1999-09-223914SENATE858901999-09-22The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Sue West) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Committees858985898589Motion (by Senator Denman, at the request of Senator Murphy)—by leave—agreed to:That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office.Notices8589858909:31:008589Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—At the request of Senator Murphy, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 308.Bills8589r7178589Consideration resumed from 20 September.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The committee is considering the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 and amendments (1) to (7) and (9) to (32) on sheet 1391 moved on behalf of the opposition by Senator Evans. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.09:32:008589Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I wish to table a replacement revised supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments and request for amendments to be moved to the bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 22 September.09:32:008589Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—A sheet of revisions to amendments—sheet 1546—has been circulated in the chamber. I seek leave to vary my amendments in accordance with the details on that sheet to bring them into line with the government's requests and amendments that have already been agreed to.Leave granted.The amended amendments read as follows—Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (lines 1 and 2), omit "or the person's partner".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).".Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (lines 34 to 38), omit subsection (2).Schedule 2, item 53, page 21 (line 27), omit "pension,".Schedule 2, item 53, page 21 (line 33) to page 22 (line 11), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of threshold .Schedule 2, item 53, pages 22 to 28 (heading to column 2), omit "pension, ".Schedule 2, item 53, pages 22 to 24, 27 and 28, (table items 1 to 15, 26, 27 and 31), omit the table items.Schedule 2, item 53, heading to section 1188E, page 30 (line 11), omit ": people not covered by section 1188D ".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). Paragraph 1188E(3)(a), omit "or the relevant pension payday".Omit paragraph 1188E(3)(b), substitute: (b) that a CDEP Scheme payment was payable to the person in respect of a payment period the whole or part of which occurred within the 3 payment periods immediately before the relevant payment period.Schedule 2, item 53, page 31 (lines 1 and 2), omit ", or in respect of the payment period in which the relevant pension payday occurs,".Schedule 2, item 53, page 32 (line 28), omit "or the relevant pension payday".Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (line 2), omit "or payday".Schedule 2, item 53, heading to section 1188F, page 33 (lines 14 and 15), omit ": people not covered by section 1188D ".Schedule 2, item 53, omit paragraph 1188F(2)(b).Subsection 1188F(7), omit "or the relevant pension, payment or allowance referred to in paragraph (2)(b)".Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (lines 4 and 5), omit "or pension ".Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (line 7), omit "or pension payday".Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (line 9), omit "or social security pension".Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (line 20), omit ", or a pension payday that occurred,".Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (line 23), omit "or payday".AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(R10) Schedule 2, item 53, omit subsection 1188E(1), substitute: (1) This section applies in respect of payment periods beginning on or after 20 March 1999 and not later than 19 March 2000.When we were last considering this group of amendments I was on my feet, so I might just finish off my remarks in support of those amendments. This is the amendment to do with the government's attempt to reduce the total income paid to CDEP recipients who are also recipients of the parenting payment (single). I outlined the basic case last time—I do not want to bore the chamber by going on too much—but I want to come to the key point, and that is that I think the government's measure is one that seeks to reduce the income to 4,000 sole parents and, in large part, to Aboriginal sole parents who choose to work on CDEP projects as well. The measure would effectively reduce their income by up to $100 a fortnight and we think that is a measure that cannot be justified.I know that there has been some reliance on the Spicer report into CDEP in terms of equalising conditions, but on my reading of the report he did not actually recommend this measure. I think what is more important is that we look at the key issue of the impact on recipients. The chamber would be aware that single sole parents in Aboriginal communities are among the most disadvantaged people in our society. A recent research paper by Anne Daly on the plight of indigenous sole parents and other indigenous families highlighted that indigenous sole parents make up 40 per cent of all indigenous families with children under 15. They support more children than non-indigenous sole parents, often without further income support because of informal or foster care arrangements.Twenty-five per cent of indigenous sole parents care for foster children compared with 14 per cent for indigenous couples and just 9 per cent for non-indigenous sole parents. They have lower levels of education and are less likely to be in employment compared with other indigenous families and non-indigenous sole parents. Forty-three per cent of non-indigenous sole parents are in employment compared with just 25 per cent of indigenous sole parents. On average, they have lower family incomes compared with indigenous couple families and non-indigenous sole parents, while supporting more children.So we are talking about some of the most disadvantaged people in society supporting children. The effect of the government's measure is, as I say, to reduce their income by $100 a fortnight—sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less—all in the guise of bringing conditions into line. We do not think this taking everyone down to the lowest common denominator is justifiable—certainly not in this case. I know the minister also relied on the support of ATSIC and I understand that they have supported the measure on the basis of the package presented to them by government, which has other beneficial measures that I have conceded in terms of CDEP for Aboriginal people. But this chamber has to make the decision whether this measure is one that it wishes to support. I do not think there has been a cogent argument advanced for the chamber to take from these 4,000 highly disadvantaged people the income support that we are currently providing. We took that view when dealing with the youth disability allowance supplement the other day. I think that was the correct decision by the committee and I hope we will make the same decision here.While bringing CDEP recipients into some sort of common arrangement, this does discriminate against Aboriginal people on CDEP in the sense that they lose their free income area as compared with other parenting payment (single) recipients. I do not think the government's justification is warranted. As I say, these are some of the most disadvantaged people in our society caring for children. I do not think we ought to be reducing the already fairly meagre income that they receive without a much better case being presented by the government.09:37:008591Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This is probably one of the more substantial measures in the bill in terms of the number of people potentially affected. As often happens in this type of legislation, it presents the committee with a bit of a cleft stick situation. There is a significant positive measure contained in this schedule which enables CDEP recipients to get access to the social security add-ons such as rent assistance, telephone allowance, the health care card, et cetera, that other social security recipients receive. But, as Senator Evans has outlined and as these opposition amendments seek to address, the schedule also leads to a reduction in the overall total income for a significant number of sole parent pensioners or parenting payment (single) recipients—around 4,000 according to Senator Evans. If the minister believes that figure is incorrect, I would encourage her to indicate it. Those 4,000 parenting payment (single) recipients will be up to $100 a week worse off, which is not an insignificant amount of money for anybody, let alone somebody on a low income.Nonetheless, it is a situation where one would suspect the government's attitude is to present this as a package and put it as an `all or nothing' approach, which would mean that beneficial measures which would also make a significant difference may be lost. Rent assistance can be quite a significant payment and a number of people would miss out on that positive measure—I am not sure of the total number of people affected by that; I am sure the minister could outline it. So it pits one group against another, which is a far from ideal situation. But that is what we are faced with, so that is what we have to address.I have a couple of questions and I would be interested to hear the answers from the minister, because they concern something I have been giving consideration to in listening to the arguments that have been put forward. Firstly, can the minister confirm the number of parenting payment (single) recipients that will be affected by the measure—whether it is 4,000? Secondly, what on average is the total income of those people currently in receipt of the maximum CDEP payment and parenting payment on top of that? And, thirdly, can the minister confirm whether that does lead to a cut of around $100 a week?I have just had circulated an amendment which is not on the running sheet. I take on board the minister's comment about late circulation of amendments in social security legislation, but these things happen sometimes. I foreshadow this amendment—I may or may not proceed with it—which is an attempt at a grandfathering amendment to ensure that those who are currently under this arrangement would not be disadvantaged whilst meeting the long-term aims of the government of having a uniform approach to income treatment for CDEP recipients. This may be a way through the situation that we are faced with.Whilst I understand and support the concerns put forward by Senator Evans, I am also concerned that the positive measure contained in this schedule will be lost, which is an outcome I am not keen to see. I cannot recall if I have asked this before, but I ask if the minister could indicate the origin of this particular measure to do with sole parents—whether it was contained in the Spicer report along with the other aspects that are part of this schedule.09:42:008592Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I understand that the opposition amendments Nos 1 to 7 purport to reverse the government's proposal in relation to lone parents. If the opposition amendments were to succeed, the cost would be $6.102 million in 1999-2000, $14.92 million in 2000-01 and $14.92 million in 2001-02, totalling $35.943 million over four years. Four thousand lone parents would retain their current entitlements as a result of the amendments. On average, the loss would be $80 per fortnight—not $100 per week which I think is what Senator Bartlett said.I know that ATSIC has made it very clear that there is some resentment in communities that there is double-dipping by a protected class of people. Therefore, I fear that the attempt at a solution by Senator Bartlett would not resolve that problem, which is that it is seen as unfair that some people get two payments when others doing the same work do not. For my part, I am more concerned about the fact that women are often not considered eligible or not encouraged to be part of the CDEP projects when there are other people who are seen as more needy in the community in terms of income support. The CDEP money goes to those who have not already got income support, and one can understand the thinking behind that.Senator Evans might like to take on board the fact that my advice is that opposition amendments Nos 9 to 32 appear to accidentally—I say `accidentally'; I presume it is not deliberate—reverse the government's proposal to commence the CDEP add-ons measure with effect from 20 March. That is, they conflict with our requests Nos 1, 2 and 3 which set the new commencement date, and requests Nos 2 and 3 were already agreed to by the committee on Monday. I say that the revised commencement proposed by the opposition appears to be accidental because they did not announce such an intention during the debate at the second reading stage, and it appears to be an accidental result of attempting to remove all reference to pensions.Senator Chris Evans interjecting—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I am just giving you the opportunity to hear both, Senator Evans. In doing so, your amendments, in conjunction with opposition amendment No. 8, which we will come to shortly, appear to accidentally deprive pensioners of the entitlement to new CDEP participation. But I understand it also means that the net result would be that the scheme would come into effect on 20 September, which of course was the original date. But I understand that probably your drafting is defective. I do not think you mean that. I do not quite know how you want to resolve that now, but you would need time to take advice, I would think.09:45:008592Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I appreciate that the minister is trying to be helpful. My understanding of the drafting advice was that the revisions that I moved this morning overcame those difficulties and made them consistent with your amendments. I am not sure whether you are saying that the revisions that we just moved by leave do not do that or whether you are operating on the basis of the impact that would have occurred if we had proceeded yesterday. It would be helpful if you could clarify that.There is no intention to change any of your arrangements in relation to the timing of benefits. We tried to restrict the debate on this occasion to this question of the CDEP entitlements of recipients of parenting payment (single), so there is no intention to do that. I think you are aware that the complicated drafting required was requested last night to try to make sure that we had consistency between the government's amendments, which relate to the timing issues, and our policy intent, which is to retain that payment. As I say, I am not sure whether you are saying that the original draft failed to achieve that or whether this morning's revised amendments fail to achieve that. Perhaps you could clarify that. But I certainly put on record there is no intention to change any of those entitlements. It was purely our intention yesterday to single out this area for question and debate and acceptance of what we saw as a necessary change to the timing arrangements because of the delay in the passage of the bill.09:47:008593Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Mr Chairman, I am waiting to receive advice on the opposition's amendments. I do not know whether they achieve a solution to the problem or not. I do not know how we can proceed at this minute without that advice. It is a pretty significant defect if it remains a defect. For example, we would have a great problem with the administration of Centrelink as a purely mechanistic issue which is not to be swept aside. It would mean that some of Centrelink's operations would require untested manual processes and things like that. I am sure you do not want that.09:48:008593Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Mr Chairman, I just indicated to the minister that that was not the intention. Also, advisers from the opposition met with her advisers yesterday evening to try to make sure that we did not have any unintended consequences and that we had an agreement that would isolate out this issue. So I do not think there is any need for us to debate this, other than the fact that we need to get it right. There are, though, substantive policy issues in debate here that we could continue with while we work out whether or not we have got the technical amendments on timing correct or not.I am interested in Senator Bartlett's contribution. I am not sure what his position is as a result of that, but I know he asked the minister a range of questions which he wanted answered, some of which I think she responded to. I am happy to have this debate about where we are going in terms of the principal issues, and we can come back to whether we have achieved technically what we thought we were going to achieve. But, as I say, I would be interested in hearing from Senator Bartlett what he intends to do. Is he proceed ing with this amendment that I have recently received, No. 55, or is this a separate issue?09:49:008593Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The amendment which is on sheet 1547—which I have just had circulated—is, as indicated by my drafting advice, a successful attempt at a grandfathering protection so that the new arrangements for parenting payment (single) would not apply to those who are currently in receipt of that payment but only to future recipients, so that people who have structured their lives around the level of payment they are currently receiving will not have to make the significant adjustment to the $80 a fortnight drop in income which will occur overnight when the measure comes into place—I think 20 March is now the date aimed at. My amendment attempts to try to find a way through the difficulty that is presented here in terms of not putting at risk the positive aspects that are contained within the schedule, which is, I suspect, what may otherwise occur. One of the questions I asked the minister—I do not think she answered, unless I was temporarily distracted—was whether or not this measure relating to sole parents was contained as a recommendation in the Spicer report. Another issue on which I would be interested in the minister's comments is in relation to the bill as a whole. There are a number of other measures which we have not got to yet in other schedules, some of which, without pre-empting the views of the chamber, may well end up being opposed and removed. One of the issues that ATSIC have raised with me is the issue of the positive aspects of this measure contained in schedule 2 actually coming into being. One issue is in terms of the bill as a whole and whether, if the chamber makes other amendments, the government would be of a mind to hold up the bill because of changes that may be made to other schedules as well. An indication of the government's attitude to that would be helpful also.09:52:008593Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—In answer to Senator Bartlett's question about Mr Spicer, I am advised that Mr Spicer made it absolutely clear in his report that double dipping should be ended. Going back to the matters I was discussing with Senator Evans, perhaps I should go on, Senator Evans, to draw your attention to opposition amendment No. 8, because it has presumably unintended consequences, and the measures that we were discussing regarding amendments Nos 9 to 32 are consequent on the outcome of amendment No. 8.My advice is that if amendment No. 8—the next one on the list—succeeds, the CDEP supplement will be payable only to those on allowance type payments. Presumably, that is an unintended result, as you did not announce that during the second reading debate. This amendment and others consequential upon it should be opposed. The consequential amendments to be opposed on this basis are the opposition amendments on sheet 1391 and amendments Nos 9 to 32 inclusive. My concern is that you would effectively be removing the $20 amount for people on pensions. I do not suppose you meant to do that.09:54:008594Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—While Senator Evans is getting advice on that, I would certainly say that, from my reading of the amendments and the bill—whilst we are not actually debating opposition amendment No. 8, it is obviously linked to the ones we are debating—it does appear to me that the minister's advice on her last comment is correct. As I understand it, if we knocked out that particular section, all pensioners—and there is a list of pensions there: widow pension, wife pension, disability support pension, age pension, any of these—would cease to be entitled to receive the CDEP participant supplement. That appears to me to be the consequence of that. That is something that I have concerns about because, as I understand it, the thrust of what we are debating here is simply the impact on parenting payment (single) recipients.I would like to make a point in response to comments made by the minister a couple of moments back in relation to women's participation in CDEP projects and how that may be affected by the various proposals that are being put around. I would have thought that the foreshadowed amendment of the Democrats to grandfather or to protect current recipients would not have an impact on the problem of women's participation—if it is a problem—because these people are already participants in CDEP and, regardless of whether this bill exists or not in its entirety, one would assume that they would continue to participate. The issue really is about the treatment of the income support payments for scheme participants into the future. The aims of my amendment are to not lead to an income drop for those who are already receiving particular incomes and to enable the future structure of the scheme to operate in the way that the government intends.09:56:008594Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think Senator Bartlett is trying to do the right thing by women in those communities. But I think it would be pretty ineffectual, from my reading of remote indigenous communities, where the labour market is pretty inflexible. The only source of income for most people in communities is either welfare or CDEP. Those people currently employed under CDEP in a remote community, where there is only so much work and not much change in the potential work force, are going to continue to get the work, and the people who are excluded now are likely to continue to be excluded if they continue double dipping. I think that the amendment, whatever it might say, would result in those who are being discriminated against—if you want to put it that way—now because they are already in receipt of sole parent income support continuing to be discriminated against in terms of getting a job with CDEP.I share your concern about these people, but I think the quickest way to have them share in the dignity of employment in indigenous communities would be to put them on the same basis as everybody else in their community. The resentment that is occasioned by them having two sources of income where other people do not would be removed. They would be competing for a job on a much fairer basis with everybody else in their community. It is pretty well recognised by the indigenous community—perhaps it was an unforseen consequence of some legislative effort years ago; I do not know the history of how it happened—as grossly unfair to have one group of people in a small and close community treated so distinctly differently from everybody else when we are talking about the opportunity to have the dignity of a job.09:59:008595Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I just want to address a couple of the issues. Firstly, I object to this claim of double dipping. I think that is a bit unfair.