated as unemployed while undertaking a course of full-time education.The net result of this interpretation is that a full-time student with significant liquid assets may, on finishing studies and applying for Newstart, avoid having a liquid assets test waiting period imposed. That was never the government's intention. As a result of that decision, the government is now bringing in amendments which will restore the situation as we had understood it to be and intended it to be. I shall leave it at that, and I welcome discussion in the committee stage of the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8438The bill.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The government has circulated 12 amendments to this bill in the form of requests on sheet EA260. Nos 2, 3, 11 and 12 are properly framed as requests, as they involve increased expenditure out of standing appropriations. The remainder are merely amendments to headings or are consequential amendments or otherwise and do not involve increased expenditure. They will, therefore, be treated as amendments. The question is that the bill stand as printed. As we have no running sheet at the moment, I just wonder whether the minister would like to commence with the amendments the government is proposing.20:37:008438Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I propose that we take all the amendments on revised sheet FC206 rather than sticking to one schedule.20:38:008438Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman, if I was assured that the minister had given an explanation and they all related to the question of the timing of the payment, then perhaps we could take them all as one block. But I understand the government had an amendment regarding the youth disability allowance supplement. I am not sure whether that is contained in here or not. I cannot find it at first glance.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It is No. 7.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Is that your amendment No. 7? If that is the case then we would certainly want that one removed from the batch. If the others all relate to the question of the reorganisation or implementation dates, then I see no reason why they should not be taken as a whole. I think the chamber would appreciate the minister's advice as to whether that is the case or not. If it is the case that the others relate purely to the question of implementation dates brought about by you not meeting your original timetable for the legislation, then I would seek to have only amendment No. 7 removed. The Democrats or others may have a different view, but our intention was to vote for the amendments that went to the question of the timing but not to vote for that youth disability allowance supplement amendment. I do not know whether that helps or further confuses the picture, but that is my contribution, for what it is worth.20:40:008438Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I would propose to the Senate that we deal with schedule 2 first but leave amendment No. 7—10000Newman, Sen JocelynThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Which sheet are you working from?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—FC206.10000Newman, Sen JocelynThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—So item 7 is schedule 2, item 53, page 38, lines 3 to 10.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—That is the one Senator Chris Evans would like to take out and treat separately. I am assured that the others all relate to the changes to the dates.10000Newman, Sen JocelynThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—So you are proposing to move items 1 to 11? Item 11 in the revised 206 is schedule 2, item 54, page 39, line 31, which proposes the omission of 1231A(1A).20:42:008439Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I was working off the revised FC260. I am told I should be working off the revised sheet FC206. I do not know whether Senator Bartlett is under the same misapprehension I was under, but we were talking about amendment No. 7.10000Evans, Sen ChrisThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now have a running sheet, so we might proceed to work off that. Are we happy to proceed with the running sheet, or has that added to the confusion?20:43:008439Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Mr Temporary Chairman, do we have to put the request before the amendments? That is what has happened in the running sheet, which now makes it look different to what I was proposing.10000Newman, Sen JocelynThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am informed that the order on the running sheet is the order in which they occur in the bill, but we can deal with them in any order. For the purpose of moving forward, I would ask Senator Chris Evans whether he is happy with what was proposed by the minister from FC206—that is, moving items 1 to 11, with the exclusion of item 7.20:44:008439Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I was going to suggest that, maybe now that we have got the running sheet, it might be easier to follow that just for the sake of simplicity. I will not delay the Senate by arguing about those. We will run through them fairly quickly. At least we have something so that we are all working off the same sheet. I suspect, given my state of confusion, that that might be a better starting point. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—As Senator Bartlett is happy with that, the minister may now proceed.20:45:008439Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(2) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (line 14), omit "19 September 1999", substitute "19 March 2000".(3) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (line 16), omit "19 September 1999", substitute "19 March 2000".I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Amendments (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:(2) Schedule 2, item 9, page 5 (line 24), omit "20 September 1999", substitute "20 March 2000".(3) Schedule 2, item 53, page 21 (line 22), omit "20 September 1999", substitute "20 March 2000".(6) Schedule 2, item 53, page 37 (lines 28 and 29), omit "20 September 1999", substitute "20 March 2000".(9) Schedule 2, item 53, page 39 (line 12), omit "19 September 1999", substitute "19 March 2000".(10) Schedule 2, item 53, page 39 (line 22), omit "19 September 1999", substitute "19 March 2000".Amendment (by Senator Newman) agreed to:(4) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (lines 21 to 32), omit subsection (3), substitute:(3) The requirements of this subsection are: (a) that the person is a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the relevant payment period or the relevant pension payday; and (b) that a CDEP Scheme payment was payable to the person: (i) in respect of a payment period the whole or a part of which occurred within the 3 payment periods immediately before the relevant payment period; or (ii) in respect of the 3 pension paydays immediately before the relevant pension payday.Amendments (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:(4) Schedule 2, item 53, page 22 (table item 3, 4th column), after "1066A-B1", insert "(including any amount required to be added by point 1066A-C1)".(5) Schedule 2, item 53, page 23 (table item 4, 4th column), after "1066A-B1", insert "(including any amount required to be added by point 1066A-C1)".(11) Schedule 2, item 54, page 39 (line 31), omit "1231A(1A) ", substitute "1231(1A) ".Amendments (by Senator Newman)—by leave—proposed:(7) Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (lines 32 to 34), omit "or in respect of a pension payday (the relevant pension payday ) if the person is qualified in respect of that period or payday", substitute "if the person is qualified in respect of that period".(8) Schedule 2, item 53, page 34 (line 14), omit "or payday".(9) Schedule 2, item 53, page 34 (line 15) to page 35 (line 15), omit subsections (3) to (7), substitute:(3) This section does not apply to a person in respect of the relevant payment period unless the person meets the requirements of subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) in respect of the relevant payment period.(4) The requirements of this subsection are: (a) that the person is a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the relevant payment period; and (b) that a CDEP Scheme payment was payable to the person in respect of a payment period the whole or a part of which occurred within the 3 payment periods immediately before the relevant payment period.(5) The requirement of this subsection is that the person satisfies the CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement income test in respect of the relevant payment period as mentioned in subsection (8) or (9), as the case requires.(6) The requirement of this subsection is that the relevant payment period does not fall within: (a) a waiting period; or (b) a liquid assets test waiting period; or (c) a lump sum preclusion period; or (d) a compensation preclusion period (see Part 3.14).(7) The requirement of this subsection is that the relevant payment period occurs within a period in respect of which the relevant allowance, benefit or payment referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or the relevant pension, payment or allowance referred to in paragraph (2)(b) is not payable to the person because of the operation of a provision of this Act relating to: (a) seasonal or intermittent workers; or (b) the value of the assets of the person or of his or her partner.(10) Schedule 2, item 53, page 37 (lines 8 to 11), omit subsection (10), substitute:(10) If this section applies to the person in respect of the relevant payment period, then, subject to subsections (11) and (12), a CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement of $20 is payable to the person in respect of that period.20:47:008440Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Could I ask the minister to please explain what is intended by those amendments, so that we can debate them—if they are the ones that we think they are. I think that the contentious one might actually be the next one, Minister.20:48:008440Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I do not wish to make life difficult for the minister, but there are a fair few words in amongst at least one or two of these. I know that they relate to the future entitlement to the supplement, but I would not mind getting further clarification about exactly what these amendments aim to achieve. I know that the explanatory memorandum talks about redundant passages, by the look of it, but I would not mind knowing exactly what the purpose is, particularly of amendment 9, which is reasonably long.20:49:008440Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The situation now, Senator, is that we have now passed 1 July, and the payment cycle legislation is now in place, and therefore amendments 7 to 10 have to take account of that, because there is no longer a pension payday. I have double-checked that I have advised you correctly.Amendments agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Newman) proposed:(7) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (lines 3 to 10), omit section 1188H, substitute:1188H Person receiving CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement to be taken to be in receipt of social security benefit or pension A person who receives a CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement in respect of a payment period beginning on or after 20 March 2000 is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be in receipt of the social security benefit or social security pension for which the person is qualified in respect of that period.20:50:008441Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—As I understand it, this is the government amendment which seeks to deal with the youth disability allowance supplement. I suppose that the place to start is to ask why the government has chosen to include this as an amendment now when it was not in the original bill, what the rationale behind the decision is, how many people will be affected by this amendment and what the cost saving is to the government. I am really seeking an explanation. I understand that this arose quite late and I want to understand what the government says about it. We have an in principle concern that it raised the same objections that we have regarding the CDEP and the parenting payment. So I am interested to hear from the government why they have sought now to make this amendment in regard to the youth disability allowance supplement, who it will affect, how much it will save the government, and what the rationale is for making this move, given that it was not part of the original bill.20:51:008441Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—While the minister is conferring, in the light of the fact that there is no running sheet—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Senator Harris, we have one page of a running sheet. You probably do not have a copy of it on your desk. We are now dealing with the third last amendment on the running sheet. It is schedule 2, item 53, amendment No. 7.