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Two sources of income.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Two sources of income, yes. These are the most disadvantaged people in Australia—Aboriginal single parents supporting children. To accuse them of double dipping is an abuse of language and an unfair implication by use of that language. What we are saying is that these people receive, in addition, about $100 per fortnight for participating in work under the CDEP scheme to support their community. They receive the same single parenting payment that every other person receives. What they get by way of advantage for this alleged double dipping is $100 per fortnight in recognition of their sole parent status and their need to support their children.I understand what the minister is saying, but I think the language ought to be a bit more responsible. It is not double dipping; they are currently entitled, under the provisions of government legislation, to that income in recognition of their status. Senator Bartlett, you ought to recognise that. If there is such a problem with these people getting access to the work force, how come there are already 4,000 of them in this situation? There has been no evidence advanced for the propositions that the minister puts to us other than that there is some concern and women are being disadvantaged.All I know is that these women will be disadvantaged, from the day you pass the government's proposition, by $100 a fort night. They regard that as a disadvantage to them and their children.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Eighty.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Eighty—it depends on the number of children, as I understand your brief, Minister. As I said to you before, single sole parent Aboriginals have more dependent children than most sole parents. So we are talking about some of the most disadvantaged people in Australia.What we do know is that this government measure will reduce the income payable to them. Set against that, we have the government's arguments about a level playing field and some concern about relationships inside communities. On balance, what is more tangible? What is more real? What is more tangible and real to me is their capacity to support those children and the income support that they receive. For us to accept that we ought to reduce that, we would need to have a fairly tangible and cogent argument put—and I have not heard it yet.I do not consider it double dipping. We have considered that those sole parents in Aboriginal communities who volunteer to be involved in CDEP deserve that sort of support. We may well make a judgment in the Senate that they do not deserve that support. That is fine; it is a judgment we will make. What I say, on behalf of the Labor opposition, is that we do not make that decision because we do not think it appropriate or fair. To suggest that somehow this is causing enormous problems and that women are being prevented from participating is proved false by the fact that you have 4,000 people clearly in this situation already.There may well be difficulties. ATSIC may well have concerns about how that is operated. But I also note that there are other implications for ATSIC. Senator Bartlett has already hinted at what they may be—that this is a take it or leave it package. ATSIC's view may well be that there are a range of beneficial measures contained in this bill, but they have been told, `Take it or leave it'. They have to support all the measures or nothing at all. I do not know that, but I suspect that is the case. I suspect that influences their view. I suspect that is now starting to influence the view of Senator Bartlett and the Democrats. Again, that is a political judgment for them.If you look at this measure in isolation—which we need to do—and if you look at it from the perspective of those 4,000 single Aboriginal parents, there is a very real case to be answered. That is: why should they have their benefits reduced by a significant amount, reducing their capacity to care for their children because they will have much less income as a result of this measure?I do not know about the grandfathering clause, Senator Bartlett. If you are not going to support us in opposing the government's measure, then I guess I would have to go with the grandfathering clause as the soft option—the second best alternative. But I would urge you to consider whether or not the minister has made the case for this entitlement to be removed and whether or not you really do think that these people are double dipping. I maintain they are not. Every other sole parenting recipient in Australia is entitled to earn an income up to those income levels if they participate in work. These people are participating, through the CDEP project, in work. Why should they be treated any less favourably?You have the government saying, `On the one hand we want to have a level playing field in terms of CDEP but on the other hand we want an uneven playing field in terms of parenting payment single.' You can choose which level playing field you think is more appropriate. It just so happens that the one the government supports on this occasion saves them millions of dollars and disadvantages single parent Aboriginal families. I, on balance, prefer the other view. That argument has been articulated before.In terms of the procedural issue that the minister raises, we think that our amendments achieve what we have stated to be our objective, which is that the status quo apply for sole parent pensioners and that they do not receive the CDEP supplementary benefit. We do not intend that they get an advantage from receiving the $20 CDEP supplement. We are saying that we want to exclude them from that on the basis that they retain the status quo. That was the intention of those amend ments. I am happy to enter into discussions with your officers if they say that is not achieved. We were not seeking to delay the payment of that to other groups and we were not seeking to further benefit those who receive a parenting payment single. That was the intention. I think you said that was what we were doing. If that is the case, I agree.I note there is some excitement among the many advisers you have here today. I am glad to see you have more numbers here. I hope that helps the process.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I'll send some over to you to help you.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Minister, I find it is quantity, not quality, on these occasions. That is no slur on the advisers present. As I said, our intention and the drafting instructions to the clerks were that the amendments be drafted so that the status quo applied to those in receipt of parent payment single, that the other measures the government announced proceeded as planned and that the changes you wanted in terms of timing proceeded as you intended. I think I have made that perfectly clear. We are not arguing about a policy issue there, so I hope we can just get to what we think we are achieving and resolve it.10:07:008596Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is getting harder to resolve, because Labor's amendments would actually introduce double dipping for pensioners who were joining CDEP in the future—because the CDEP scheme is being opened up to all pensioners from 20 March next year. In other words, the double amount of assistance that single parents are getting now would become the norm for all pensioners from 20 March next year. Whether that is what you intended or not, that is what is going to happen as a result. I am fascinated that you are prepared to countenance double dipping but you are not prepared to countenance triple dipping. Well done! You are moving! The add-on of the $20 would obviously mean triple dipping, in your eyes.Essentially what we are dealing with here is the unintended consequence of the conver gence of two systems: the traditional social security income support system and the CDEP system. We have got a group which, if your amendments go through, will be larger still, come 20 March next year. We have got a group of people who have entitlement to two lots of assistance from the taxpayer. Nobody else in Australia has that. I particularly wanted you to hear me to the end of this answer, and then perhaps Senator Bartlett might have something to say, and that will give you the chance to get some advice.It is not just bureaucrats in ATSIC who believe this needs fixing. The board of ATSIC believes it. You would have seen or certainly would know of the letter that Gatjil Djerrkura wrote to Senator Lees. I quoted from it two days ago.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You didn't send it to us.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—That is a pity, because—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That is your decision.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It is not my decision. It has nothing to do with me. This is the board of ATSIC that has written. One of the sentences in it is this:The board acknowledges the government's strong argument—they are talking about lone parent pensioners—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.Specifically, the penultimate paragraph goes into the question of lone parents in some detail. It is not a question of the bureaucrats in ATSIC. It is the board of ATSIC that has wanted to see this ended and the new scheme introduced. If there is anything that the Labor Party has talked about over the years, it is the need to listen to indigenous people's views on their futures. This is a clear case where the Labor Party is prepared to ignore that advice.Our government has been particularly concerned about sole parents in indigenous communities. Our government has put a massive effort in already, and is continuing to, in order to do something about the terrible domestic violence in indigenous communities which leads so often to sole parenthood. So do not accuse us of not having the concerns of sole parents in indigenous communities at heart. We are actually trying to make a difference. We are making a massive effort in this. That violence is something that have I watched grow in indigenous communities around Central and Northern Australia and North Queensland over the time that you were in government.It is now time that the women in those communities were listened to, and this government has been listening to them and involving them in consultations about how best to deal with this scourge in their community. You might have had a darned sight fewer sole parents if that had been done earlier. It makes me very cross to think of the wasted lives, the damaged bodies, the children scarred psychologically and the continuation of the cycle of domestic violence in those communities—a cycle which could have been stopped earlier or could have been prevented.If you really care about sole parents, support the government's endeavours in that and do not try a cheap shot about whether we have concern for some of the most deprived people in our society: we do have. Their lives are vital, as well as this double income support which they are getting from the federal taxpayer.10:11:008597Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I should put on the record in perhaps a bit more detail the Democrats' beliefs in relation to this area and also some of the philosophical points that have come up, just to ensure that they are clearly on the record. Firstly, whilst I understand the minister's argument, I do think that the phrase `double dipping' is a pejorative one which implies some sort of inappropriate motive on the part of the recipient. I am not saying that the minister believes that, but I do think that in this area of welfare payments there is often a lot of potential community negativity that is able to be tapped into in relation to welfare recipients and that it is best to avoid language that might play on that by implying some inappropriate motive on behaviour. This is clearly a legitimate entitlement that people currently have, and these are not wealthy people, by any stretch of the imagination—as Senator Evans has outlined.The minister, in responding to some aspects of the opposition's amendments, talked about the cost if they were passed. I think it was $14 million a year, roughly, in a couple of years time. As I say repeatedly with regard to social security legislation, I am certainly not of the view that it is not important to try to limit government expenditure and to try to save government money where appropriate. But it is important to emphasise that, when we are using figures like those, it is not just a matter of saving taxpayers $14 million or whatever the amount of money is but that it also means $14 million is not been provided to people who are, generally speaking, amongst the most disadvantaged. If you put it in that context, it takes on quite a different light: it is $14 million of assistance that would otherwise be provided to disadvantaged people but that will not be provided. Again, it is important in terms of the issue of language.The comments that Senator Evans was making about the different choices of level playing field also need noting and responding to. Again, I quite understand the rationale of what he is putting forward but, if you were to extend that logic fully, then the opposition would really need to extend the current income treatment that sole parents receive to all other income support payments in relation to CDEP. If it is a philosophical or an ideological principle, then it would make sense for it to apply across the board rather than to just one group of people. I know that the amendments are not seeking to do that but, if we are following through that principle, we would need to do that; and I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we should do that.I do think it is appropriate that there be consistency of treatment. I have spoken many times about the need for a consistent approach, the removal of anomalies and the simplification of the Social Security Act. I have also spoken many times about how we should not do that in a way that reduces people's entitlements rather than increases them. This clearly is a situation where, for whatever historical reason it appeared, CDEP income for sole parents is treated in a way that is different to any other social security recipient. That is clearly an anomaly.I note the specific statements of ATSIC chairman, Gatjil Djerrkura—a person for whom I have a lot of respect—on the treatment of sole parents receiving a pension like payment. That is something that does need to be taken on board. Nonetheless, I come back to the basic point that I have continued to try to make on this issue which is that those sorts of principles are important, budgetary expenditure is important, consistency of treatment is important and simplified acts is important, but we also need to remember that we are talking about people here. We need to try to ensure that we are not disadvantaging people, particularly people who are already amongst the least well off. That is the particular rationale behind the foreshadowed amendment of the Democrats.There are a couple of other points I would like to make. Firstly, I point out to Senator Evans that amendment No. 8, which is to oppose section 1188D, still reads to me like it will affect a whole group of people rather than just parenting payment (single) which, from my understanding of his comments, is not the intent.Secondly, in response to the minister's comments about the resentment that may be out in the community towards the perceived special treatment of some sole parents, I do not know how strong that is. I guess that is one of the things you cannot quantify. The discussions I have had with ATSIC people do not recall that being raised as an issue. One thing you can quantify is that these women will be $80 a fortnight worse off. When you are balancing up whether you want to be $80 a week worse off but perhaps have a little less perceived resentment in the community, I imagine most people would prefer to keep their $80 a fortnight unless that resentment is completely overpowering. I have certainly had no evidence at all that that is the case. I do not accept that as an argument in itself for significantly reducing the entitlements of people who are currently receiving these payments.As Senator Evans pointed out, if there was some problems with these women being able to access employment through CDEP because of this treatment then there would not be 4,000 currently in this situation. That may be a problem that is stopping others getting in, but it is certainly not stopping the 4,000 that are already there. Again, I do not see that as a valid argument.To put on the record the Democrats' response to these amendments, the view I have formed after listening to the various arguments that have been put forward and the responses to those is that the best course of action from the Democrats' point of view is not to support the opposition amendments at present, unless Senator Evans comes up with a stunningly brilliant contribution in a few seconds time.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Again.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Yet another one, yes. I do believe, nonetheless, that it is important to try to ensure that these 4,000 people—I presume they are predominantly women—are not disadvantaged by this change and do not have a significant drop in their existing income in a few months time. For that reason, I hope that the Senate will consider giving support to the amendment I have foreshadowed.10:20:008599Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I would like to speak to the opposition amendments. In doing so, I will go through a few issues that I believe are very pertinent to CDEP in North Queensland. I believe the program was trialled in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. There are areas where it is functioning very well to the benefit of the communities.In North Queensland it would appear, after having actually spent time in the communities discussing the issue, to have a downside that I do not believe was perceived or intended by the people who passed the original legislation and established the scheme. In North Queensland the CDEP is referred to as sit down pay. It has introduced a mentality into the communities whereby people no longer believe that they need to go out and work on the stations or, for that matter, in the programs that are being established by their own councils. They merely say, `We sit home and get paid as well.'There appears to be a lack of actual contact with the people in the communities by the people who are progressing both the legislation and the schemes. If you go into a local community—say, Pormpuraaw, and I have actually been there—the local people will pay $250 for a slab. You say, `What is a slab?' A slab is a carton of beer. That can actually be purchased in either Chillagoe or Mareeba for approximately $20, driven out to the communities—not necessarily by white people; quite often by Aboriginal people—and then sold on-site. They will also sell a cap. You say, `What is a cap?' A cap is the quantity of spirit you can pour into the cap from a bottle of Johnny Walker.Senator Bartlett says the people in the community will suffer, that if this payment is taken away from them, it will impact on their economic management. With the greatest of sincerity to Senator Bartlett, I would like him to show me any Aboriginal person in a community who sits down and works out a budget of what they are going to do with their pensions or their pay. In reality, it does not happen. The CDEP was genuinely intended to assist these people. I do not believe it does today. We can, and I believe this chamber should, continue to debate the issues on their merit as they are put forward, but I think we also need to have a practical look at their application.Look at Hopevale: there are people in Hopevale who have been paying rent for the last 36 years. They will continue to do that until they die—never, ever owning those homes. We look at the communities up there and wonder why they do not have any pride in the places they live in.I do not believe that it is for us, with the greatest of intent, to provide these people with what we believe is a social answer to their problem. We need to get out there and talk to the people. I spent four days in Pormpuraaw. I have seen the local people picked up, taken down to the local police station, held over night, dried out, given a meal and sent home. That is the reality of what is happening in our communities.We need to do two things. First, listen to the people in the communities and find out what they need to do to assist themselves. Second, if they are willing, assist them with some economic forms—in other words, give them the ability to take control of their lives and give them some purpose for living where they live. If, however, they choose to go back to their own traditional way of living, we need to listen to them as well.I understand what the opposition is trying to do to preserve these payments to these people. There is resentment within the communities, where some of the communities are seen to be getting two payments—and you actually have to be in the community on a payment day to really understand what happens. If the opposition's amendments are successful and that $14 million that is being spoken of is moved into economic development within the communities for the community as a whole, it would bring the communities closer together and actually assist in progressing what we are trying to do.10:26:008600Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—There are a couple of issues I wish to address. First, on this procedural question: I guess if the Democrats are voting against the amendments, it becomes a largely academic issue. But I would say to the minister that we have tried to cooperate in terms of getting a debate about the principles and not the technicalities. We met with her advisers yesterday and, as I said, we have tried to get the debate back to the question of principles. I was here until 10.30 last night and from 7.30 this morning. If you had a problem and you thought we had an unintended consequence, given that I put on the record three or four times yesterday what our intentions were, I think we would have been better suited trying to sort this out outside of the chamber prior to us coming in.You always talk to me about the need for prior consultation, good manners, et cetera. I would suggest to you that, if the government thinks there is an unintended consequence of an opposition amendment, you would be better off picking up the phone and talking to me about it. It seems to me that, rather than waste the time of the chamber here as we have again this morning, we could have had that discussion and fixed that.I have been very straight about what our intention is. I have said it about eight times in the Hansard. I accept there may be a problem with an unintended consequence arising from our amendment. I am not sure how many people who actually receive the age pension are working on CDEP, or how many who receive the disability pension are working on CDEP. I suspect the figures are fairly small. In any event, if there is a problem, all I am saying is that we ought to be able to sort that out. Rather than come in and try to score a political point, it seems to me that we would have been better served trying to sort that out. I want to concentrate on the political issues and the principles.Minister, you alleged there was some sort of cheap shot. There is no cheap shot involved. I wanted us to focus though on the impact of this measure. While Senator Harris made some very optimistic and hopeful statements about what could be done with the money instead, the reality I want to focus on is that these amendments deprive Aboriginal single parents of income. We have to focus on that. If the Senate makes that decision, I am prepared to accept that but I want to make sure we focused on that. That is why the opposition opposes this measure; we just cannot see the justification for reducing their benefits.I do not want to labour the point. I do not suspect I am going to suddenly come up with a brilliant argument that convinces Senator Bartlett. He has clearly been influenced in recent times to review the Democrats' position and he has come up with a second-best option in terms of the grandfathering clause.I do think it would be useful if the Democrats tabled in the Senate the letter to Senator Lees from ATSIC. I have only just been handed a copy of that letter. ATSIC did not choose to write to the opposition. But I noticed that the minister, in quoting, did not quote the whole paragraph from ATSIC; I think it is important that the whole paragraph go on the record so that ATSIC's position is not misunderstood. As I understand it, the letter starts:While the board has expressed concern over the potential impact of the new income treatment arrangements for lone parent pensioners on CDEP, the board also acknowledges . . .And it goes on. To be fair to ATSIC and Gatjil Djerrkura, the letter ought to be tabled, because it has become part of the debate here today. I do not feel that I should seek to do it; it is not a letter to me. But I think that would be useful.I also want to put on the record that the opposition has been approached by a range of CDEP groups who have a different view from ATSIC about the impact of this measure. Of course, that is their right. They have a different perception of the impact. The opposition has been influenced by their views, but also by the discussions we had yesterday with ATSIC in which they briefed the opposition's advisers about their attitude to the bill. What we found particularly telling was that they could not suggest to us that there would be any greater participation in CDEP by sole parents as a result of these measures. That was quite telling in terms of our response: we do not expect that the sorts of things that the minister talks about, such as prevention of women participating in the schemes, will be altered by this. Certainly ATSIC did not put any argument to that effect. I think it important that ATSIC's position go on the record. I would appreciate it if Senator Bartlett would table ATSIC's letter so as to have their position clearly stated, rather than my reading certain bits and the minister reading other bits of their correspondence.I put on the record that I am pleased that the minister is starting to listen to ATSIC and the views which they express. I hope this reflects a change of heart by the government more generally in terms of listening to what ATSIC and Aboriginal people have to say. I do take what they say seriously. I did not until recently have a copy of their letter but, as I say, they did not write it to me. In any event, I will not delay the Senate any longer on the basis of the arguments.The Labor Party still thinks the government has not made a case for reducing the entitlements of these single parents. They are among the most disadvantaged, and we do not think that the arguments about tensions in the community or levelling the playing field warrant that reduction. That is a judgment people have to make. Given that the Democrats will not be voting for our amendments, I suspect the issue about the unintended consequences falls away, so I do not think we need to worry about resolving that.10:33:008601Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Obviously I do not speak for Senator Bartlett, but I would suggest that there is absolutely no reason for him to need to table the ATSIC letter, as the ATSIC letter was handed to Senator Evans's adviser by my staff two days ago in the Senate. So the opposition has in fact been in possession of the ATSIC letter—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I have not seen it.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You gave the distinct impression that the opposition had not had the benefit of a copy of it. The fact is that your adviser, who is presently sitting in the box, was given a copy two days ago.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—He may well have been; I have not seen it.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I am happy to pick up the phone to you to avoid the waste of time we have had this morning. I am not saying this in a spirit of a lack of charity; I am just saying to you that I only got the advice this morning. It is a classic outcome of what I mentioned in my second reading speech two days ago. If the opposition are dealing in, say, taxation law or social security law and think that they can drop pages of amendments on the Senate as the second reading debate is proceeding and expect to get proper scrutiny by people who have got the ability to assess the implications in a very technical system, they are setting themselves up to look foolish in terms of unintended consequences.I am not trying to rub anybody's nose in anything, but if you believe in good govern ment—and I know this, having been in opposition for far too long myself—if you have amendments of a technical nature, it is better to come into the chamber with those amendments having been looked at thoroughly by somebody who can give you advice on them. My office twice wrote to the opposition offering briefings on this legislation, with no response, and I understand that a briefing was given yesterday. Those amendments could have been printed earlier and therefore been available—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Your amendments came out yesterday.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You have had amendments from us for a long time.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Your amendments came out yesterday.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You have had amendments from us for a long time. I am talking about your long list. We have just had two weeks in which the Senate has not been sitting. It was a pretty reasonable time to have your amendments looked at and to have the Senate prepare a running sheet. The Senate yesterday had to prepare two running sheets as a result of getting your list of amendments in a very, very short time. Maybe you do not believe in good government when you are not in government; maybe that is what you are on about. But surely a responsible opposition would still believe in the government of the day putting down legislation which is able to be administered and which is not producing unforeseen consequences.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—No matter how Senator Evans squawks from the opposition benches, the reality is that doing the Senate the discourtesy of getting so many technical amendments at the last minute—some of which have been demonstrated to have been absolutely unacceptable, I am sure even to himself, and certainly to the rest of the chamber—is something to be avoided in the cause of good government and not wasting at least an hour of the Senate's time. I am glad to see that commonsense is prevailing.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the amendments and the request for amendments (R10) be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that schedule 2, item 53, section 1188D stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10:37:008602Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move Democrats amendment No. 1 on sheet 1547:Schedule 2, page 40 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:55 Application The amendments made by items 48 to 53 (inclusive) do not apply to a person who, on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, is receiving parenting payment at the rate applicable for a person who is not a member of a couple. The provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 continue to apply to such persons as if the amendments made to that Act by items 48 to 53 (inclusive) had not been made.The issues relating to this amendment have already been addressed, so I will not go on about it at great length. Basically the outcome will be that the Senate accepts the rationale of the change that the government is making in relation to the treatment of sole parents' income but protects the income of those that are currently on the CDEP Scheme so that those 4,000 people, as I understand it, will not experience that significant reduction in their income but new participants in the scheme will come on board as part of the new arrangements.I will just make a couple of comments. I am quite happy to table the letter from Gatjil Djerrkura. I did not have a copy with me but I will table the copy that Senator Evans has kindly given to me. I had obviously seen a copy of it previously. It was sent to Senator Lees at the end of August and it was passed on to me as the party's social security spokesperson and I responded to that. I am happy to table that letter so that is on the record.Senator Evans spoke about being approached by a number of CDEP groups about their concerns which are different to ATSIC. As he said, it is entirely appropriate for different people to have different views. I personally have not and, as far as I am aware, none of the Democrats have been approached by those groups. Without giving advice to ATSIC, if they send letters to the Democrats it would probably be a good idea for them to send them to the opposition as well. Usually when I meet with people about legislation I encourage them to talk to all parties. Much as I like to put the view out there that all wisdom resides with the Democrats, it does not hurt for them to talk to other parties as well. It probably would have been a good idea for ATSIC to send a similar letter to the opposition. But, conversely, I did not receive any representations from people involved in individual CDEP operations putting a contrary view. So I am going on the information and views that were expressed to me.There were a couple of comments today about us having wasted time this morning. Whilst a bit of toing-and-froing about unintended consequences and dropping amendments at the last minute may not be that productive, I do think outlining the policy principles in relation to this issue is important and I do not see that as a waste of time. I think it is something worth emphasising.I try to take a fairly low key approach, if you like, to social security legislation, as I do with immigration legislation—both are areas in which public passions can be quite easily inflamed, sometimes in a negative way if one wants to stir things up—and I try to avoid too much fiery rhetoric because I do not think it is constructive in areas such as these. It is nonetheless important to put on the record in a dispassionate way that what we are dealing with, as this amendment is, is indigenous sole parent pensioners and we are trying to ensure that their income is not significantly reduced.I take on board Senator Harris's comments before, whatever validity there might be in his comments about how various people budget or do not budget and spend their money. I think moving to significantly reduce the income of people who are already not well off cannot do anything other than have a negative impact on them. While there may be other measures that may mitigate that to some extent, reducing people's income by $40 a week or more when they are not well off to start with should not be dismissed. It is a significant action, and it has an impact on human beings—human beings who are amongst the most disadvantaged. That basic point needs to be made and this Democrat amendment, which hopefully does not have any unintended drafting consequences, moves to protect those people.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Do you wish to incorporate that letter?DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I have asked to table it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I believe if you incorporate it, it may be better.