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—Could you clarify for me whether the running sheet only pertains to government amendments? Do you propose to do them in order of each party's amendments?10000Harris, Sen LenThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We have not got to the other amendments. If you have amendments to this bill, they will appear in the order in which they would appear in the bill. We have another part of the running sheet yet to come which will deal with the other amendments.20:53:008441Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Just to while away the minutes while I am getting some advice, can I implore the Senate to try to ensure that we do not get social security amendments at the very last minute. It just makes it difficult for every party in the chamber—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—This is yours.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—But we were waiting on yours—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—We are expecting you to explain yours—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I know you are, and I am going to give you an explanation just as soon as I have it. In the meantime, can I please point out that a running sheet is essential for legislation of such complexity. To get amendments from any other parties at the very last minute makes it impossible for the Senate staff to provide a running sheet in a reasonable time and it leads to problems whereby sometimes we pass amendments or something that none of us quite intended to. It is not just self-interest. I implore the Senate to consider that. I think I have mentioned it to Senator Evans once before, and it seems to be that we are getting amendments very late in an area of great complexity. I know you all appreciate that it is complex but I just add my voice to yet another plea. Have I now got some advice?20:54:008441Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—While the minister is getting advice, I point out that I accept totally the principle at the heart of the comments, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that the reason we are having the delay at the moment is so she can find an explanation for her amendment which has just recently been circulated. So there is some irony in it, but I do agree that we do need a running sheet and we do need to understand. There was a hold-up in the amendments being circulated, although I think it has been clear since the second reading speeches in the House of Representatives what areas of concern the opposition would be raising. I do accept that, for everyone's sake, one needs to have clarity about what we are dealing with. As I said, I did make the offer earlier to do a couple of second readings on another bill if that assisted the efficient transaction of the consideration in detail stage of this bill. But I think we are starting to get there. When the minister is able to provide an explanation for that government amendment, we will debate it on its merits.20:55:008442Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am advised that (4) and (5), which are the items at issue here, are amendments which ensure the correct calculation of income reduction for those persons who are receiving both a youth disability supplement payment and a community development employment payment. Are we on the same wavelength, Senator?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Same subject matter.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—We are lucky we are talking about the same thing. Does that help?20:56:008442Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I think we have established what the subject matter is. I want to understand what the purpose of the amendment is. As I understood it previously in the bill, there was not any reduction applying to the recipients of youth disability allowance supplement. If that is not right, then I would like that clarified. But as I understood it, they will be disadvantaged by this provision by having their allowances reduced. I would like to know if that is the case. If so, how many are affected and what is the rationale for us making that amendment? As I say, as I understand it, they will now receive less under this provision than they were receiving under the current arrangements. If that is not right, I am happy to be told otherwise but, as I understand it, the effect of this is to reduce their entitlement. If so, by how much, to whom will it apply, and how many will be affected?20:57:008442Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The youth disability supplement payment is in a similar position to the parenting payment (single). Probably never intentionally—it may have been legislation being passed in similar circumstances to this—people were getting payment twice in each case. Other people on CDEP were not eligible to get two payments. I mentioned the parenting payment (single) before, but this youth disability supplement payment is in a similar circumstance.20:58:008442Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—As I say, I have asked on a couple of occasions for the numbers affected and what this means for those persons affected. I think the minister has confirmed that there will be a reduction in their entitlements as a result of this amendment being carried. She has not as yet been able to explain to us how much the reduction is, how many people will be affected and whether this is brought about by just a cost-cutting measure. There has been no other explanation as to why one considers the current arrangements are unfair other than the fact that other CDEP recipients do not receive the benefit of accessing two allowances. These are young people with a disability who are obviously in high need with severe barriers to employment and opportunity in life, and I think we need to have an explanation. Our intention at this stage would be to oppose it, because we have not been convinced that there is a need to reduce the entitlements.20:59:008442Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The senator would perhaps not be aware of the fact that parenting payment (single) people in these communities—and also the young people on disability supplement payment—have found it harder to get meaningful work under the CDEP program, because people who administer the programs in some of the communities put other people first because they are not getting any income support. So when it is seen that somebody is entitled to another payment they tend to get excluded from or reduced access to the CDEP scheme.That is the advice I have had. Both groups of people are certainly in need of encouragement and support to get into employment, and I am sure all sides of parliament would agree on that. Tonight we cannot give you the numbers of the young people on the youth disability supplement, but I am told that it is not a very large number—it is a larger number for the parenting payment (single).21:00:008443Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Having listened to the explanations and questions, I would like to clarify that we are dealing with amendment No. 7 on running sheet FC206; is that correct?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Yes, that is correct, Senator Bartlett.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—The running sheet, the amendment and the explanatory memorandum say it is to do with changing the date of operation, which does not really jell with what I am hearing people talk about. It also says in the supplementary explanatory memorandum revised that there are no financial implications from these amendments, which also does not particularly jell with what I am hearing people talk about—presuming it is the right one that I am looking at, unless there is a revised revised one dealing with schedule 2, which is what I understand this amendment deals with.I am just trying to put together what I am hearing in the debate and what I am looking at on the bits of paper in front of me. Sadly, I am failing. So I just want a bit of extra clarification. If the explanatory memorandum says there are no financial implications, there is no problem but clearly, from the questions Senator Evans is asking and the answers the minister is giving, it appears this is going to affect some people, although I still cannot see how that links to the amendment, particularly if it is just about changing the date of oper ation. The questions that have been asked do not seem to be about changing the date of operation, unless I am working off the wrong piece of paper.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If you are working off FC206, I am pretty sure you are correct.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—FC206 revised, I hope.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes.21:02:008443Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—For the sake of Senator Bartlett, it is my understanding that, at some time in the very recent past, the government proposed, in addition to the amendments which deal with changing the date of operation, this particular amendment which seeks to treat the people on youth disability allowance supplement in the same way as they intend to treat people on the parenting payment (single)—that is, to reduce an entitlement they currently enjoy by virtue of having access to both payments and obviously not doubling.As I understand—and this is why I sought to have this amendment pulled out from the others—this is not about date of operation; this is about a change in entitlement, a reduction in entitlement, similar to that proposed for the parenting payment (single). The Minister for Family and Community Services says that a smaller number of people will be affected, and I suspect that is right because the government obviously came across this a bit later in the process and decided that it was necessary to seek to make this change as well.As I understand it, this will result in those currently on the youth disability supplement receiving less in total payments from the Commonwealth than they currently receive. The minister has not been able to inform us how many will be affected and by how much, but the opposition remains unconvinced that anecdotal advice is that people somehow cannot access participation in CDEP because of that. That is not sufficient for us to see these young people on disability allowance supplement further disadvantaged. Without some further rationale from the government, it will be our intention to vote against that amendment, and we would urge you to vote against it also.21:04:008444Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I thank Senator Evans for that explanation. That assists me a great deal. The remaining question which still leads me to be a bit perplexed is the fairly unequivocal statement in the supplementary explanatory memorandum revised where it says there are no financial implications from these amendments to schedule 2. That is a fairly bland, blunt and straightforward statement.Given that there are savings calculations for every other supplementary revised amendment for all the other schedules, and if you assume this is going to affect anybody at all, I cannot quite see how you can say quite bluntly that there are no financial implications. Usually when it is a small amount but clearly will be of some impact, you would usually put at least `negligible'. This is unequivocal, and in that context I am perplexed about how this measure could be addressing people who are receiving the youth disability supplement payment, which is outlined in the explanatory memorandum, without having any financial implications.21:05:008444Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am advised that it is correct to say that there is no financial implication, the reason being that there are so few people who will be affected by it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendment No. 7 on sheet FC206 revised be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells having been rung—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is a matter with regard to this division that has to be explained. We are actually having a vote on something that we are not actually having a vote on. When we get the explanation from the minister about what we are actually voting on, we will have a vote.21:11:008444Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—by leave—Mr Chairman, some time ago we went through five requested amendments, none of which had a division, as senators who were present would know. Amongst those were amendments (4), (5) and (11), which went through on the nod. We are now on amendment (7), which we have been debating as covering youth disability allowance. In fact, youth disability allowance was covered by (4), (5) and (11), which have already been passed. We are now gathered to vote on amendment (7), which is parenting payment (single).The arguments that have been put in this discussion about the youth disability allowance are ones which senators foreshadowed in their speeches during the second reading debate in relation to parenting payment (single). They are similar arguments, I think it is fair to say. I am afraid, this discovery having been made, it could not be allowed to go through to a vote without the Senate being aware of this.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What a complete shemozzle.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—When we have a running sheet, as we are already engaged in speeches in the second reading debate, in something like social security it is most unwise, but we are faced now with trying to fix this.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is whether the committee wants to proceed with the division in respect of amendment 7 or we call the division off and the opposition may seek to have amendments 4, 5 and 11, which are relevant to what we thought the issue was, recommitted.21:13:008444Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—by leave—I appreciate the minister drawing it to your attention, Mr Temporary Chairman. As you were aware, we proceeded on the basis that I was asked at the start which amendment we wanted to debate. We obviously identified the wrong one and therefore had the debate around that. Clearly, there is no intention to divide on this item if it is, as it says, just to do with the change of date of operations, although I must say on the running sheet the ones the minister has now referred to are described as technical corrections. If you assure me they are the ones we are supposed to be having the debate about, I suggest we abandon this division and seek leave to reconsider those amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You can seek leave to have the division called off. Is leave granted?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Just to clarify, the minister is now talking about amendments (4), (5) and (11). Is that right?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is correct.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—That is listed as—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The matter that was raised by the opposition is in fact contained in amendments (4), (5) and (11). Amendment (7) is actually dealing with some other matter.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—So we will be recommitting (4), (5) and (11).10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If leave is granted to call the division off—and leave has been sought by Senator Chris Evans to call the division off—then the division will be called off and then we can proceed to recommit, by way of leave, amendments (4), (5) and (11). So is leave granted?AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I just point out that I did not call the division. It was called in our favour.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I understand. Just so we can progress, is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. The division is called off. Is leave granted to return to amendments (4), (5) and (11)? There being no objection, leave is granted. The next point is whether we want to put the question which is the question that we really wanted to put in the first place.21:16:008445Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Senator Bartlett was asking about why there were no additional costs for matters to do with the youth disability allowance. The discussion is all related to (4), (5) and (11). There are minimal implications for people and certainly no savings or costs that need to be reported to the Senate. So the information that has just been given about amendment (7) in fact all related to amendments (4), (5) and (11).21:17:008445Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Just to clarify, so we are dealing with the little bit that is in the revised supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to these amendments which ensure that correct calculation of income reduction for those persons who are receiving both the youth disability supplement payment as well as the community development employment projects payment. Is that correct?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is correct.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—This is probably a question better directed to a government draftsperson. If we are dealing with amendments that relate to correct calculations for youth disability supplement payments and we are looking at an amendment sheet that lists them as technical corrections and the actual amendments read `. . . omit "1231A(1A)", substitute "1231(1A)".' and `after "1066A-B1", insert "(including any amount required to be added by point 1066A-C1)".', how are we supposed to know that these are dealing with the youth disability supplement and ensuring correct calculations? They are either going to impact on somebody or not. If they are going to impact on somebody, there is a financial implication. It seemed curious to me before when I was asking these questions in relation to an amendment that was labelled `change of date of operation'. Now that we are dealing with three amendments that have basically a bunch of numbers in them and are labelled `technical correction' it seems even more curious than it did before. So a little elaboration would be nice.Progress reported.Business84458445Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—proposed:That on Tuesday, 21 September 1999, the routine of business from 2 p.m. shall be—(a) consideration of a motion relating to the situation in East Timor; and(b) adjournment. 21:20:008446Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I will speak briefly to this motion that has been moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate indicating that in tomorrow's sitting of the Senate we deal with only two matters: consideration of a motion relating to the situation in East Timor and then the adjournment debate at the conclusion of that business. I am sure everyone in the parliament would accept that there is no more important issue that the parliament could give consideration to at this time than the situation in East Timor. That is a matter that both this chamber and the House of Representatives does need to give priority to.There is, I think, a question in relation to the order of business that needs to be addressed. My colleagues in the House of Representatives will be arguing forcefully for question time to take place in that chamber. I would make the point that whatever occurs in the House of Representatives I think should be also reflected in this chamber. I think we will deal with this issue in the Senate before it is dealt with in the House of Representatives. I suppose I could be bold enough to make the prediction that, although I think there is great force in the arguments that my colleagues will mount in the House of Representatives, it is possible it will not find majority support on the floor of that chamber, as so many of their good suggestions don't, as senators would be aware.In that circumstance, again, I think the principle that should apply is that our business here should reflect what occurs in that chamber. In other words, if there is a question time in the House of Representatives, I think it is appropriate that there be a question time in the Senate. Given the important questions that have been asked in both chambers today about East Timor, the arguments for that occurring are very strong. It is important to hold the government and the executive accountable on this important issue.I also raise another key issue in relation to the question before the chair. The point of the proposal of the government is that we consider a motion in relation to the situation in East Timor. As of this time as I now speak in the Senate, that motion still has not been provided to the opposition or, I assume, to Senator Lees and other Independent senators who might care to make a contribution on this, and I assume to others in the parliament as well. Before I got to my feet I was assured by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that the Leader of the House, Mr Reith, is going to provide a draft motion to the opposition in the House of Representatives in very short order indeed.I do think it is difficult to determine at a time like this, when a draft motion has not been provided and when we are not quite clear what might be the decision of the House in relation to its own order of business, what it is appropriate for this chamber to do. I am making a bold assumption that the persuasive arguments of my colleagues in the House of Representatives in relation to the holding of a question time tomorrow will probably fall on deaf ears, will probably be unsuccessful, and that that is unlikely to take place. But I do make the important point that the government's motion in relation to the situation in East Timor should have been provided well before this time—that is, 9.25 p.m. on Monday of the first day of these important sittings of the parliament.It is disappointing that we have not been provided with that motion. I do believe it is an important courtesy not just to the opposition but to all those in both chambers of the parliament who would like to make a contribution on an issue that has dominated public debate in our nation over the past few weeks. I am disappointed that the government has not been able to provide that motion. Of course, the opposition would much prefer to find itself in a position where it is in agreement with the government on a motion and there is some negotiating process between the government and opposition and other parties if they care to be involved about the appropriate wording of such a motion. It does appear that we have to deal with this issue before that matter is finally determined. I am afraid that I cannot apprise the Senate or any of my colleagues about the draft motion that is coming from the government.In this circumstance, we find ourselves in a difficult position. It is an important principle that the motion be provided before we agree to such a debate. It is an important principle to hold a question time to hold the executive accountable for its role in relation to this important issue. I would have preferred the motion that we are debating now to have reflected those considerations. In the circumstances that we face where that is not possible, I think perhaps I am limited to making this short contribution on this matter to explain the approach that the opposition is taking, which is one that I think any fair-minded Australian or fair-minded member of the Australian parliament would accept as a very reasonable one in these circumstances.So we await further developments in the House of Representatives. We would certainly encourage Mr Reith, as Leader of the House in the House of Representatives, to try to lift his game and ensure that the opposition is apprised of the government's motion on East Timor as soon as possible and to engage in the necessary discussions and negotiations in the way a matter as important as this ought to be progressed.21:28:008447Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise to support this motion. It would be helpful, however, if we could see, sometime this evening, the motion that is planned to be debated. I am sure most of us could write most of our speeches, having seen enough on the television screens about what is happening, but I say to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that I think it would be conducive to a more fruitful debate if we could get a copy of the motion before we leave this evening.21:29:008447Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am assured that the motion will be available. It probably is already available in that other place. Although I am sure Senator Faulkner's colleagues will earnestly, articulately and forcefully put the argument that there should be a question time tomorrow, the precedent to the best that I can judge from recent cases—I understand the debate on Somalia was one of those—is the debate on the Middle East conflict, the Gulf War. On 21 January 1991, the parliament was recalled to a special sitting. Question time was dispensed with then in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate made the decision to ensure that we mirrored what happened in the House of Representatives, which I would suggest is not always good practice. Their practices are often rules unto themselves.The Senate's procedures are often far better than those of the House of Representatives. We should not always seek to mirror them; we need to be a different place. But I do not think it is helpful that they debate East Timor over in that place and we engage in question time and other matters up here. It is appropriate that the statements or the motions be moved concurrently. That was very much the view put by Senator Robert Ray, the then Manager of Government Business in the Senate, on 21 January 1991, when he said:There was no desire by the Government to hide from Question Time, but there was a desire to get on with this most important matter—as most people in the chamber would acknowledge—at the same time as the House of Representatives.