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I am happy to do that. I seek leave to incorporate that letter.Leave granted.The letter read as follows—ATSICChairpersonSenator Meg LeesParliamentary LeaderAustralian DemocratsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600(31 AUG 1999)Dear Senator LeesI am writing to you seeking your support in securing the passage of the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 which I understand is scheduled to be introduced for debate in the Senate during this week's sittings.As you may be aware, the above Bill relates to the implementation of the Government's 1998 CDEP Budget Initiative, which will provide benefits to participants on the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme. The Budget Initiative seeks to address inequity issues experienced by participants on the Scheme. These issues were identified in both the independent review of the CDEP Scheme (the Spicer Review) and the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The Budget Initiative will provide CDEP participants with access to the CDEP Participant Supplement (CPS) as well as access to add-on benefits.The original implementation date for the Initiative was 20 March this year. I am most concerned that any further legislative delay of this measure will result in significant confusion for CDEP organisa tions and participants and will genuinely disadvantage CDEP participants who would yet again be prevented from accessing the CPS and add-on benefits.The ATSIC Board has given its in-principle support to the package of measures contained in the Initiative and considers that the successful implementation of the Initiative on 20 September 1999 is important for providing access to the above benefits.While the Board has expressed concern over the potential impact of the new income treatment arrangements for Lone Parents 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 conclusion I would urge you to do all in your power to ensure that the Senate considers the Bill in this week's sittings and to support its passage without amendment.Yours sincerelyGatjil Djerrkura OAMChairman10:43:008604Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I thought I would perhaps hear from the minister as to what her attitude is. But, as I indicated on behalf of the opposition earlier, our preferred position obviously was to support our amendments which protected the position of sole parents in terms of the government's intentions in their entirety.This amendment is an attempt by the Democrats to afford some protection to those currently in receipt of both the parenting payment (single) and CDEP yet obviously does not do anything for the longer term situation of sole parents involved in CDEP. But it does seek to address one of the chief opposition's concerns, which I have stated earlier, which is to try to protect the income level available to these most disadvantaged parents and children. Our approach to this has always been to seek to protect their position and to argue that the arguments for simplicity and level playing fields do not overcome the impact on the individuals affected by this measure—that is, that they have their income reduced by a significant amount, which then has a detrimental effect on their families.The Democrats position, as I understand it, will at least protect those 4,000 or so single parents who are currently involved in CDEP and who receive the parenting payment (single). The opposition intends to support that amendment because it goes some way to achieving the policy outcome that we sought to achieve when we entered this debate and which we think is important. While we would have preferred our amendments being carried, which would have protected the position of all single parents involved in CDEP in future years, this at least has the advantage of ensuring that parents currently in receipt of the parenting payment do not have their income reduced by in the order of $100 per fortnight, which would have an immediate impact on their capacity to care for their children and to support their families. That was at the core of our concern about this measure so, to the extent that the Democrat amendment does that, we support it. It is a second-best option, but it is one that we are prepared to support.10:46:008604Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The government will not be supporting the Democrats' amendment. The social policy reform of which this is a part has come through an independent review by Mr Ian Spicer, who recommended that this matter be reformed. On the specific area of people receiving two payments, the proposal has been endorsed by ATSIC, as the letter which has now been incorporated in Hansard demonstrates. In plain equity terms, it is unfair that some people in a community should be treated so very differently from everybody else, none of whom you would say were rich. They are all on the same level of welfare dependency and are all bordering on poverty. The arguments which have just been made are not acceptable.The effect on women is one that concerns me. Senator Bartlett, of all people, having worked in social security in the past, would well understand how a good social policy is a simpler policy—in terms of administration, the ability of people to access their due entitlements, et cetera—and that, wherever grandfathering occurs, you get complexities in administration and a less clearly defined system for people to access their entitlements. It is particularly not good social security policy to increase the number of people who are grandfathered for any reason. It is usually done for a political purpose, and that is what is happening in this case. The package has come forward from the government after independent inquiry by Mr Spicer and after endorsement by the elected representatives of the indigenous communities. I would have thought that would weigh heavily on senators' minds. We need to endorse it here, but the government recognises that we will not win this vote.10:48:008605Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to indicate that I will be opposing the amendment but, in doing that, I would like to clarify the reasons why. It may seem unfair to oppose a motion that intends to assist and protect the people whom you are directing that payment to. The reason I clearly oppose the amendment is that it does not achieve the intended outcome. I tried very briefly before to describe what happens in a community on the day a pension cheque arrives. You really have to be there and experience it to understand what happens. There is resentment within some of the communities. Some of the communities work exceptionally well on the program, but others do not, and in those communities the program has a very adverse effect on the people whom we are intending to help.Senator Evans's comment about my suggestion of having this amount of money appropriated to schemes that would economically help the communities is an indication either that I am not articulating very well or that he does not agree with the idea of people having dignity. We are putting an amount of money into communities without taking the next step of ensuring that it gets to the women and children whom it is intended to get to. In communities like Pormpuraaw and Kowanyama, it does not have that effect. It goes into the community and is spent in the way that the communities in those areas traditionally spend it. It does not get to help the mothers to go down to the local store to buy provi sions for their children—that is, provided the local community store has the funds to purchase those goods so they can buy them.I believe we need to listen to the people in the communities as to how we help them, not impose our ideologies on them. There are ways in which we can help them. We can help them have the integrity of their artwork so that their artwork is not pilfered by people who put it into the tourist shops in Cairns and areas like that with no benefit to the communities from where it has been pilfered.These are the areas where we need to assist these people. I believe it would be far more effective to take the amounts of money that we are talking about and turn them around into programs that will actually help all of the communities. We also need to look beyond the communities. A substantial number of Aboriginal people live in the wider community and their needs, in some cases, are as great as, if not greater than, those in the community. Though it may seem a contradiction in terms, my reason for opposing the amendment is that I believe it would be far better to have the equality of the single payment for these people within their communities, to take that additional money and to put it into a process that those communities collectively believe will assist them more.10:53:008605Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I speak briefly in response to comments in relation to the amendment. Firstly, I think Senator Harris's comments to a large extent relate more broadly to the CDEP and his views on the operation of that. This issue is obviously a small part of an aspect of the treatment of income relating to the CDEP. I will not necessarily respond to his broader comments about the worth or otherwise of the CDEP as it operates. I have visited a number of indigenous communities myself, both in Queensland and in the Northern Territory. I certainly have some understanding of the situations there, although I would not claim to be an expert by any means.Whilst I very much endorse the view that just giving people money is not the answer and there are a lot of other issues that need to be incorporated, I am very wary of a view which is taking hold that money is not unim portant. Money does come in reasonably handy. It is not the only thing one needs. Despite some of the romantics out there who think love is all you need, I think money does come in handy occasionally as well. Personal income and basic income support payments are a crucial component of giving people the opportunity to have some control over their lives and some dignity. I certainly do not suggest that it is the only thing, but it is important not to undervalue the basic and crucial aspect of ensuring that people have enough money to live on.The Minister for Family and Community Services made some comments about good social policy. I understand what she is saying in relation to that, but I do think it is important to remember that social policy is not just about reviews, academic aspects and coming up with something that makes logical sense but also about the impact on people. I know she is not saying it is not, but I want to keep emphasising that in this type of legislation more than most we are dealing with issues that impact very much on people.I acknowledge that grandfather clauses make for administrative messiness, but they also serve more than a political purpose in the narrow sense of the word. I do not think they are totally politically driven a lot of the time. They are a mechanism for smoothing out the negative consequences of change, and that applies in many areas. It is frequently used for that purpose where a change is recognised as being appropriate but a smoothing mechanism is put in place to try to ensure that people are not crunched along the way as the change is made. Whilst it might not be pure social policy, it is still good social policy in the sense that it does prevent negative impacts on individual people.Finally, I want to emphasise that the Democrats have not changed our position since Monday as a result of being leaned on by anybody or anything like that. In the comments I have made throughout this debate, I have outlined our concerns about the impact of this measure, but I have certainly not committed us to a particular approach. We have had to balance up the competing claims and the very strong representations from ATSIC wanting the measures to get through. Although it has not been categorically stated, it is clearly an attitude of the government's that we are dealing with a package in the schedule of the bill. There are some very positive measures in it which I know ATSIC and the indigenous communities are very keen to have commence and come into operation. There was very much a real risk here of losing those good measures, and that obviously had an impact on the Democrats' approach on this issue. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Bartlett's ) be agreed to.11:02:00The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman—Senator P.H. Calvert)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.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.Greig, B. A. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.30Abetz, E. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harris, L.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bishop, T. M. Reid, M. E.Crossin, P. M. Lightfoot, P. R.Faulkner, J. P. Alston, R. K. R.Lundy, K. Hill, R. M.Ray, R. F. Eggleston, A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.11:06:008607Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 33 on sheet 1391:(33) Schedule 3, page 47 (after line 4), after item 42, insert:42A At the end of section 665 Add: (4) A person is not qualified for an employment entry payment under this Part if the person is qualified for a special employment advance under Part 2.22A and has made a claim under section 1061EP in respect of the same employment.I wish to address my remarks to the general question of employment and education entry payments in debating this amendment and hopefully not repeat them with every amendment. The government's legislation seeks to abolish the employment entry payment, which is a non-refundable grant, and replace it with a repayable advance called the new special employment advance, which is in effect a loan. With the current system, the employment entry payment is a non-refundable payment, and the government's proposal is to change that into effectively a loan. The government also seeks to abolish the education entry payment and, to the best of my understanding, not replace that at all for recipients of allowances.The opposition are attempting to protect the employment and education entry payments and come some way towards supporting the part of the government's approach that allows a bit more flexibility in what they call the special employment advance. We are seeking to protect the employment entry payment and to provide the option of the advance for those who find it preferable. As I understand it, the government are saying it is preferable that people take an advance if and when they require it and not be entitled to the payment. We say there is some merit in the approach of giving it a bit more flexibility because some people may require the larger amount which is available under the advance. We accept that that may be useful on some occasions.But I think there is a fundamental flaw in the sense that it means that people entering employment are entering into further debt at a time when they may well have been unemployed for some time and have acquired a great deal of debt either to institutions or to family and friends. For a lot of people the idea of getting into further debt will not be a terribly attractive one. But, in the sense that the government's approach provides the option for those people, we think that may well be a measure that allows more choice and more flexibility. However, we do not see the argument for the employment entry payment being abolished. We think that there are real costs associated with starting employment and that the payment provides a useful addition to helping people make the transition from unemployment to employment. The payment was introduced in 1991 and has provided some assistance to those people. We do not see the argument for that being removed.I admit it is small and I admit that it is not necessarily an incentive for people to take employment but it provides a very tangible assistance for them when taking up work. It provides them with some opportunity to ease that transition into employment and to meet some of the costs associated with starting employment. For that reason, we support the employment entry payment. Our amendment seeks to provide some flexibility. If the government wishes to offer this advance scheme as an addition then we are prepared to support that, but we are not prepared to see the employment entry payment abolished. We think it is a very worthwhile and useful measure that assists people in the transition from unemployment to work. We are a bit perplexed as to why, apart from being a cost cutting measure, the government would seek to remove it.In terms of addressing the education entry payment at the same time, I know this is the subject of later amendments but it is a related measure in terms of the debate. We do not understand why the government wants to abolish the education entry payment. We think it provides very useful assistance to people wishing to study.I would be interested to hear from the minister what the rationale is for removing that payment, because we think it just removes a key incentive for people to actually seek to further their skills. The payment provides some assistance for people who are enrolling in study. When we are talking about unemployed people, I thought the whole thrust of government policy—and I think this is a bipartisan approach—was to encourage people to improve their employment skills in order to make themselves more employable and to be able to take on better and more rewarding jobs. We are a bit unclear as to why the government would want to remove that payment which facilitates that movement from unemployment to study, allowing people to better themselves. We will be opposing that measure.As I say, while we seek to come some way towards the government's approach in terms of employment entry payments, we seek to maintain the current entry payment for those who wish to access it. Apart from being a savings measure, I do not understand the reason for removing that entitlement. We think both payments provide some incentives for people to better themselves by seeking employment and seeking study, and we think the abolition of both of those entry payments would be a counterproductive measure.11:13:008608Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The government's intention is to introduce a special employment advance because it will greatly extend the coverage and the provision of advance payments to income support recipients taking up work. Applicants for the SEA will need to demonstrate that either they have earned income from casual work but have not yet received that income, or they have received a definite offer of employment of at least six weeks duration but do not have sufficient financial resources to take up that employment.Senator Evans just now was asking for the rationale behind the introduction of this measure. I say to him that the Working Nation departmental evaluation of the employment entry payment scheme, which was initially introduced as an incentive provision, has indicated that it does not appear to be a major force in influencing customers' decisions to take up work. In addition, the scheme is complex. There are differences in the rates and the conditions attaching to the scheme that depend on the customers' payment types.For example, you do not get an employment entry payment if you are going into part-time work, because usually if you are going into part-time work you are still on part Newstart allowance and you cannot therefore get an employment entry payment. You can get an employment entry payment only once in 12 months, and for people who are struggling to get back into the work force the ability to take up a succession of part-time jobs throughout the course of a year is very important. So, having had your employment entry payment once, you are then precluded from getting it again during the course of that year.Now, with the special employment advance, you can get it any time you need it. It is very much more flexible, it is a bigger sum of money and it is available for that transitional phase from perhaps being long-term unemployed, or certainly unemployed, into more sustainable long-term employment. I think those are very good reasons for saying the special employment advance is the right way to go. It builds on the purpose behind the employment entry payment, but it is a much better arrangement. There is also a separate group of people who have been in casual work and who have not yet been able to receive that income. Teachers are a classic example of this. There has, I think, been a lot of lobbying of successive governments over a number of years to try to fix that because they are deemed to have received income that they have not in fact received. So the special employment advance is useful for that group of people as well.I do not think that there is any virtue in retaining the employment entry payment when you have got a larger payment that is available any time you need it, compared with the employment entry payment which is available only once in a year. For the employment entry payment to not be available for people who take up part-time work and are still on part Newstart allowance seems to me to be a pretty deficient kind of employment entry payment because it is a much more likely way that a lot of people will get back into the work force. They will not easily go straight from unemployment, especially if it is long-term unemployment, into a full-time job. They are much more likely to put their foot on the escalator again through the means of part-time work. To do that and not be eligible for the employment entry payment seems a bit of a nonsense to me. I think this is an important reform. You do not need to retain the employment entry payment.11:17:008609Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In speaking to the opposition amendment I will also speak to the foreshadowed ones that are coming up next and which relate to the same issue, just to get my comments out of the way all at once. Initially, in response to the minister's comments about the review and the current operation of the employment entry payment, if there are problems or deficiencies in the way the payment currently operates I would have thought the better way to go would be to address those deficiencies rather than scrap it altogether.In relation to the special employment advance that is being proposed, I have great reservations about that. The opposition's amendment does not knock that out so that is not an issue to explore further, but it is very different from the employment entry payment. The opposition's amendment will, as I understand it, enable that advance to operate whilst retaining the employment entry payment, thus giving people the option. Down the track, if the advance operates as well as the government seems to think it will, it may be justifiable to revisit the issue of the employment entry payment if the employment advance operates in a more effective way.But there are a couple of big differences about the advance as opposed to the employment entry payment as it currently exists. Firstly, it is an advance. It is not a payment; it is a loan which needs to be repaid. As I said in my contribution at the second reading stage, I have great reservations about the introduction of the principle of social security payments being put forward as advances or loans rather than as entitlements. This is only a very small measure in the grand scheme of the operation of the Social Security Act. But, as I said at the time, there is such a thing as the thin end of the wedge, and I have concerns that this may be one of those circumstances where, once this principle is established in the act, it will be extended to a wide range of other payments over time, and the concept which has actually been floated by some commentators in recent times that social security payments should follow the way of HECS fees and be a debt or a loan that is recoverable rather than a payment that is paid through entitlement is the sort of approach I would have great reservations about.Having said that, the operation as detailed here in the explanatory memorandum shows the difference. The concerns or the problems that the minister outlined about people taking up part-time work may well be genuine—I am sure they are genuine—but that is not the whole story in relation to the employment entry payment. I think if you look at the explanatory memorandum and how it will operate you will get a clearer idea of the main motivation here—that is, that the outlays from the special employment advance would, in a few years time, be less than $1 million a year, yet the savings from the employment entry payment being abolished are $18 million.The memorandum does not mention the modifications to the education entry payment which I understand is being done as well. I would have thought there were some cost or savings implications there. I do not know if they are folded into the total of the employment entry payments as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, but I assume they are also being claimed as a savings measure. For those reasons that I have outlined, the Democrats support the aim of the opposition in this amendment and the next couple of amendments.Amendment agreed to.11:22:008610Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 34 on sheet 1391:(34) Schedule 3, item 43, page 49 (after line 32), before paragraph 1061EO(1)(a), insert: (aa) the person is qualified for an employment entry payment under Part 2.13 and has made a claim under section 665 in respect of the offered employment; orI think we have had the debate on this amendment.