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What did Hill say at the time?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I think Senator Hill's words might have had an incredible resonance with what Senator Faulkner just said. I am sure Senator Hill put up a protest, as Her Majesty's opposition should always do. I genuinely appreciate the support from other senators and I undertake, on behalf of the government, to ensure that the draft motion is in the hands of all honourable senators in a very short time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8447r7178447Consideration resumed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that government amendments Nos 4, 5 and 11 be agreed to. 21:32:008448Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Just so there is no confusion, the arguments we put when debating previous amendments to this bill apply more correctly to this debate. This is the government measure which affects the youth disability allowance supplement. This is the one we had all agreed that we wanted to single out as being a measure of some substance rather than purely of changing the operative dates because of the delay in the passage of the bill. As I indicated before, the Labor opposition is not convinced there is a rationale for supporting these government amendments, so we are opposing them.21:33:008448Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I thank Minister Newman for giving me some clarification in relation to this during the brief interval. I sympathise with her in having to elaborate on the rationale and the impact of these amendments which are listed as technical corrections. Given the difficulty in getting more precise information on them, and whilst I take her assurances that no financial implications means negligible financial implications—which means probably not very much money, which means probably not terribly many people affected—I am not overly keen on supporting something with reasonably scant information about its likely impact, particularly in an area such as this that potentially deals with people who are already on low incomes and suffering disabilities.As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, there is a number of other social security bills on the Notice Paper. I am sure these measures could be re-presented, and perhaps a bit more information could be provided at that time. Given that they are of negligible financial impact, I feel less apprehension about doing that than I might otherwise. They are clearly not going to have any significant financial implications for the government's budgetary situation—for the budget coffers—but they may have significant financial implications for young people, albeit for a very small number. That being the case, I find it a bit difficult to support these amendments in this context.Amendments not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that government amendment No. 7 from sheet FC206, which was the source of the earlier confusion, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now move to government amendment No. 8 on sheet FC206 revised.Amendment (by Senator Newman) proposed:(8) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (lines 12 to 32), omit subsections (1) to (3), substitute: (1) A person who is a CDEP Scheme participant, and is not in receipt of a social security pension, in respect of the whole or a part of a quarter beginning on or after 20 March 2000 may, by written notice given to the Secretary, choose to accumulate the amounts of any supplement that: (a) became or become payable to the person in respect of that quarter, or any later quarter in respect of the whole or a part of which the person is a CDEP Scheme participant and is not in receipt of a social security pension; and (b) have not already been paid. (2) A person who is or was a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the whole or a part of a quarter ending before 20 March 2000 is taken to have chosen under this subsection to accumulate the amounts of any supplement that became payable to the person in respect of that quarter. (3) If a person makes a choice under subsection (1), the sum of the accumulated amounts payable to the person in respect of a quarter is to be paid on, or as soon as practicable after: (a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the last day of the quarter or 19 March 2000, whichever is the later; or (b) if the person ceases to be a CDEP Scheme participant before the end of the quarter—the day on which the person so ceases or 19 March 2000, whichever is the later. (3A) Any accumulated amounts payable to a person to whom subsection (2) applies are to be paid at such times (not later than 19 March 2000) as the Secretary determines. 21:36:008449Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—According to the note, this amendment deals with the right to accumulate supplement. It is also part of schedule 2 and therefore has no financial implications, according to the supplementary explanatory memorandum revised. It seems reasonably self-explanatory, but it contains four clauses. Given what I said before about the potential impact, I want to at least get the minister to confirm my reading of it, rather than get her to explain it from scratch. It appears to me to enable a person to accumulate payments in a similar way to how some of the old pension credit schemes used to operate. It seems to be a beneficial measure—although, again, if it is a beneficial measure, I would have thought it might have a small budgetary cost to the government, which again is not reflected in the explanatory memorandum. Perhaps that balances out the small budgetary expense under the previous measure, which therefore neatly makes zero. I would like a clarification of that before I express support for this one.21:38:008449Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think the information in revised FC206 is pretty self-explanatory. Certainly there was an intention that people would be able to accumulate amounts of a supplement, and this makes it possible for that to happen. There was also a need to ensure that people who were in receipt of payments under the CDEP scheme could take their accumulated amounts back to March 1999. They could also take it quarterly. That is the best I can do for you, Senator. I think that is what you are driving at.21:39:008449Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—To clarify that, does that mean that people can stack up their payments and get them paid in a lump sum at a later date?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Thank you.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—We now move to government amendment No. 13.Amendment by (Senator Newman) proposed:(13) Schedule 4, item 13, page 72 (line 10), after "payment", insert "either while the person was in gaol or psychiatric confinement, or".10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendment No. 13 be agreed to.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—I am sorry, this is another one which says `technical correction', which makes me nervous after the last one which said `technical correction'. It is also not on my running sheet, which is making me more nervous.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is on sheet FC206.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—The amendment is there, but it is not the next one on the running sheet as I see it. I am getting confused. I think we have skipped a page.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, it is the next one on sheet FC206.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—It is at the top of page 3 on the running sheet, I think.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I support Senator Bartlett's confusion.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—To assist you, Senator Bartlett, it is at the top of page 3 on the running sheet.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—If that is the case, that is an amendment to schedule 4.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It is too.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That means we should not be anywhere near that yet. I think the minister might be missing a page on her running sheet.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—No, this was an old one.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I think Senator Bartlett's point is that the next amendment that I have in front of me on the revised running sheet is an amendment to schedule 2, items 9 and 53, government amendments (1), (5) and (6) on pages 30 and 33 of the bill.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If I could short-circuit your contribution, Senator Evans, I have just been given that running sheet myself. Senator Newman, apparently there is a more up-to-date running sheet which has the next amendments being (1), (5) and (6) for the government. Perhaps we should move to those amendments before moving to amendment No. 13.Motion (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:(1) Schedule 2, heading to section 1188E, page 30 (lines 10 and 11), omit "19 September 1999 ", substitute "19 March 2000 ".(5) Schedule 2, heading to section 1188F, page 33 (line 14), omit "20 September 1999 ", substitute "20 March 2000 ".(6) Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (lines 16 to 18), omit subsection (1), substitute:(1) This section applies in respect of payment periods beginning on or after 20 March 2000.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendments (1) to (7) and (9) to (32) to be taken by leave together.21:42:008450Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Before I seek leave, Mr Chairman, I seek your assistance in asking why I am moving (1) to (7) and (9) to (32). Is the explanation that (8) is to oppose a section?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I suggest that might be correct. So it has to be put separately, Senator Evans.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (lines 1 and 2), omit "or the person's partner".(2) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (lines 5 to 33), omit all words from and including "the following provisions" to the end of subsection (1), substitute: the ordinary income of the person includes the CDEP Scheme payment referred to in paragraph (b).(3) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (lines 34 to 38), omit subsection (2).(4) Schedule 2, item 53, page 21 (line 27), omit "pension,".(5) Schedule 2, item 53, page 21 (line 33) to page 22 (line 11), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of threshold .(6) Schedule 2, item 53, pages 22 to 28 (heading to column 2), omit "pension, ".(7) Schedule 2, item 53, pages 22 to 28, (table items 1 to 15 and 26, 27 and 31), omit the table items. (9) Schedule 2, item 53, heading to section 1188E, page 30 (line 11), omit ": people not covered by section 1188D ".(10) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (lines 12 to 16), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) This section applies in respect of payment periods beginning on or after 20 March 1999 and not later than 19 September 1999.(11) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (lines 17 to 20), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) This section applies to a person in respect of a payment period (the relevant payment period ) if: (a) an instalment of any of the following: (i) widow allowance; (ii) newstart allowance; (iii) youth allowance; (iv) parenting payment at the rate applicable for a person who is a member of a couple; (v) partner allowance; (vi) mature age allowance under Part 2.12B; is payable to a person in respect of a payment period; and (b) the person meets the requirements of subsection (3) or (4).(12) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (lines 23 and 24), omit "or the relevant pension payday".(13) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (lines 25 to 32), omit paragraph (3)(b), substitute: (b) that the person is a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the relevant payment period and a CDEP Scheme payment was payable to the person in respect of a payment period the whole or a part of which occurred within the 3 payment periods immediately before the relevant payment period.(14) Schedule 2, item 53, page 31 (lines 1 and 2), omit ", or in respect of the payment period in which the relevant pension payday occur,".(15) Schedule 2, item 53, page 32 (line 28), omit "or the relevant pension payday".(16) Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (line 2), omit "or payday".(17) Schedule 2, item 53, heading to section 1188F, page 33 (lines 14 and 15), omit ": people not covered by section 1188D ".(18) Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (lines 16 to 18), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) This section applies in respect of payment periods beginning on or after 20 September 1999.(19) Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (line 31) to page 34 (line 14), omit paragraph (b).(20) Schedule 2, item 53, page 34 (lines 15 to 19), omit subsection (3), substitute: (3) This section does not apply to a person in respect of the relevant payment period unless the person meets the requirements of subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) in respect of that period.(21) Schedule 2, item 53, page 34 (lines 22 and 23), omit "or the relevant pension payday".(22) Schedule 2, item 53, page 34 (lines 24 to 31), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) that the person is a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the relevant payment period and a CDEP Scheme payment was payable to the person in respect of a payment period the whole or a part of which occurred within the 3 payment periods immediately before the relevant payment period.(23) Schedule 2, item 53, page 34 (lines 34 and 35), omit ", or in respect of the payment period in which the relevant pension payday occurs,".(24) Schedule 2, item 53, page 35 (line 2), omit "or relevant pension payday".(25) Schedule 2, item 53, page 35 (lines 10 to 12), omit ", or the relevant pension payday is a day on which the relevant pension referred to in paragraph (2)(b) would not be payable,".(26) Schedule 2, item 53, page 37 (line 9), omit "or the relevant pension payday".(27) Schedule 2, item 53, page 37 (line 11), omit "or payday".(28) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (lines 4 and 5), omit "or pension ".(29) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (line 7), omit "or pension payday".(30) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (line 9), omit "or social security pension".(31) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (line 20), omit ", or a pension payday that occurred,".(32) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (line 23), omit "or payday".These series of amendments and our amendment No. 8, which is to oppose section 1188D, all go to the same issue, which is the payment of parenting payments single to recipients of CDEP.As I mentioned in my speech at the second reading stage, this is one of the three major areas of concern that the opposition has with the bill. The minister and the government are seeking to make a number of changes to CDEP, most of which we support. They provide for allowing CDEP recipients to access some additional benefits that they have been traditionally denied, such as rental assistance, bereavement payment, telephone rental allowance and other ancillary benefits, and the opposition has no qualm with that. We think that is a positive and beneficial measure.However, the opposition is concerned at what appears to be unfair treatment of those recipients of CDEP who also have access to parenting payment (single)—that is, single parents involved in CDEP work. We have ascertained, from looking at the legislation and from some research done for us done by the library, that it seems in excess of 4,000 sole parents may well be worse off as a result of the measure undertaken by the government. Those people would lose the entitlement to income, the sum of which would be over $100 a fortnight. These are often quite disadvantaged people such as Aboriginal people working in a CDEP project who are also single parents. By definition many of them suffer a range of disadvantages in terms of their access to the paid work force and to a range of other facilities in society because many of them live in remote communities.While the other measures are beneficial, this is a very serious reduction in the amount of income paid to those 4,000 sole parents. At present, unlike other CDEP workers, sole parents have been able to access the sole parent pension—now the parenting payment (single)—in addition to a limited CDEP payment. CDEP income has been treated as ordinary income for any other sole parent pensioner—that is, it is an income free area—and any income in excess of that reduces parenting payment by 50 cents in the dollar. Sole parents working on CDEP projects have usually been paid CDEP income up to $124 a week, which is the income threshold for parenting payment and, in addition, they have received parenting payment.While benefits payable to sole parent CDEP workers have been more generous than those available to other CDEP workers who are ineligible for social security benefits, their treatment is equivalent to that accorded to other sole parents who receive parenting payment (single). Again, CDEP income has been treated like any other sole parent pensioner's income. We believe this consistency is fair and the current entitlements should be retained. Sole parents experience particular difficulties in joining the work force, and their more generous treatment compared with other CDEP participants attempts to overcome this disadvantage. The measures proposed by the government in the bill would reduce parenting payment by one dollar for each dollar of CDEP income up to the amount of the parenting payment benefits. So there will be no income free area at all. Parenting payment would also be reduced by 50c for each dollar in excess of this amount.We believe this would reduce the incentive to work and is not justified purely on the basis of arguing that this brings them down to a level occupied by other recipients. It provides a disincentive to work and it removes a small advantage that has been given to people who are amongst the most disadvantaged in the Australian community. To remove up to $100 a fortnight from these people, with the only justification seeming to be that it would bring them back to a level playing field, is not only insufficient but also highly unfair.We think it is probably more a question of the government looking at a cost saving measure rather than at a measure based on any sort of merit. It would be very hard to argue that these people are receiving any great advantage in our society. They are in need of the sorts of support mechanisms that they are receiving currently, and it is easy to justify their continuing to receive those payments. We cannot at this stage see why, if it is not a cost cutting measure, the government would be looking to reduce their entitlements in this way.We think that the current situation and regime provides a far fairer treatment for those people. We do not see why these 4,000 individuals who are struggling to work and to raise children on their own should be disadvantaged by this measure. I know the minister, in answering concern about the previous measure relating to the youth disability situation, said that such people may find it harder to get participation in CDEP projects because others would regard them as getting a double payment. That may or may not be true—I have no evidence for that, and none was advanced—but it seems to me that if there are some prejudices or difficulties we ought to work to overcome those prejudices and difficulties rather than seek to diminish the payments made to these people.Progress reported.Adjournment845210000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.845221:50:008452Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The situation in East Timor over the past three weeks has been horrific. It is an absolute tragedy. I hope with all my heart, as do all Australians, that any further killing, violence, intimidation and forced removal of Timorese people will be averted or kept to the absolute minimum possible with the arrival of the United Nations peacekeeping force. People around the world have been shocked and appalled at this tragic turn of events.The people of Australia have been particularly affected for several reasons: the geographical proximity of the two regions, our past close historical ties with the Timorese and the large number of Timorese people in Australia.I know this bond with the Timorese is a special one and will be a lasting one. The recent tragedy has led to many Australians working together with the East Timorese to alleviate their suffering as best they can. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Darwin.I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people, agencies and organisations which have been involved in the relief effort to date and acknowledge the supreme efforts they have made. The brigades of volunteers and public servants deserve our thanks and praise.The people of Darwin have opened their hearts to the East Timorese and have donated money, clothing, toys and time in a bid to help these people as best they can. Many Darwin people are acting as volunteers and assisting in any way they feel is right and useful. On 10 September 1999, 478 people were evacuated from Dili. Of these, 344 were East Timorese. They arrived in Darwin by RAAF Hercules to a well-organised humanitarian relief effort. A further 1,500 East Timorese and almost 60 UN staff were evacuated by RAAF Hercules on 14 September 1999. The Northern Territory and federal governments had organised an East Timorese reception task force which originally used the Portuguese-Timorese Social Club as the reception centre for the refugees. Here they were processed efficiently and compassionately by Customs, Immigration and other officials in the first instance. The reception and processing of refugees was later moved to the Marrara Sports Stadium to accommodate the larger numbers involved. The East Timorese were given three-month safe haven visas similar to those granted to the refugees from Kosovo.The reception task force, under the guidance of the Hon. Mike Reed MLA, the Northern Territory's Deputy Chief Minister, has done a superb job of making things as comfortable, simple and painless for the refugees as possible. The tent city erected by the Australian Army at the Kalymnian Social Club at Marrara is able to house 2,000 refugees in conditions that are the best possible for relief and temporary relief. The tent city is being run by the Northern Territory police and the officer in charge is Superintendent Mick Van Heythuysen. The tent city is a credit to the organisational skills of Superintendent Van Heythuysen and his officers, and also to its Timorese residents. A Timorese couple named their newborn infant after Superintendent Van Heythuysen and he will be a godfather to the baby. These actions show the depth of feeling that is being expressed on both sides in this crisis and is similar to the affection afforded the Australian Federal Police contingent in Timor for the recent poll.Charity and aid organisations and many dedicated people from religious orders are playing a large part in the relief effort and, without their tremendous support, life for the refugees would be much more difficult. Anglicare has been collecting thousands of items of clothing for personal kits for the refugees. Their Darwin store has been open 24 hours a day as part of a drive to collect as many clothes as possible for the East Timorese. On a poignant note, it was requested that the clothes be of a small size and preferably of a dark colour due to the fact that the people were in mourning.The Red Cross have also been doing a marvellous job. Their compound in Dili was stormed and they suffered strong intimidation from the militias, but this does not seem to have dented their resolve one iota. The Red Cross and their volunteers are working hard at the vital task of tracing families and attempting to provide information on the whereabouts of loved ones. They have also provided much needed assistance, with