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—We now move to opposition amendment No. 35 on sheet 1391. The question is that schedule 3, part 2 stand as printed.11:22:008610Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The Labor Party intend to oppose schedule 3, part 2, page 68 (lines 2 to 29). This is to give effect to our concern that the education entry payment not be abolished. I think Senator Bartlett asked a question in his earlier contribution which I was also going to ask the minister, which went to the question of how much the government thinks it would save by that. It is not clear to me from looking at the explanatory memorandum what the financial impact of that measure would be, so I would be interested in her advice about that.I think I put the opposition's argument on this in addressing the earlier amendment. It is essentially that we see no justification for removing a payment to assist people in moving from unemployment to education. We think it is a very important part of the overall policy direction of encouraging people to improve their skills and their employability, and we see no justification for removing that payment. But, as I say, I am not clear on exactly how much the government intends saving if that is carried. I may be missing it, but it was one of the issues that occurred to me—and Senator Bartlett, quite rightly, raised it—so I would be interested to know what the answer is.11:24:008610Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have just been advised that the savings for the employment entry payment are $16 million and for the education entry payment they are $2 million. The education entry payment is not being totally abolished; it is being retained for certain social security pensioners.11:24:008610Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Minister, are you saying there that the figures in the explanatory memorandum which talk about the financial impact for the employment entry payment—the $18.187 million in savings in the year 2001-02—include the education entry payment savings? Are they wrapped up as one?11:25:008610Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am advised that the answer is yes.11:25:008610Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—As with some of the other issues in relation to this bill, we need to look further than just the wording of what is being proposed, which is to partially remove some of the employment entry payments. We need to look at the history of that process. In some cases, but not all, people have been paid their entry payment, gone out and purchased shoes or uniforms to participate in employment and then a week or two weeks later walked away from that employment. I am not saying that they are doing that solely to get the entry payment; I am highlighting one of the outcomes of that process.I believe—and maybe the minister can assist me here—the intention of replacing that with a special employment advance is that the person, once in the work force, is then required to pay that advance back. Of the two systems, I believe that the government's position in reducing the availability of the entry payment—which the person can take with no obligation whatsoever to pay it back and no obligation to continue in the employment which that entry payment assisted them to get—and replacing it with an advance to the tune of $500, which they are required to repay, is a healthy situation on two counts. Firstly, it will give that person far more support to continue in their employment. Secondly, it requires that person to have the personal discipline to budget to pay that back. In relation to society that is a far better process to be following.11:27:008611Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—In answer to Senator Harris, it is not unusual where people do get advances currently in social security that, depending on their personal circumstances, the rate of payment of an advance can be negotiated, and it is constantly. If somebody were to take the full $500 of their special advance—and they do not have to take the full amount—it would usually be repaid at the rate of 14 per cent of their payment. Therefore, it would take about six months. I do not think that is unfair, when it is the taxpayer helping them to get back into the work force. It is more generous, as I said earlier, than the employment entry payment.What I particularly like about it is that it is available to a number of people who currently cannot get the employment entry payment because they are still on a part Newstart allowance and are taking up part-time work. If that job does not pan out—which sometimes does happen, for a variety of reasons—then they can come back again and get another advance. They are not restricted to one a year if they are going into that stage in their lives when they are trying valiantly to take a succession of part-time jobs to get back into the work force properly again. I think it is a pretty fair kind of thing—fair to the taxpayer and fairer to the person than what is currently provided with the employment payment which we are proposing now to abolish with the introduction of this measure.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question is that schedule 3, part 2 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.11:31:008611Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:(13) Schedule 4, item 13, page 72 (line 10), after "payment", insert "either while the person was in gaol or psychiatric confinement, or".The crisis payment is a very important initiative. It will provide a person eligible for income support with a non-refundable payment that is equal to one week of extra payment to which they would otherwise be entitled. Examples which would qualify a person for the crisis payment include where they have been released from jail or they have been forced to leave home as a result of an extreme circumstance such as domestic violence. The payment in part recognises the costs incurred by a person who has to re-establish a new home.It is vitally important for those two groups of people—somebody fleeing from domestic violence or somebody released from jail—to be provided with a hiatus by their opportunity to access income support from Centrelink or to go into a job. The advice I have had is that, quite frequently, this is when you get petty crime, with people without any money at all trying to quickly get themselves a bit of spare cash. I know women are very delighted to hear of this crisis payment. I have been talking to women around the country and they think it will be a godsend for people fleeing from violence. I do commend it to the Senate.11:33:008611Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Could the minister clarify for me the present position—that is, whether this is an additional payment or is, in actuality, the government reducing the existing payment of two weeks back to one week?11:33:008611Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—That is not the amendment that we are currently on, Senator, but it is part of the proposal which we will come to in a later amendment.Amendment agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Newman) proposed:(15) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 30), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 2—Consequential amendmentsIncome Tax Assessment Act 199716 Section 52-10 (after table item 4.4)Insert:5.1 Crisis paymentExemptExemptNot applicableNot applicable17 Section 52-40 (after table item 4)Insert:5 Crisis paymentPart 2.23ANot applicableNot applicable18 Application The amendments made by this Part apply to assessments for the 1999-2000 income year and later income years.11:34:008612Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This amendment, as I understand it, relates to the taxation treatment of crisis payments. I would appreciate a bit of an outline from the minister about what the taxation treatment of crisis payments is going to be as a result of this amendment and how that is going to change. The amendment itself just has a bunch of words that says `exempt, exempt not applicable' but I am not sure what is being exempted or what it is not applying to. If she could clarify that for me, I would appreciate it.11:34:008612Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The amendment makes crisis payment exempt for income tax purposes. That means 19,343 released prisoners and 11,510 victims of exceptional circumstances will qualify for a crisis payment each year. The cost implications are negligible since the payments it replaces are currently either tax exempt or rebatable.Amendment agreed to.11:35:008612Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:(12) Schedule 4, page 69 (line 3), insert:Part 1—Amendment of Social Security ActThis is a technical amendment consequential upon amendment No. 8. It inserts a new heading and has no effect on customer numbers or costs.Amendment agreed to.11:35:008612Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:(16) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 30), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Application19 Crisis payment not payableIf: (a) on a day that occurs within 14 days before the commencement of this Schedule, an instalment of social security pension is payable to a person who on that day is in gaol or undergoing psychiatric confinement because the person has been charged with an offence; and (b) the person is released from gaol or the psychiatric confinement within 14 days after the commencement of this Schedule; and (c) the person claims crisis payment within 7 days after being released; the crisis payment is not payable to the person.This amendment prevents a double dip of both crisis payment and pension instalment by a pensioner who is released from jail. This may be what Senator Harris was referring to. There is an average of 55 pensioners released from prison each fortnight. Those released in the transitional period will not get a crisis payment if they have also received a pension payment in the fortnight before release under the current arrangements.Amendment agreed to.11:36:008612Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:(14) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 17), after item 13, insert:13A Division 1 of Part 3.13 (heading) Repeal the heading.This is simply a technical amendment.Amendment agreed to.11:36:008613Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Schedule 4, item 13, page 77 (after line 30), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) If the person is qualified for a crisis payment because of section 1061JG, the amount of a crisis payment payable to the person is the fortnightly amount at the maximum basic rate of the social security pension or social security benefit that is payable to the person.One Nation believes that mandatory imprisonment and severe punishment for offenders involved in violent crimes, organised crime and drug trafficking are essential. The protection of our citizens and the prevention of repeat offences should be of the utmost concern and be foremost in the determination of appropriate sentencing. Lengthy custodial sentences should be the only reward for those offenders. We must protect our society.Over 25 per cent of prisoners admitted to Queensland jails are fine defaulters. It is expensive and counterproductive to jail these offenders. In the light of that in Queensland, the National-Liberal coalition has introduced a private member's bill that reflects one of One Nation's policies, that fine defaulters should be kept out of jail. Further, they should have their income or social security garnisheed at its source, to ensure the fine payment. In case of extreme hardship, they should be sentenced to community service.By not jailing fine defaulters except as a last resort, it is anticipated that in Queensland there would be a saving of approximately $12.6 million from the Corrective Services budget. It costs the state taxpayers in Queensland approximately $45,000 per annum to incarcerate a prisoner. In Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation state parliamentarian teams have been influencing the government's simplistic policies to bring them up to date with the expression of the will of the people. It comes as no surprise that we have to implement simplistic policies in this chamber that are obviously driven by economic expediency and not by the needs of a particular disadvantaged group within our community.This government is proposing to halve the allowance currently provided for newly released prisoners. This crisis payment was introduced to provide some assistance to persons who had a very high level of need. This help was in the form of a current special benefit prison release payment, which twice provided a one-week payment. This payment was designed to assist newly released prisoners to obtain accommodation and transport facilities and to meet living expenses while integrating into the community. The proposed one-off crisis payment, being a one-week payment, provides less financial assistance.A research program was conducted recently in Queensland by the Prisoners Legal Service Inc., and I congratulate them on their work and their findings. The Prison and Debt project was designed to inquire into the effects of imprisonment on the debt levels of prisoners and to ascertain the nature and extent of any flow-on social or criminological effects of indebtedness in the prison population to families and prisoners in the wider community. The project's desired outcome was to identify and remedy the detrimental effects of imprisonment on prisoners' debt levels. The project identified that debt levels for prisoners increase while they are in jail and that their debts frequently rise to such levels that they cannot repay them or effectively manage them upon release. A key finding of the report was that 49 per cent of those interviewed admitted to committing further crimes upon release, in order to repay burgeoning debt.The report identified that most prison sentences served in Australia are short. The Prisoners Legal Service identified that over 21 per cent of people serve less than three months. Sentences this short can, however, have serious ramifications, including the loss of job, home, car or all personal possessions with the growth of debt. Debts of imprisonment are often additional to debts that prisoners are already experiencing difficulties with or cannot repay. It is worth reminding the Senate that 25 per cent of prisoners are fine defaulters. It is reasonable that a proportion would have paid their fines, if finances had been available. So we have a cat chasing its tail.The community suffers by the release of significant numbers of prisoners with an unpaid level of debt, a debt they cannot repay. The effect is in terms not only of a possible increase in the crime rate but of an increase in the number of despairing citizens who may not commit a crime but are forced to live on the edge of society. These are the people who prick our conscience when we leave our restaurants or shows and see them cold, lonely and hungry, wandering the streets.Many of the simplest of remedies, if implemented, will contribute to ensuring that the families of prisoners are enabled to maintain a stable family unit. A newly released prisoner deserves to be given an opportunity to return to society with the means to regain their dignity. They deserve to be given a chance to overcome their punishment and to reunite with their family's lives.A case study by the Prisoners Legal Service in Queensland demonstrates why One Nation has a policy committed to keeping fine defaulters out of jail. I wish to relate this case study. A single parent with a two-year-old child was left struggling to pay three loans, for a car, furniture and a housing loan bond. She obtained part-time work but did not declare it on her benefit form and kept drawing her full benefit. When Centrelink became aware, she began to pay back the money, selling her TV and stereo and falling behind in other bills. She was charged with fraud and, by the time she fronted the court, she had paid all the money back to the government. She received a three-month sentence and was taken immediately to the watchhouse. Her mother cared for her son, but relations between mum and the daughter were strained. Prisoners are not allowed to phone government departments from jail. She incorrectly received two further payments from Centrelink but was unable to call them from jail to cancel the payments. Her flat was broken into when she was in jail. Intruders lived in the flat for about three weeks, gaining access to her bankcard signature and thereby withdrawing her Centrelink overpayments. They trashed the flat and left a large phone bill. On release from jail, this lady had a debt to Centrelink and a debt to the Department of Housing and owed money for gas, electricity and telephone. The chances of being reunited with her son were minimal, as she could not obtain a private flat to rent.Do not think that One Nation is going soft on crime. We are not. We firmly believe that perpetrators of heinous crimes deserve to have the law book thrown at them. The rights of the victims and their families must be taken into account during sentencing. We firmly believe that prisoners should face punishment, restitution and rehabilitation in that order. However, state governments continue to jail fine defaulters. We are only exacerbating an already untenable position. These sentences create disastrous changes in many people's lives, including the loss of jobs, homes and personal possessions. Increasing debt levels make the punishment out of all proportion to the debt. Then the federal government withdraws the little support it was offering.The Catholic Prison Ministry states that they believe that people will usually make the choice to live a lawful lifestyle when they are supported in an environment affirming their self-worth and providing for their basic needs. The crisis payment at its current level goes some way towards assisting newly released prisoners, who have paid their debt through their time in jail, to be given some opportunity to successfully move back into society.The government's approach always seems to be based on how they can save money—which group is the least vocal and least respected in the community; where is the little Aussie who can be squeezed a little more tightly? The upper crust hardly have to worry about the potential of re-offending as they live in blue ribbon seats and are insulated from this problem. The average Aussie, however, must take it on the chin, grin and bear it and then grizzle as insurance companies refuse to re-insure their properties. I would invite senators to stay in homes in Goodna