the local Darwin Timorese community, in helping refugees to fill out things such as immigration forms. The government aid organisation AusAID began food drops on 17 September with food and blankets dropped to refugees hiding in the hills south of Dili. These vital supplies may mean the difference between life and death for some people.The aid workers who were in East Timor have had a particularly trying time. They have experienced some horrific episodes and must deal with those and also their feelings for those they were forced to leave behind. Their job is ongoing, in Darwin particularly, and it is an unfortunate reality that it will soon recommence in East Timor. They can take solace in the knowledge that they have already saved thousands of lives. Health Services Australia, working very closely with Northern Territory Health, was able to mobilise seven medical staff within 24 hours and by today had screened around 1,100 refugees, with about 500 to go. Doctors worked throughout the weekend to ensure refugees were screened in the most humane and sensitive manner, and the staff of Health Services Australia, the Royal Darwin Hospital and Territory Health Services must be congratulated. Reports indicate that people being seen are malnourished and psychologically traumatised. Those people with health problems have been hospitalised in the Northern Territory.Hotels and motels around Darwin were absolutely full as those East Timorese who had passed through immigration and health checks were moved out of the tent city into more appropriate accommodation on 12 and 13 September. On 18 September, 292 refugees were flown to Melbourne to stay at Puckapunyal army base ahead of a further 300. Several hundred Timorese community members from Melbourne were on hand to greet them, continuing the strong support their compatriots in Darwin have shown. I am sure the refugees who will be accommodated at Puckapunyal in Victoria, Leeuwin in Western Australia and East Hills in New South Wales will be as well looked after as they were in Darwin.The troops from Townsville, and particularly my constituents from the Northern Territory based in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine who are forming such a vital part of the UN peacekeeping force, deserve a strong message of thanks and good wishes. I, along with all Territorians and the rest of Australia, wish them godspeed and a safe campaign. The hopes and wishes of all Territorians go with them, particularly the 2,000 troops who left today from Darwin. The RAAF has played a strong role in the lead-up to the peacekeeping force leaving today. The Hercules crews who flew the evacuation flights and who flew supplies to the besieged UNAMET compound showed determination and courage in conditions that were extremely adverse.The head of the United Nations mission on East Timor, Mr Ian Martin, who flew out of Dili only on Tuesday, 14 September with the 1,500 refugees from the UN compound, showed extreme courage and wise judgment in circumstances few of us can imagine. I would also like to pay tribute to the journalists who have been covering the crisis from Timor and Darwin. The coverage has, in the large majority, been responsible and sensitive, with the journalists from international and local media following and understanding the need for rules that have been set.Finally, I think it is important to acknowledge and applaud the strength and the courage that the East Timorese refugees themselves have shown in such trying circumstances. They are exceptional people, and the recognition they gave to the Prime Minister today at the tent city shows the feelings they have for all Australians. I pray for peace in their troubled country.845421:59:008454O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—At the end of last week I had the pleasure of being the guest of Scott Anderson and his partner Anna on a Flinders Island property. Together with Scott and Anna, I was the guest of Scott's parents, David and Kath Anderson. The property, which is a consolidation of three former soldier settlement blocks, is run by Scott, his father David and his mother Kath. It produces wool, lamb and beef and is trialling cauliflower seed production. The opportunity to visit the Andersons was presented by the rural visit component of the leadership training program, a program of the Tasmanian Rural Industry Training Board and the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association.It gave me the opportunity not only to get a first-hand view of the operation with a bit of hands-on work but to spend time talking to Scott, Anna, David and Kath about the issues that impact on them. It was also an opportunity to get their views not only on the issues that they face and those with which the government might assist them in the economic endeavours but also on the broader issues that impact on rural communities, such as Flinders Island.I must say that the Anderson's farming operation is an impressive one. Their approach to farming is very much a scientific one. For example, I observed that stock growth is closely monitored to ensure that cattle and sheep are turned off to market when they reach optimum weight. Scott and David Anderson have also worked hard to increase the quality of their cattle herd by a careful mixing of on-farm bloodlines with those of carefully selected bulls from other properties. The increasing role of science illustrated by the Anderson's operation as well as the consolidation of the properties—as I said earlier, in the Anderson's case three farms into one—is essential if rural Australia is not only to recover from the decline it has experienced in recent years but to grow. I would like to put on the record my appropriation to Scott, Anna, David and Kath for an opportunity to spend some time with them and gain a better understanding of the issues in regional Australia.Another communication occurred on the weekend. The residents of regional Victoria also had an opportunity to communicate with politicians at the end of last week through the ballot box.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Oh no, you were going so well.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I am glad that Senator McGauran is here. Isn't it wonderful, Senator McGauran, that somebody gets out of the big cities into the country?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Is that why you left Sydney?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—That is a very good comment, Senator Macdonald. You have been saying for some time that all of the occupants of this side of the chamber are from the cities; now you have conceded that in fact I left Sydney to go to a rural and regional area. You have defeated your own arguments with that pathetic interjection.Throughout the Victorian election campaign residents of regional Victoria heard the Premier, Mr Kennett, talking about how well things were going in that state. He was happy to tell anyone that Victoria was in great shape. He claimed that his government had delivered substantial economic growth, and he rattled off statistics to back up his claim. He said he had created a record number of jobs. He said investment in Victoria was booming. He was keen to tell people living in regional Victoria that that state now enjoys a AAA credit rating. But we now know that, as people started thinking about how they were going to vote last Saturday, they were not listening to Mr Kennett; they were asking themselves whether they were getting their fair share of the good times and successes that Mr Kennett kept talking about.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Not just Ron Walker.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, it is disorderly to interject out of your place.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—They were asking whether they were getting their fair share of Mr Kennett's spending on health, on education, on housing and on government services. The massive vote against Mr Kennett in the bush suggests that the general view was that they received very little. In their eyes, to have any chance of benefiting from the policies of the Kennett government you obviously needed to be well off and living in the city. If you lived in the bush, of course, you received very little or nothing. If Mr Kennett was spending a fair share of health, education, training, job creation and government services funding in regional Victoria, then no-one noticed.What did Minister Alston say today? He said that the abysmal vote that the coalition—and, particularly, the National Party—received in Victoria on the weekend was the result of `declining standards of living in the bush' in rural and regional Victoria. What an admission—the great achievements of the Kennett government were leading only to declining living standards in the bush!Of course, the same charge can be levelled at the Howard government. Regional Australia has gone backwards since this government was first elected. Unemployment is much greater in regional areas than in the cities. The youth unemployment rate is significantly higher in regional Australia. Tragically, youth suicide is also higher and school retention rates much lower. Medical services in the bush are barely adequate, if that.These statistics are the starting point for young people who might not want to migrate to the major cities. They are the starting point if you are unemployed and looking for a job or if you are trying to get a better one. They are the starting point if you or a member of your family becomes ill and needs medical attention.The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, keeps saying that regional Australia does not want government handouts. He says that regional Australia needs to stand on its own. Frankly, he does not understand what this is all about. Public expenditure on essential services is not about charity. It is not about living off the public purse. If regional communities were given their fair share of the public dollar, not only would we have access to the same level of services as people living in Melbourne or Sydney but the government would be investing in the future of the bush.Public expenditure on key services in regional Australia is the only way it can build a future. Spending on education now means a more skilled work force in the future. Spending on health care now means a healthier, more productive work force. Increased spending by the government in regional areas is also an important investment in the national economy. Regional economies like Flinders Island and farmers like the Anderson family make an important contribution to my state and to the national economy.When Mr Kennett claimed credit for a four per cent growth in GDP, he was claiming credit for the efforts of wool producers, meat workers, timber workers, the fishing industry, the horticulturalists, the gas industry and the tourism industry, all of which make up regional economies. Rural communities throughout Australia produce the national wealth. In many respects the cities spend it. Mr Kennett, Mr Howard and Mr Costello all claim credit for it.With the right policies for the key industries such as on Flinders Island and in Gippsland in Victoria, and with the right level of public services, regional Australia can make an even greater contribution to national wealth. In doing so, we can ensure that the people who live outside the major cities have a brighter and more prosperous future.845622:08:008456Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My main contribution tonight will be in the area of social security and welfare policy—and we have just spent some time in this chamber debating legislation on this subject. Before I get on to that I would like to make a couple of other comments following on from what Senator O'Brien said about the Victorian election. I would like to offer my congratulations not just to all the people who participated in the election, including the electorates themselves, but to the Democrat candidates who participated in it. It is not perhaps surprising that their achievements have been somewhat overshadowed by the unexpected outcome of the election in terms of the result in the lower house there and the potential change of government—or certainly change in the style of government.Nonetheless, it is worth highlighting the significant result that many of the Democrat candidates achieved. It certainly highlighted that any suggestion of an electoral backlash was unfounded in relation to some of the actions of the Democrats at a federal level in this chamber in recent times. Despite spending far less than we did last time at a state level in Victoria, our vote significantly increased in a majority of seats. Indeed, in the upper house seat of Higginbotham