and Darra where insurance companies have refused to insure vehicles, homes and contents. We have a government whose only intervention is to decrease the level of support available to a newly released prisoner so that they can integrate back into the community.Let Pauline Hanson's One Nation point out some costs. We need effective strategies that could lessen the distress caused by those who are incarcerated. This government seems to only know how to slash and burn and allocate funds to those most disadvantaged. On introduction into jail it would make sense for Centrelink to provide all prisoners with a form to be filled out by those receiving benefits thus advising of their sentence. Thereby, Centrelink would avoid paying funds incorrectly and would avoid incurring the cost of reclaiming those payments. Centrelink would allow three months breathing space for prisoners after release before commencing to deduct payments from them in order to facilitate a smooth transition into mainstream life. The Child Support Agency could provide prisoners with a form to be filled out by those with a debt to CSA advising of the sentence, thereby saving the tax department unnecessary costs in catching the defaulters.These recommendations are just some commonsense approaches provided in the excellent report of the Prisoners Legal Service in Queensland. We cannot and will not support any cutback in crisis payments to newly released prisoners. Unlike some in the government, we continually care for those in need. We want to see them given a chance to retain their self-esteem and self-worth. We do not want to see more displaced, homeless Australians.11:49:008615Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I can see that Senator Harris has his heart in the right place for prisoners. Unfortunately, a lot of his speech and certainly his allegations were ill founded. There are no savings at all in this proposal. We are not halving the allowance, as he said. In fact, the amount of money going to the prisoners remains the same. We are bringing it forward so that they have it when they come out of jail. It is a benefit to prisoners. It is helping them.They get three weeks pay as they did before, but before they got it after they got out of jail. Now they will get one week as they go out of jail and two weeks as soon as they have signed on the dotted line. If they are in real hardship they can get an advanced payment. I am sorry, Senator, but I am afraid some of the things you said were based on a misunderstanding.If you doubled the rate of the crisis payment for all people, it would cost nearly $2.4 million a year. If you simply did it for prisoners you would be up around $500,000 on top of what is paid now. There is no way that we are trying to cut money to the prisoners. We believe that the society is not served by having prisoners leave prison with no money to buy food or get shelter. That is why we are introducing the measure. We are bringing the payment up front so that they get it earlier.I am distressed that you would think that that is what we are doing. It is a beneficial measure. It is a beneficial measure for, say, people whose homes have been caught in a bushfire and who suddenly need an immediate payment. It is a beneficial measure for people who are escaping domestic violence. I would have thought you would have endorsed it wholeheartedly. It is a new measure, but it is not cutting any money from the prisoners. It is bringing their payment forward so that they do not leave jail without anything in their pocket to buy a bus fare.11:51:008615Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats agree with a lot of what Senator Harris said and the intent of his amendment. The government should be congratulated for introducing a crisis payment. It is extending much needed assistance to a fairly small group of people, but, nonetheless, a group of people who will very much benefit from the measure. Sometimes we deal with measures that only deal with a small group of people and may seem fairly insignificant in the scheme of things, but for that small group of people and those individuals it can make an enormous amount of difference. The fact that the numbers are not huge should not detract from that.I would like a bit more clarification from the minister in relation to the way things operate currently for released prisoners, as opposed to how things will operate under this new crisis payment. I have received representations from the Welfare Rights Network about the impact of this measure on prisoners. I am not criticising the positive aspects of the measure in relation to other people, but certainly they had concerns that it would lead to a disadvantage for some newly released prisoners compared to their current situation.The excellent report Senator Harris quoted extensively from is one that bears close study. It is an important area. I am not sure I would agree with the full thrust of all of Senator Harris's rhetoric about prisoners and our jail system, but his concerns and the concerns put forward by the Queensland Prisoners Legal Service are very important. Regardless of your views about crime and punishment and law and order, I think everyone in the community would recognise, even from a self-interest point of view, that it is totally counterproductive to release people back into the community in a situation where they are in extreme hardship or very pressing debt. A very small amount of extra assistance at that time when they re-enter the community can save an enormous amount of money down the track by making it less likely that they will re-offend and more likely that they will have an opportunity to re-establish themselves in the community. Obviously, that is not only in their interests but in the interests of the entire community.So the principle that Senator Harris outlined is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. Personally, I think where necessary, extra assistance should be provided to released prisoners over and above others for the reason I just outlined—that it is in the community's interest to ensure people are able to get back on their feet as effectively as possible. It is in no-one's interests to have people re-offend or go into a situation of poverty. Indeed, it is never in the community's interests to have anyone in ongoing and entrenched poverty.Just returning to the issue of how the system works now: my understanding—which the minister can correct and I am sure will correct if it is incorrect—is that currently people can receive the special benefit prison release payment, which is designed to provide immediate cash assistance. That recognises that newly released prisoners can incur delays in obtaining employment or social security payment, and it provides up to one week of payment of special benefit at twice the normal rate. That is my understanding of how things are able to operate now, whereas the proposed one-off crisis payment contained in this schedule will provide only one week's payment at the normal rate. That is where Senator Harris was coming from in suggesting that they will get half of what they currently get now.That is my understanding from what I have been advised. If that is the case, then certainly I would be supportive of Senator Harris's amendment—for the reason of restoring the situation as well as for the broader reason that it is in the community's interest to provide extra assistance for released prisoners to some extent over and above the detail that I have asked about now.11:56:008616Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I just double-checked in case I had in any way misunderstood or misled anybody. The fact is, as I told Senator Harris, the level of assistance available to released prisoners claiming a social security allowance will not change under the new arrangement—the level of assistance is three weeks pay for three weeks. The difference is when they get it. Released prisoners will get the equivalent of three weeks payment in the first fortnight after release, as they do currently. They will get the crisis payment plus one week's pension or benefit when they are released, with the remaining week's pension or benefit at the end of the first fortnight. Pensioners who are released from prison will receive the same level of assistance as allowees.Senator Harris, you may be interested to know why this was necessary. With the New South Wales truth in sentencing legislation, prisoners can now be released at midnight, and this will prevent the hardship that is occasioned by people being put outside the jail door with no money at all. You made the suggestion in your speech about filling in a Centrelink form, et cetera. When we were in opposition, we found that the previous government did not know people were in jail and were continuing to pay them—sometimes for years. That obviously was not a system that could continue and, as part of our major effort against fraud and ensuring compliance in the social security system, we introduced data links and exchange of information with the corrective services around Australia so we could prevent that happening. Prior to that, the Commonwealth did not know when people were in jail. Now we have the ability to get this money to people earlier than previously. We are not changing the level of money that they are entitled to.11:58:008617Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Thank you, Minister, for conveying that the government's intention was to move towards ensuring that these payments did not continue while prisoners were in jail. As I explained earlier, unfortunately it is still happening. So if there is a form that is supplied by Centrelink, we need to go back and look at that process. In this lady's case, her predicament was that not only was she paid those two payments while she was in jail but somebody accessed her flat, accessed her cards and actually withdrew that amount. So the reality is that the problem still exists at this time and that definitely needs addressing.To come back to the reason for the amendment that we have moved, it has been clearly indicated to us, not only by the Catholic Prison Ministry but also by other people that we have spoken to, that on their reading of the bill the prisoners will be disadvantaged.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—They will not be disadvantaged.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—I appreciate the minister saying that they will get one of the payments earlier, and I commend the government for that. But it will also leave the prisoners in a situation where, two weeks out of jail, they will have a longer period while they are waiting for another payment. I still commend the amendment to the chamber, based on the understanding of both the Catholic Prison Ministry's interpretation of this bill and the interpretation of other agencies that we have discussed the issue with.NaN:00:008617Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I would like to very briefly say that I am disappointed that the people who came to you do not appear to have come to me; I might have been able to explain this to them. They are labouring under a misapprehension, and they have obviously advised you accordingly. People will not in any way be disadvantaged, either in level of payment or in timing of receipt of payment. They will be advantaged; it is solely to their benefit. I am disappointed that they have misread that. That is the fact of the matter.If you have any examples of where the connection between information going from the state corrective services department to Centrelink is not working properly or where there is some associated crime being committed as a result of somebody being in jail, you might come and talk to me about it to see whether there is anything that we can do to make the system even better.12:02:008617Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—At the risk of breaking my duck, I indicate that the opposition are inclined to support the government and oppose the request on the basis of the explanation given by the minister, which was that the level of funding under the crisis payment arrangements will not disadvantage prisoners and that they will get money earlier to assist in their transition. On that basis, while I appreciate the points Senator Harris made, we are inclined to accept the government's argument that they have adequately dealt with those concerns under the schedule dealing with the crisis payment. We will be voting with the government on this occasion.Request not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—We now move to Democrat amendment No. 2 on sheet 1544. The question is that schedule 5 stand as printed.12:03:008618Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to speak to this schedule and indicate the reasons why the Democrats are opposed to it. It relates to the newly arrived residents waiting period, which is a topic that I have spoken on a number of times in this chamber over the last couple of years. I will not go into a fully-fledged storm of outrage. As I said earlier on, I try to approach social security issues and immigration issues—this one combines the two—in a non-inflammatory way, although I must say that this particular aspect of the two-year waiting period is one that I do have a bit of trouble retaining a dispassionate approach to, because I find it one of the more distasteful aspects of social security policy over recent years. The measure itself is only a small aspect of that, and there is an argument of consistency in relation to the measure which the government has put forward to promote consistency in the application of the waiting period. It relates to applying the newly arrived residents waiting period to aspects of the Health Insurance Act and health care cards.Whilst it might not sound like a particularly significant thing, it is a measure that will, according to the explanatory memorandum, in a couple of years time save around $13½ million. As I repeatedly point out, saving taxpayers' money is a good thing. But taking assistance away from people in need is not a good thing. In many aspects, this whole issue of the two-year waiting period is a false economy. Not providing assistance to people when they are first settling in the country can make it a lot more difficult for them to establish themselves and can often lead to greater cost, not just to the public purse but to the social fabric down the track.The two-year waiting period is a measure that the Democrats have consistently opposed, and we continue to oppose it. I know that the ALP initially opposed the measure, and it came into being through the support of Senator Harradine. At one stage an attempt of mine to repeal it was unsuccessful because of the vote of Senator Harradine. We had a brief Senate committee inquiry into it, by which time we came back here and I had another attempt at repealing it; Senator Harradine had been convinced but unfortunately the ALP had ceased to be convinced. So once again the measure remained in place. That was a source of some disappointment to me, I must say, but obviously I did not argue quite as expertly as I thought I had. Perhaps I had assumed, given Labor's previous support for the position of removing the two-year waiting period for special benefits, that that position would be retained.In the Senate committee inquiry, the ALP produced a suggestion, which I think was repeated here in this chamber, that there would be a need to review the two-year waiting period and its impacts after a couple of years. That couple of years has now passed and we certainly think that it would be a good idea to assess more broadly the impact that the two-year waiting period is having across the board.Certainly a lot of information has been provided to me from people who are working out in the community with migrants that it is having a significant negative impact—it is generating hardship for a number of people, for a number of families. Again, that number may not be huge but, for those who are suffering hardship as a result of this measure, telling them that they are only a small number does not really help them very much. It is still a measure that is causing very significant suffering, and I think it sends out some very unhelpful messages more broadly about some of the stereotypes about migrants coming here to go on social security and bludge off the Australian community and things like that—some of those more distasteful suggestions that are voiced on this issue from time to time. I think this measure gives implicit support to some of those comments from other people.The Democrats continue to be very concerned about the impact of the two-year waiting period. This schedule has only a small impact on that in terms of its extension to health related issues. I will refrain from moving another amendment to try to change the two-year waiting period to enable access to special benefit because I can reasonably assume what the outcome would be in the chamber. Nonetheless, I indicate that the Democrats' concerns are still as strong as ever.I urge all other parties to reconsider this issue in terms of the actual impact it is having on people in this community. As I say, with this schedule in particular—the specific measure we are opposing—it is another $13½ million of assistance in health issues which can be amongst the most important areas of need for people in the community. Oftentimes they can find a way of getting by in terms of income but those extra health costs, particularly if they have children, can really make the difference. I am assuming that the Democrats will be unsuccessful in getting this schedule deleted from the legislation, but I urge all parties to keep considering this issue and the real impact that it is having on families out in the community at the moment.12:09:008619Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Very briefly, I will respond to Senator Bartlett. Most of his contribution was directed to the wider issue of the two-year waiting period generally. The schedule that we have before us now relates purely to New Zealanders. If the Democrats were to be successful in their opposition to this schedule, it would mean that, despite an agreement between the governments of New Zealand and Australia, Australians would have to serve a two-year waiting period in New Zealand for benefits in New Zealand but New Zealanders coming here would be able to access benefits straightaway.I do not think that is something the Australian community would think was fair. We see it as fair that all migrants or anybody coming to live in our country should be treated the same unless they are refugees or humanitarian migrants. This has been negotiated between the two governments so that there is equal treatment of the citizens of both countries in each of the countries. I am surprised that the Democrats would want to have Australians treated one way in New Zealand and New Zealanders able to access benefits straightaway in Australia. The government does not support the Democrats' opposition to this schedule at all.12:11:008619Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of the Labor opposition, we will not be supporting the Democrat opposition to this schedule, although it will no doubt cause me some grief at my rugby club, which is 98 per cent New Zealanders. We try to encourage players to come across the Tasman to play.Senator Newman interjecting—AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—We are still very much an amateur club, Minister. Some have trouble getting work permits, too. On this occasion we will not be supporting the Democrats.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that schedule 5 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Requests Nos 11 and 12 on sheet EA260 revised (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(11) Schedule 8, page 102 (after line 30), after item 1, insert:1A At the end of subsection 553B(3)Add:; or (e) satisfies the Secretary that the person has moved from his or her original place of residence because of an extreme circumstance which made it reasonable for the person to move to the new place of residence (for example, the person had been subjected to domestic or family violence in the original place of residence).(12) Schedule 8, page 103 (after line 21), after item 4, insert:4A At the end of subsection 634(3)Add:; or (d) satisfies the Secretary that the person has moved from his or her original place of residence because of an extreme circumstance which made it reasonable for the person to move to the new place of residence (for example, the person had been subjected to domestic or family violence in the original place of residence). 12:12:008620Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I wish to oppose schedule 9. This is the changes the government proposes to the liquid assets test. Schedule 9 tightens the rules under which people can be precluded from receiving social security benefits for up to 13 weeks on the basis of their liquid assets. The schedule provides that a person who is engaged in full-time study cannot be regarded as unemployed for the purpose of the liquid assets test waiting period. The changes will have the effect of making an individual wait up to an additional 13 weeks for unemployment benefits if they elect to study before seeking employment. If someone makes the decision to study, they may face a maximum waiting period of up to 26 weeks rather than just 13 weeks if they decide to go straight on to unemployment benefits. We see this as a disincentive to study and acquire new skills and we have much the same concerns as we did about the education entry payment.I understand what the government's rationale is but, as we understand it, the provision will deny 2,500 Newstart recipients access to the allowance and about 60 sickness allowance recipients access in a year. These are people who might otherwise be caught by the government's proposal and be denied access to the allowances. It seems to us that there is no question of double dipping here. It is a question of whether you provide encouragement for people to study and not put potential barriers in the way of people moving from study to employment or to seeking employment.We think that the impact of this measure is to actually make it less attractive for people to seek to study and puts another barrier or consideration in their way in terms of them seeking to study and then seeking to join the work force. We do not think that disincentive is a good thing. We think the current provision is a better way of treating students moving between study and the work force. We do not think the government's proposition is good policy, and we will be opposing it. We would be better off leaving the current situation as it is and allowing students to move from study to employment without this further barrier.12:15:008620Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Since the liquid assets test was previously before the parliament, we have found that the way the legislation has been interpreted by the tribunals means that it is not being applied consistently. As a result of that, schedule 9 is to provide consistency across payment types, which seems a pretty fair way of approaching something. We in this chamber do not generally endorse payments or add-ons to payments being treated in different ways or special conditions for payments being very different across payment types. This measure simply ensures consistency in the application of the liquid assets waiting period. In addition, a person transferring from Austudy payment to a Newstart allowance would not normally have to serve a liquid assets test waiting period, because they would be considered to have been in receipt of an income support payment for a continuous period. The government therefore do not intend to support the opposition's proposal to oppose schedule 9.12:16:008620Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats are also concerned with the impact of schedule 9. It is, again, small in the scheme of things—$1.5 million in a couple of years time—but it will have an impact on some individual people. It often seems to be the case when we are rationalising inconsistencies and providing for uniform treatment that it ends up being a savings measure rather than a cost, and this is another example of that. More broadly, the Democrats' view is that this provision will act as a disincentive to study by increasing the amount of time that people who undertake study will have to wait to access income support. As is frequently said by people from all parties in this chamber, providing incentives for people to undertake education is a very important aim. This measure will act in the opposite direction and, for that reason, the Democrats will not support it.12:17:008620Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I recognise that I am not going to win this vote, and it is a pity. In our view, a loophole has now been opened by virtue of a decision. It will be used by more people now that it is available. This schedule was an attempt to close that loophole. I point out that an AAT decision recently held that a person could be unemployed while undertaking a full course of study. The effect of that decision for Newstart claimants is that education leavers with liquid assets in excess of the established limits can avoid the application of the liquid assets test waiting period despite having significant liquid assets. To me, that is a nonsense, and I would have thought most Australians would have thought it was a nonsense too. I am disappointed that the parties in this chamber are prepared to see a loophole open that will only be pushed wider as it becomes known. Nevertheless, I hear the views of the other parties.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that schedule 9 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.12:19:008621Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—In opposing schedule 10, I cannot support a pensioner education supplement amendment that so callously removes what is in reality a small payment to some of the disadvantaged members of our community. It has been identified that 97 per cent of the greatest losers will be sole parents. The remaining losers will be carer payment recipients. The government always commends itself on caring for carers but then, in the next breath, it removes a small benefit from a group of people who are prepared to stay home to look after their loved ones. I cannot support a motion that primarily removes from support for sole parents an opportunity to improve their mental or physical wellbeing and, in doing so, prepare for their future and for the future of their children.It would appear the Liberal Party's economic rationalists are at it again in what will be a short-term gain for the government's coffers—approximately $6.5 million in 2001-02—and long-term pain for the people who will eventually be required to move back into the work force. Those people will find their skill levels seriously depleted in an environ ment that all sides of politics agree is changing rapidly, particularly with our new technology. The irony is that, in the long term, governments will pay more, as they will have to offer training and educational opportunities for those who will now be both long-term unemployed and unskilled.The government is saying that, if you study only 25 per cent to 50 per cent of a full-time course, your costs are automatically halved. Depending on the course, you may well find that you still have to travel as many days as you did previously. Your books can vary significantly in cost from subject to subject, but you will still need to the same amount of books and, as of 1 July, you will also have to manage a goods and services tax. The funds are not designed to provide a pat on the back for using your initiative and pursuing further education whilst forced to stay at home. They were to assist—and I stress the word `assist'—in keeping your skills, knowledge and abilities to a level that works towards keeping you work ready.The skills obtained from further educational opportunities also provide social and emotional benefits. Single parents and carers in particular often become isolated from mainstream society. Educational opportunities provide these community members with an ability to mix with others both older and younger than themselves. It is not unusual to find that students find new support networks that can assist them in developing new parenting, caring and recreational outlets that assist in maintaining a healthy mind and body.The reduction of payments to part-time students who study between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of the full-time course demonstrates a lack of commitment by the government to provide worthwhile educational opportunities to all members of the community. It demonstrates simplicity in the way this determination has been made in that part-time study does not necessarily equate to a lesser amount of outlay for the student. It impacts on those people whom this government has indicated it particularly cares about—that is, the carers. It does nothing to support sole parents who have a genuine desire to either keep their skills up to date or improve their skills in many areas, including work, parenting and social skills. For this reason, I will not support the schedule.12:23:008622Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The pensioner education supplement measure will amend the rate of payment to better reflect the study load being undertaken by a pensioner. It is not a question of economic rationalism; it is just straight commonsense. If you are doing a half load, you do not get a full-time supplement. If you are doing a full-time load, you get a full-time supplement. Pensioners on a study load of 50 per cent or greater will continue to get the full rate of PES, which is $60 a fortnight, while pensioners undertaking a study load of between 25 per cent and 50 per cent will get the half rate of PES, which is $30 a fortnight.The pensioner education supplement for disability support pensioners and veterans affairs pensioners will remain unchanged. In passing, I suggest that people who are getting income support as a parenting payment (single) or carers who are getting a carers payment would, one would presume, find it pretty difficult to take on a full-time study load and still maintain their caring role. I think the reality is that a large proportion of people would in fact be taking a half load or maybe even less because the role of carer is very demanding. It is unrealistic to think that you can take on a full study load and be a full-time carer at the same time.The government are very supportive of carers, as Senator Harris has acknowledged. In each budget since we came into government, we have done things that needed to be done to help carers. We continue to have a very keen concern for them. Carers and people on parenting payment (single) can also get access to the JET scheme—the Jobs, Education and Training scheme—which helps people get the skills to get into the work force, to get off welfare dependency, to be self-sufficient and to have the dignity of being self-reliant. The government are totally committed to the concept of people being able to improve their state, educational ability and skills. We just think it is pretty rational—if that is what economic rationalism is—for people to be paid for the amount of study that they are doing. That is what this reflects. It reflects the amount of study against the amount of supplement. At the same time, people are still getting their full pension payment in social security. There is no effect on that. I think it is a very reasonable thing to do. I think the taxpayer would, too.12:26:008622Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This section deals with the pensioner education supplement, which is a non-taxable supplementary payment of $60 per fortnight for pensioners who qualify as either full-time students or concessional study load students. It is designed, as I understand it, to assist pensioners towards financial independence through participation in education courses. It is another incentive towards education. The government is proposing to cut that payment to $30 for those who have only a part-time study load. Whilst it may seem logical on the surface that you get half the payment if you are doing half the study, I do not see this payment as operating in that way. I see it as a basic incentive payment for pensioners, regardless of their study load, to undertake education.If you are going to apply a pure logic principle, I cannot see the purely rational reason why the government is exempting disability support pensioners from this measure. It has said that it is in recognition that people have less capacity to increase their study loads in response to this change. That may be the case. For the reasons the minister just outlined, I am sure many carers would also have difficulty in increasing their study loads in response to this change. I cannot see any simple logical reason why disability pensioners should retain the full payment despite studying part time while other pensioners now have their payment cut in half. My understanding is that this will impact on nearly 8,000 recipients of the pensioner education supplement. I cannot see a reason why that payment should be reduced. It would clearly provide less assistance in the purpose that the payment was designed for, which is to assist pensioners to undertake education.It seems to me to be basically a cost cutting measure that will hit the pensions of sole parent pensioners and carers. The Democrats believe that we need to be doing all we can to assist people in undertaking education. This will reduce the income of a significant number of people by $30 a fortnight for a reason that seems fairly flimsy to me. The Democrats will be joining Senator Harris of One Nation in opposing this schedule.12:29:008623Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I must say that I am a bit torn on this proposal. I think it is fair to say that the Labor Party accept that there is a sound basis for the sort of approach the government has adopted. If you look at the Austudy pensioner education supplement that the payment is being based on in terms of the study load, it has a basic logic to it—that the commitment given to study will be dependent, and the costs associated with it will be dependent, in part on the amount of study undertaken. So we have an inclination to say that there is some sense to that. We obviously have had a great deal of criticism of the government's approach in terms of support for sole parents and the cuts to JET and what we see as the government's under-utilisation of work in that regard.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—There has been an expansion of JET—it has been expanded.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—You made early budget cuts to JET, Minister. As I understand it, Centrelink is not meeting its targets for the number of participants in the scheme, after the government's cutbacks. So we do think the government needs to do better in support for sole parents who are making the transition from welfare to work. The Labor Party is concerned to have a much better strategy for that transition, particularly for sole parents, so I have some sympathies with the concerns raised about this being a measure that seems to be cost cutting rather than achieving any great benefit for those seeking to undertake study.On balance, the Labor Party has agreed to support the government's position because of the rationale of having the allowance based on a connection with the amount of study undertaken—that is, a payment that is made in recognition of the costs associated with that study. I think Senator Bartlett raised a question which I was going to raise that I would appreciate the minister answering, and that is the question about the disability support pension and why that is treated differently. I would like to understand the government's rationale for that. It is clear in the explanatory memorandum that that is exempted and I am not quite sure that I understand why. The minister adds that there is also a second exemption for veterans. I think it would be useful, both for me and for the record, for the government to explain the rationale for that. On balance, the Labor opposition will not be opposing the schedule.12:32:008623Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Essentially, the thinking behind the exemptions was that it is often very difficult for people with disabilities to undertake a full-time study load. From memory—I could not vouch for this for certain because it is a while since I looked at the detail of this—a fairly small proportion of people who had disabilities were taking a full-time load, and this was coupled with the fact that they usually have greater costs in accessing a service like education. I think that was the main reason for the exemptions.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—And the veterans?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I think part of the rationale there was largely that they tend to be older people who also frequently have problems with mobility. It concerned only those veterans who were recipients of the invalidity service pension or invalidity income support supplement paid under the veterans' act. So it was very much focused on people's invalidity.12:34:008623Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—It is pleasing to note Senator Newman's recognition of the impact of the workload on carers and single parents, but I would still like to highlight the outcome of what the government are intending to do. First of all, in reality, it is going to become a disincentive to people who have this heavy workload of caring for their children or a close relative to embark on these educational programs. As a result of that, in the long term the costs will be greater to the government. If they had provided this extra assistance to these people and helped them to be able to further their education while they were carers or while they were single parents, these people would be in a far better position to enter the work force at the end of that period. I believe that, while the government may be making some short-term gain in implementing this reduction, in actuality they are creating a higher cost in the long term.It is therefore very difficult to understand the rationale and the compassion of the government in reducing this payment to these people. They obviously need all the incentives that we can give to assist them to keep up with the changes in technology. These changes are immense now and I believe they will continue to have a more substantial impact on a person's ability to become re-employed. Therefore, I believe the government is, in actuality, being short-sighted in moving this reduction in assistance.