it was around 44 per cent on recent counts.I especially congratulate Craig Tucker for the work he did there and also all of the other candidates who battled very hard in the absence of any mainstream media coverage. All the focus was on the larger parties and perhaps the one large premier, who had a fixation of making sure the election was focused on him. Obviously it focused a bit too much on him and, as it turned out, that was not actually a good idea. Democrat candidates did work hard at the local level and achieved an increase in the vote. The preferences of Democrat voters were clearly crucial in a number of lower house seats and this could lead to a change in government. I think that should be recognised.It should also be recognised that if we had a proportional representation system in the upper house in Victoria, such as we do in virtually every other upper house in Australia, then we would clearly have Democrats represented in the Victorian upper house. While Mr Kennett would never admit it, it may well have been to his advantage to have had a bit of a tempering influence in parliament on some of his more outrageous attributes in recent years. He may actually still have found himself the undisputed premier of that state if he had had a bit of discipline forced on him by an upper house in the same way that the discipline of checks and balances provided by this chamber has, I would argue, been a benefit rather than a hindrance to the popularity and to the effectiveness of both this government and previous governments.In a more sombre vein, I would also like to mention a couple of other Democrats—Democrat stalwarts who, sadly, passed away. I would like to pay a brief tribute to them this evening. Jim Coates, who people here in the ACT would be well aware of, was a candidate for us in the last territory elections here. Certainly he was far more than that: he was a very helpful person all round to the party and a long-term member. He was very opinionated, as Canberra residents would be aware of from his very frequent contributions to letters to the editor. He was also a very strong advocate of social justice and human rights, particularly in some of the areas I am involved in on behalf of the party, such as refugees and the rights of migrants. From the reportedly large turnout at his funeral, he was a person who will be sadly missed, particularly within the Democrats.I would also like to pay tribute to a Queensland member, Glenn Polson, who died just yesterday. He was a candidate for us in the seat of Groom, based around Toowoomba, in the last federal election. Again, he was someone who provided a lot of support for the party and helped to keep it going in an area in which it is a little bit more difficult for people to contribute because of the smaller number of members outside the capital cities. He was supportive of the party and provided a lot of assistance without ever seeking any personal gain. I very much appreciate his contribution and pay tribute to it here this evening.Given that my throat seems to be collapsing, I might pass up on what was going to be a fabulous speech in relation to social security policy. However, I will briefly touch on it. This area has always been important. There has been a lot of focus in the media in recent years, and another wave of it in more recent times, about the role and future of welfare policy. That is a concern that the Democrats share.As with many issues in this fast changing society, economy and community, we cannot stand still in any area; and welfare policy and social security and income support policy is just another one of those areas. But, when we do that, it is very important that we ensure that, whilst we may need to change our focus about how best to deliver that policy, we do not change the fundamental underpinnings of the purpose of that policy, which is to ensure that the less well-off are provided with support in times of need and that assistance is provided to them across a range of different measures and that the budgetary or economic focus does not get primacy.As I said in this chamber an hour or so ago in relation to social security legislation, whilst there can be some good rhetoric about simplification or rationalisation of our income support system or about ensuring that people get provided with particular incentives or assistance in different ways other than money—and that is all true—oftentimes those sorts of arguments can be just a cover for budgetary savings; and that tends to be the bottom line that drives a lot of policy. The main job of many people in the political sphere seems not to be coming up with new ideas about how to improve assistance to people in need but coming up with new rhetoric, new spin and new glib-sounding phrases to cover up the fact that it is just another attempt to slice some money out of the welfare budget.Certainly, from the Democrats' point of view, whilst we definitely concur that there is a lot more to welfare, income support and social security than just providing money, I would like to see anybody try to get by without money, as well: it is still a fundamental component of providing assistance. Certainly, on behalf of the Democrats, we will be keeping a close watch on the reality and on any actual outcome of the proposed policy changes from all political parties in this area of policy debate.845822:16:008458Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I add my words of congratulations to the Democrats in Victoria for a very successful campaign on Saturday and in the weeks leading up to the election. We did particularly well in many seats, particularly with Craig Tucker in Higinbotham, with 44 per cent of the vote. The number of very young candidates who were standing for the Democrats is a good sign for the party for the future. I also congratulate the ALP on a good campaign.I rise primarily tonight to talk about the revolution which has been started in Victoria's education system—one of the reasons that the Kennett government fared so badly on Saturday. It could have profound ramifications for the rest of Australia too, and anyone concerned about the future of public education in this country should be watching the Victorian experiment.Back in June, the tensions within two Melbourne secondary schools erupted outside the school gates. Sandringham and Blackburn secondary colleges had become self-governing schools, and parents and teachers at both schools united to protest at the lack of consultation by principals in the decision to become self-governing. They formed pickets at the gates and they stopped work.The Victorian government hailed self-governance as bringing flexibility, less red tape, and prosperity, yet only 51 schools have so far signed up—just three per cent of all schools in Victoria. The Victorian government went on the record some time ago to say that it expected to have 200 schools by now—and that is not exactly, to employ Mr Costello's parlance, a beautiful set of figures. In fact, fortunately it is a dismal set of figures.The policy has been such a flop that the state government hired a consultant to find out why schools were thumbing their noses at self-governance, and the de Bono Institute was brought in to pitch to small schools the benefits of self-governance. Edward de Bono is no stranger to Victorian politics. This master of lateral thinking intervened a few years ago in the tramways dispute on a visit to Melbourne. He sided with the Kennett government in sacking tram conductors—yet another reason why the election went so badly for the coalition.I know of schools that were able to generate only a few hundred dollars last year in fundraising, and harried principals said it was extremely difficult to get parents involved in school life in some schools. In some areas, few parents spoke English and many were focusing all their energies on providing for their children, on minimal or no wages. What these schools need, in my view, is a firmer commitment from government, not a lesser commitment. Autonomy rings hollow when it is granted in a climate of chronic underresourcing.We know that Victoria has dropped its spending per capita on education lower than that of any other state or territory. I sincerely hope that if Labor—or even a humiliated Liberal government—forms government in Victoria it will turn those figures around. We have recently seen a new class of 12 specialist self-governing schools created in Victoria, and they will have access to private funding raised by the Education Trust, recently established by the state government. Of course, no other public schools will have access to this money, no matter how much they need it. The Education Trust threatens the operations of the Education Foundation, a non-profit, independent organisation that devotes itself to raising money for public schools.Over the last 10 years, the foundation has raised more than $1 million. This money has funded 300 projects directly involving 200 schools. Rather than offer grants to a select few, the foundation has supported public schools across the socioeconomic spectrum. Those projects have included refugee work experience in Brunswick, a science club in Balwyn, a Women in the Local Workforce project at Drouin, a girls construction project in Melbourne's south-east, a gifted students extension project at Noble Park, self-defence for disabled students at Northcote, a Koori garden at Timboon, a Girls in Electronics project at Preston, and participation in the Victorian Model Solar Car Challenge at an inner Melbourne school. Donors to the Education Foundation have included BP, Rio Tinto, Australia Post and Telstra. It is not difficult to envisage that any new trust bearing the state government's imprimatur would divert corporate funds away from the Education Foundation, and this would be indeed lamentable.Commercial fundraising for public schools is notoriously difficult, and we need a body that is able to help public schools on the basis of need. We should note too that, of the 12 schools that will be beneficiaries of the new Education Trust, not one is in Melbourne's west, the most disadvantaged region in Melbourne in terms of education outcomes. I hear that none of the principals who have gone down the self-governing route have done it on an educational basis. In fact, I doubt that any work has been done to look at educational outcomes. The deciding factor has been competition with the public school further down the road.Many schools that have considered going down the self-governing route have backed out because the sums just do not add up. Self-governing schools forfeit many services normally available to schools on a regional basis through the department. Of the $125 per capita grant to self-governing schools, $105 is meant to pay for the following services that used to be provided by the department: support for discipline cases and professional development activities; employee assessment; gifted students program; curriculum support, including materials and training for gifted education programs; programs delivered via CD-ROM, satellite and video for languages other than English; school global budget advice and redeployment assistance; assistance with school council elections; student welfare; and student services, including speech pathology, visiting teachers, social workers and curriculum coordinators. And the list goes on. In addition to that $125, self-governing schools get a one-off payment of $30,000. Clearly, this deal does not go anywhere near making up for the lack of departmental support.There is a staff allocation of $45,000 per teacher. That means that any self-governing school with experienced teachers will not have enough money to pay for them, because this amount represents an average teachers salary. It does not reflect the number of experienced teachers within a school who could expect to command more. This arrangement favours schools that hire large numbers of contract teachers. It inevitably means reduced pay and conditions. I am sure the Senate will agree that this is not a promising development, given the report of the Senate inquiry into the status of teachers, A class act, which identified pay as a significant problem in attracting and keeping teachers.One observer of the international trend towards self-governing schools noted Oscar Wilde's remark that socialism would never work because it would take up too many evenings. A similar fate, I might suggest, could befall self-governing schools.In the US, private schools enrol only 20 per cent of students. Their version of self-governing schools is charter schools, which make up less than one per cent of all schools. The grant-maintained schools ushered in by Thatcher constitute only four per cent of schools in the UK. In the United States the experience is that students with disabilities have been screened out, as have students from undesirable ethnic backgrounds, via conditions such as zero tolerance and parental involvement contracts. Many states have allowed charter schools to circumvent local regulations and collective bargaining agreements. Schools have even used uncertified teachers. They are also an untested experiment. Research in 1998 showed that three-quarters of US charter schools were less than two years old. Evaluation is a long way off. At this stage of the proceedings, the push for charter schools is based on ideology rather than analysis. Phrases such as `Our public schools are failing' readily fall from proponents' mouths.I think Australia must ask itself if it really wants to emulate American charter schools that are unashamedly dog eat dog in their recruiting—schools with names like ABC, which stands for `All the Best Children'. The growth of American charter schools has been largely unregulated. That sounds somewhat familiar because, in Australia, since the Howard government abolished the new schools policy, private schools here have been allowed to start up with as few as 20 students and receive federal funding to pay for most of their costs. The municipality of Maribyrnong, in Melbourne's west, is without public schools—Mr Kennett closed them down shortly after he came to power. Yet the same municipality now has a number of new private schools. (Time expired)Senate adjourned at 10.26 p.m.Documents84608460The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aged Care Act— Accountability Amendment Principles 1999 (No. 1). Accreditation Grant Principles 1999.Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 215.Charter of the United Nations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 207 and 208.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations— Civil Aviation Orders— Amendments of sections 20 and 82, dated 3 September 1999. Directive—Part— 105, dated 13 [3], 20 [5], 23 [13], 24 [2], 25, 26 [2] and 27 [12] August 1999; and 1 September 1999. 106, dated 23 [2], 24, 26 [2] and 27 [2] August 1999. Exemptions Nos CASA 28/1999 and CASA 29/1999. Statutory Rules 1999 No. 210. Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 212.Currency Act— Currency Determination 1999 (No. 3). Currency Determination 1999 (No. 4).Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 200-202.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1999/31-1999/34.Excise Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 213.Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Prescribed Goods (General) Amendment Orders 1999 (No. 1).Extradition Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 203.Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 199.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —Income Tax Assessment (Determination of Offshore Banking Units) Guidelines 1999.Judiciary Act— High Court of Australia—Rule of Court, as at 31 August 1999. Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 197.Migration Act— Certificates under section 502, dated 24 August, 4 [2] and 7 [2] September 1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 198.Motor Vehicle Standards Act—Road Vehicle (National Standards) Determination No. 1 of 1999.Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 204.National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 206.National Health Act—Determinations under Schedule 1—IHS 10/1999 and IHS 11/1999.National Measurement Act—National Measurement Guidelines 1999.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act and National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 214.Product Rulings PR 1999/90 and PR 1999/91.Public Service Act— Locally Engaged Staff Determination 1999/21. Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1999/46-1999/50. Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence Tax) Determination 1999.Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 211.Superannuation Contributions Determination SCD 1999/5.Telecommunications Act—Telecommunications Numbering Plan Amendment 1999 (No. 2).Telstra Corporation Act—Telstra Carrier Charges—Price Control Arrangements, Notification and Disallowance Determination No. 1 of 1999.Therapeutic Goods Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 209.Trade Marks Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 196.Workplace Relations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 195 and 205.8461The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999—Statements of compliance— Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Commonwealth Ombudsman.Proclamations8461A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of an act to come into operation on the date specified:Judiciary Amendment Act 1999 —Items of Schedules 1, 2 and 3—1 September 1999 (Gazette No. S 395, 27 August 1999).A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of an act to cease to have effect on the date specified:Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 —Part 7A—13 September 1999 (Gazette No. S 423, 13 September 1999).Answers to Questions on Notice8462The following answers to questions were circulated:8462(Question No. 1011)10118462Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1999:With reference to the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1):(1) Who, if anyone, was consulted in the drafting of these regulations.(2) Was the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission or the acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner consulted or informed about the drafting of the regulations exempting state laws from the Disability Discrimination Act.(3) In the future, before any further regulations are made exempting the Disability Discrimination Act, will the Attorney-General consult with:(a) the Minister for Family and Community Services;(b) the Disability Discrimination Commissioner (or acting Commissioner); and(c) the disability community.8462Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) In October 1993 the then Attorney-General wrote to the State and Territory Attorneys-General, and again in March 1995 and December 1995, concerning the need to review legislation and to either remove such inconsistencies as exist, or where necessary, seek prescription of laws pursuant to section 47(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). Requests for prescription were received from several States and Territories. The review of the requests for prescription from New South Wales (NSW) and South Australia resulted in the making of the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999.It is relevant to note section 132(2) of the DDA which provides that, before making any regulations for the purposes of section 47 of the DDA, the Governor-General is to take into consideration any comments made to the Minister by a Minister of a State or Territory who is responsible for matters relating to disability discrimination. This statutory requirement was complied with in the making of these regulations.(2) While neither the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) nor the Disability Discrimination Commissioner were formally consulted in relation to the individual requests for prescription from NSW or South Australia, officers of the Attorney-General's Department discussed the prescription process with officers of the HREOC.(3) The DDA indicates that responsibility for consultation with relevant stakeholders lies with the individual State or Territory which is seeking to have its legislation prescribed. Accordingly, the Attorney-General will seek formal assurances from the relevant State or Territory Minister that any necessary consultation with all stakeholders has taken place before any further prescription is undertaken.In addition the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Office of Disability in the Department of Family and Community Services will be consulted on any future proposed prescriptions.8462(Question No. 1223)12238462O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 August 1999:(1) Has the Understanding Rural Australia Advisory Committee completed the development of a strategic framework; if so, can a copy of the framework be provided; if not: (a) when is that work scheduled for completion; and (b) can a copy of the strategic framework be provided once it has been completed.(2) If the Minister is not prepared to provide a copy of the framework, why not.8462Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Strategic Framework for this Program is still in draft form. (a) The Advisory Committee is due to meet in September to finalise this Draft Strategic Plan. (b) Once the Strategic Plan has been finalised, I will provide a copy to the relevant Parliamentary Committees with an interest in rural and regional affairs.(2) Refer to 1(b) above.8463(Question No. 1224)12248463O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 5 August 1999:(1) Has any funding from the Rural Development Centre Grant Scheme been allocated to specific projects; if so: (a) what projects have received funding; (b) how much money has each project received; and (c) in each case, when were the funds allocated.(2) (a) What is the nature of each project that has received funding through this scheme; and (b) who is the sponsor of each project.8463Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes. (a) A project entitled `Income and job security in regional Australia'. (b) $160,000. (c) June 1999.(2) (a) The project will examine regional trends in population, employment and income in nonmetropolitan areas and consider the causes behind these trends through analysis of:. regional profiles of employment on an industry basis, and regional profiles of income.(b) The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE).8463(Question No. 1250)12508463Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin7Y6NTALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 13 August 1999:(1) What is the hourly rate paid to Community Development Employment Project participants.(2) Is the same hourly rate paid to CDEP participants throughout Australia.(3) Is this an award rate.(4) What award, if any, covers CDEP participants.(5) Do organisations which have CDEP participants have employer/employee responsibilities; if so, what are they.8463Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) There is no set single hourly rate paid to Community Development Employment Project (CDEP) participants. Wages funding is provided to CDEP organisations on the basis of the following weekly per participant amounts:. remote $185.73; and. non-remote $167.27.The actual rates paid to CDEP participants vary within and between CDEP organisations and are dependent on a range of factors including:. the type of work being performed;. the number of hours worked; and. the presence or otherwise of a an award rate.ATSIC has provided advice to CDEP organisations informing them of the National Minimum Safety Net Wage Decision and indicating that an hourly rate derived from this weekly rate should form the basis of a minimum hourly rate for all CDEP participants.(2) No, as indicated in the previous answer, rates paid to CDEP participants vary across Australia.(3) In some instances, the rates paid to CDEP participants are based on award rates applicable to the type of work being carried out by the participant.(4) Many participants in CDEP organisations are to varying extents, covered by some form of awards, most notably State Common rule awards that cover those participants performing work under the coverage of these awards. In terms of specific awards that were developed and implemented to cover CDEP organisations and their participants ATSIC is only aware of the following two awards:. a NSW State Award covering the Nungera CDEP at Maclean NSW; and. a Federal Award covering the Yalata CDEP organisation in South Australia.(5) The report of the Independent Review of the Community Development Employment Project (CDEP) Scheme (Spicer Report) published in December 1997 reaffirmed that an employer and employee relationship exists between CDEP participants and CDEP organisations. In this context the respective responsibilities are the same as for other community based organisations performing similar roles. ATSIC in its funding guidelines has always directed organisations, including CDEPs, that they are to follow all legal requirements in respect of their responsibilities as employers. To provide additional impetus and assist organisations in clarifying and meeting their responsibilities, ATSIC is in the process of implementing a specific recommendation from the Spicer Report to encourage all CDEP organisations to adopt formal employee regulation of their participants.