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—The question is that schedule 10 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to government amendment No. 17 on sheet FC206 revised.Amendment (by Senator Newman) agreed to:(17) Page 107 (after line 6), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 12—Administrative provisionsSocial Security Act 19911 At the end of Chapter 2 Add:Part 2.27—Early payment of first instalment of social security benefit1061ZAAR Early payment of first instalment of social security benefit (1) If, after the commencement of this section: (a) the Secretary determines: (i) that a claim by a person for a social security benefit is to be granted; or (ii) that a social security benefit is payable to a person under a resumption of payment provision; and (b) the Secretary is satisfied that, if the person is required to wait until the end of: (i) the first instalment period in relation to the benefit; or (ii) the first instalment period in relation to the benefit after the resumption of payment of the benefit; for payment of an instalment, the person will suffer severe financial hardship; the Secretary may determine that a specified amount is to be paid to the person in advance. (2) An amount paid to a person under subsection (1) is taken to be an advance payment of part of the first instalment payable to the person after the grant of the claim or the resumption of payment of the social security benefit, as the case may be. (3) In this section: resumption of payment provision means section 408NG, 510G, 565E, 590E, 660J, 660YJP, 728P, 766 or 771NQ.2 At the end of Part 3.13 Add:1159A Early claim for social security pension or benefit (1) If: (a) a detained person makes a claim for a social security pension or benefit; and (b) the person is not, on the day on which the claim is made, qualified for the pension or benefit; and (c) the person becomes qualified for the pension or benefit within 21 days after the claim is made; the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person is qualified for the pension or benefit. (2) The following subsections and section do not apply to a detained person: (a) 48(2) and 46(3); (b) 106(2) and 100(3); (c) 152(2) and 150(3); (d) 203(2) and 201(3); (e) 322(2) and 318(3); (f) 369(2) and 366(3); (g) 408DA(2) and 408CC(4); (h) 501(2) and 500K(4); (i) 554(2); (j) 579(2); (k) 635(2); (l) 660XCC(3); (m) 660XDA(2); (n) 660YCC(4); (o) 660YDA(2); (p) 699(2); (q) 740(2); (r) 771IA(2) and 771HN(3A); (s) 789(2) and 784(3). (3) In this section: detained person means a person who: (a) is in gaol; or (b) is undergoing psychiatric confinement because he or she has been charged with committing an offence.1159B Grant of social security pension, benefit or crisis payment (1) The Secretary must determine that a claim for a social security pension, social security benefit or crisis payment is to be granted if the Secretary is satisfied that: (a) the claimant: (i) is in gaol; or (ii) is undergoing psychiatric confinement because he or she has been charged with committing an offence; and (b) the claimant is expected: (i) to be in gaol or psychiatric confinement for at least 14 days; and (ii) to be released within 21 days after the day on which the claim is made; and (c) the claimant is expected to be qualified for the pension, benefit or crisis payment immediately after the claimant's release from gaol or confinement, whether or not the claimant is qualified at the time the claim is made; and (d) the pension, benefit or crisis payment is expected to be payable to the claimant immediately after the claimant's release from gaol or confinement.1159C Early payment of social security pension, benefit or crisis payment to person in gaol or confinement (1) If: (a) a claim for a social security pension, social security benefit or crisis payment is granted because of section 1159B; and (b) the Secretary thinks it necessary to pay the pension, benefit or crisis payment before the claimant is released from gaol or confinement in order to ensure that the claimant, on release, will not suffer severe financial hardship; the Secretary may determine that a specified amount is to be paid to the person before the person's release. (2) Subsection (1) has effect in spite of section 41. (3) An amount paid under a determination under subsection (1) in relation to a claim for a pension or benefit is not to exceed the amount that, in the Secretary's opinion, would be the total of the amounts payable to the person for the first 7 days on which the pension or benefit is payable to the person. (4) An amount paid under subsection (1) in relation to a claim for a pension or benefit is taken to be a payment of the instalment or instalments, or of that part of the instalment or instalments, that relate to the days referred to in subsection (3). (5) An amount paid to a person under subsection (1) in relation to a claim for a crisis payment is taken to be a payment of the crisis payment.1159D Early payment of first instalment of social security pension or benefit to person after release from gaol or confinement (1) If, after the commencement of this section, a person is released from gaol or from psychiatric confinement that the person was undergoing because he or she had been charged with committing an offence, and: (a) either while the person was in gaol or psychiatric confinement, or within 7 days after the person's release, the person claims a social security pension or benefit; and (b) the Secretary determines that a claim by the person for a social security pension or benefit is to be granted; and (c) the Secretary is satisfied that, if the person is required to wait until the end of the first instalment period in relation to the pension or benefit for payment of an instalment, the person will suffer severe financial hardship; the Secretary may determine that a specified amount is to be paid to the person in advance. (2) If, after the commencement of this section, a person is released from gaol or from psychiatric confinement that the person was undergoing because he or she had been charged with committing an offence, and: (a) the Secretary determines that a social security pension or benefit is payable to the person under a resumption of payment provision; and (b) the Secretary is satisfied that, if the person is required to wait until the end of the first instalment period in relation to the pension or benefit after the resumption of payment of the pension or benefit for payment of an instalment, the person will suffer severe financial hardship; the Secretary may determine that a specified amount is to be paid to the person in advance. (3) An amount paid under a determination under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a claim or a resumption of payment determination is not to exceed the amount that, in the Secretary's opinion, would be the total of the amounts payable to the person for the first 7 days on which the pension or benefit is payable to the person. (4) An amount paid under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a claim for a pension or benefit or a resumption of payment determination is taken to be a payment of the instalment or instalments, or of that part of the instalment or instalments, that relate to the days referred to in subsection (3). (5) In this section: resumption of payment provision means section 79, 146C, 183, 232, 353, 401, 408NG, 510G, 565E, 590E, 660J, 660XJO, 660YJP, 728P, 766, 771NQ or 819.3 After subsection 1223(1) Insert:(1AA) Subject to subsection (1AB), subsection (1) does not apply to a payment made under section 1159C.(1AB) If a person to whom a payment under section 1159C has been made is not released from gaol or psychiatric confinement on the person's expected release day, subsection (1AA) does not apply to the person.(1AC) A day is a person's expected release day for the purposes of subsection (1AB) if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person will be released from gaol or psychiatric confinement on that day.4 After subsection 1223AA(1BA) Insert: (1C) If: (a) a payment of a pension, benefit or crisis payment has been made to a person under section 1159C; and (b) immediately after the release of the person from gaol or psychiatric confinement: (i) the person was not qualified for the pension, benefit or crisis payment; or (ii) although the person was qualified for the pension, benefit or crisis payment, the pension, benefit or crisis payment was not payable to the person; the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth.5 Application—claims(1) Section 1159A of the Social Security Act 1991 as in force immediately after the commencement of this Schedule does not apply in relation to a claim made before the commencement of this Schedule.(2) Section 1159B of the Social Security Act 1991 as in force immediately after the commencement of this Schedule applies in relation to a claim whether the claim is made before or after the commencement of this Schedule.6 Application—section 1161If: (a) before the commencement of this Schedule, a person is released from gaol, or from psychiatric confinement that the person was undergoing because he or she had been charged with committing an offence, after spending at least 7 days in gaol or such confinement; and (b) the person claims widow allowance, youth allowance, austudy payment, newstart allowance, sickness allowance, partner allowance, or mature age allowance under Part 2.12B, within 7 days after being released; and (c) the claim is made after the commencement of this Schedule; and (d) the claim is granted; section 1161 of the Social Security Act 1991 as in force immediately before the commencement of this Schedule applies to the rate of the benefit or allowance claimed by the person.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to government amendment No. 1 on sheet FC206 revised.Amendment (by Senator Newman) agreed to:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 19) to page 2 (line 2), omit subclauses (2) to (4), substitute:(2) Schedule 1 commences on 1 April 2000.(3) Item 2 and items 8 to 52 of Schedule 2 commence on 20 March 2000.(4) Schedules 4 and 12 commence on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent or 1 October 1999, whichever is the later.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I understand that the Democrats amendment to clause 2 will not be proceeded with, because of the carrying of an earlier amendment which makes that redundant.Bill, as amended, agreed to, with requests.Bill reported with amendments and requests; report adopted.Committees8627862710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—The Deputy President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Appropriations and Staffing—Standing Committee— Appointed: Senator Bourne Discharged: Senator AllisonEconomics References Committee— Participating member: Senator Cook for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office Substitute member: Senator Sherry to replace Senator Cook for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Faulkner to replace Senator Ray till 19 December 1999Finance and Public Administration References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Allison to replace Senator Murray for the committee's inquiry into Australian Public Service employment mattersRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Calvert to replace Senator Ferris on 1 October 1999 for the committee's inquiry into the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory regimes governing the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the administrative procedures and decision-making processes involved in its decision to allow the importation of salmonRural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Mason to replace Senator Ferris for the committee's inquiry into the development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway.Matters of Public Interest862710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being almost 12.45 p.m., I call on matters of public interest.862712:40:008627Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—Today I propose to speak in a continuing debate on the topic of regional development in Australia. When I last spoke on this area, I was speaking about the need for us to move to a system in this country where regions are given assistance to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. The research shows that, rather than top-down assistance on a massive scale as we saw under the Whitlam government with the creation of the failed growth centres concept, what will work a lot better across regional Australia—and in particular in smaller centres which are struggling in such difficult economic circumstances—is an approach where their leadership is developed and honed towards growing their own economies. The role of government in that case is one of assisting that leadership and those attributes of a particular area to develop.Last time I was talking about the town of Walcha on the New England in New South Wales and how government decisions, state and federal, could mean the difference between the death of that town and dynamic, robust growth. Today I want to start by talking about another small centre, Hamilton, in western Victoria, before going on to looking at a wider region. I visited this area several weeks ago at the invitation of David Hawker who is the member for Wannon. He wanted me to visit in particular the educational facilities in his area. However, I actually managed to get an overview of the area. It is a very interesting contrast to see the ways in which different types of government assistance over time have impacted on the western Victorian district.One of the major intervention impacts was in the early 1980s when the then government supported the establishment of the Alcoa aluminium smelter in that region at Portland. The problem with that project was that the government had taken power from the eastern Gippsland area and taken it right across to western Victoria. It was good for regional development in that area, but it raises a question about major government intervention if it then creates a situation that might put a particularly large company at some economic risk.What people have to understand about the aluminium smelting process is that aluminium is really just solid electricity. There is so much power going into smelting aluminium that the best and most efficient place to put the smelter is very close to the power stations. The reason why the fourth largest aluminium plant in the world is at Tomago in Newcastle is that there are an enormous number of power stations in that area. Down in Hamilton and in that area in western Victoria we had that type of government intervention, but we really need to develop more than that. Governments cannot save the economy of those regions by constantly putting in large projects because often those larger projects employ only a few hundred people. What we need is a more dynamic, sustainable, grassroots, bottoms-up type approach to support the economy in these areas.I went to have a look at what Hamilton had going for it. It was, in the past, a major wool area in this country. I have been to a number of wool areas; they all seem to claim that they are the home of the world's finest wool, and Hamilton was no exception. But of course the wool industry has fallen on hard times, and in a lot of the wool-growing areas and on a lot of grazing land they are growing blue gum timber. It is a very fast growing timber and gets to full maturity in 12 years. That industry employs people when you plant the trees and it employs people when you cut them down, but it does not employ many people in between. So they need to look at their strengths in this small area—this town of 10,000.When I met with the people there—I met with the community leaders the night before and then did inspections the next day—I discovered that Hamilton has a tremendous capacity in the area of education. Not only has it got excellent high schools but also it has an excellent interface between education and the rural industry. It has set up training and extension programs for agriculture that not only serve western Victoria but also serve the whole of Australia. The programs are growing out of that area. The RMIT university has established a centre there for the work and projects of the university which could be extended a lot further to provide education on a more comprehensive basis for people in western Victoria. Other universities have set up campuses on such a basis in some of the smaller centres, and when speaking to the people at RMIT we really encouraged them to do further work in that area.But the fascinating thing about education in that area is the high schools. The high schools in that region are unique in that one is a boarding school—the last one west of Melbourne, so it certainly has a comparative advantage there—and there is a range of high quality private schools. I met with all the principals—again, with the local member, David Hawker—and that seemed to be a necessary catalyst. It was an idea they had thought about for some time, but when we had the meeting all the ideas they had seemed to jell in a cooperative arrangement. So they are going to do cooperative things in marketing, particularly marketing themselves to other countries as an area in regional Australia you can come to to get a high quality high school education and then move on to university. They are also looking at cost sharing in a number of ways, such as across the three schools in subjects that are not in particularly high demand. A number of the languages come to mind: different campuses could offer different languages and then students from the different campuses could, say, attend Indonesian or German or whatever the language class was. You would then get a critical mass in terms of size of class. They are looking at some of the economies in that area. It is a matter of these smaller areas identifying their strengths and then growing those strengths.I want to move now to a contrasting area. The resource base of the western Victorian area, particularly Hamilton, was fairly light in terms of its diversity. I will move on to one that has terrific diversity and potential, but it has lost many jobs: I refer to the Upper Hunter. With the downsizing of BHP there has been a major focus—by state and federal governments and all sorts of groups—on the Lower Hunter and what is happening there. But in the Upper Hunter there are major problems because of the number of ways in which its economy is adjusting and shifting. It is a very strong economy but it is going through a lot of technological change and a lot of adjustments to our competitive market position.I want to briefly move through the strengths of the Upper Hunter and the way in which industry is going. Its primary driving force is coal. Coal in the Hunter and the Upper Hunter has a terrifically bright future. This is shown by the fact that the coal loader at Newcastle has been expanded. They would not put $90 million into a new coal loader if they did not think we were going to have increased production. Production will increase, but what is happening is that new mines are opening up and are creating employment but they are high-tech operations and they do not employ as many as the older mines used to employ, and in this highly competitive coal market some of the older, less efficient mines in the same area are shutting down. So you have got mines opening up and mines shutting down, and the net effect is on employment in that, because of high-tech procedures, you have got a drop in the work force.The second area—and it feeds off the coal mines—is power generation. There are two major power plants in the Upper Hunter, including the very high-tech Bayswater Power Station. Again, power has moved into a competitive market. We are competing particularly with Victoria. One of the effects of creating greater efficiencies in a power station—this has occurred in the last 18 months—is that the number of people it used to take to manage one power station now manage two. The work force has gone from 1,400 to 700 in that time. So that competitive market we have in Australia which is driving down power prices and improving the economy has an effect which we have got to take very much into account—the fact that a smaller, more efficient work force creates an employment problem for us.The third area—and I now am moving on to areas where government can actually make a bit of a difference—is the area of forestry and timber. The regional forest agreements, RFAs, that have been brought in by the Carr government are shutting down major timber towns across the Hunter Valley—towns like Dungog, places like Bulahdelah. The focus of quite a number of towns was the timber industry and sawmills in those towns. The way the RFAs have been set up means there is not a sufficient supply of timber for many of those towns, and already the mills are shutting down and people are losing their jobs.This is something that, if we got the balance right in terms of sustainable development in timber, we could actually change. People in the Gloucester area in the Hunter Valley have told me, for example, that they had it set up in such a way that they could log timber and not have to return to the same coup for 200 years. That is a sustainable system. But, for some strange reason, in the RFA process in the Gloucester area they locked up so much timber that it has not become viable for that area—something the state governments certainly could do something about in terms of jobs.The other area that has been a victim of changing technology and changing markets in the Upper Hunter has been the abattoirs. A high-tech abattoir has been developed at Scone, and that is expanding and doing well. The nearby town of Aberdeen had an older, more inefficient abattoir, which closed with the loss of 450 jobs. This is a one-company town. This was the major job generator in Aberdeen. The state government has tried to come in to assist in various ways, but that abattoir is going to remain closed.The state government, which has the primary responsibility for regional development, has had great difficulty in responding in an area of very rapid technological change and very rapidly changing markets. We have in the Hunter the Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development, Richard Face. He set up a beyond 2000 Upper Hunter committee which has been running for two years and was publicised widely in the news a few weeks ago. When asked the basic question, `How many new jobs has the committee generated?' his answer was, `None in that area.' That was a very disappointing outcome.One area that has some hope in the Upper Hunter—and it has tended to have some fluctuations over time—is where federal government involvement occurs with the large military base at Singleton. When I went up to meet the mayors and the general managers I heard that there had been a reduction in activity at the base. But we do have the results before us now of what is actually happening at Singleton, and I am pleased to report that the actual number of training days—because Singleton is a training base—the number of personnel involved, the amount spent, all of those things, are very much on the up at the moment. Given the current military situation, I think that is likely to continue. So, there is that base underlying the Upper Hunter.The meeting I had with the mayors and with the general managers discussed quite a number of projects. We had a look at some big projects that are coming into the area. The conclusion that we reached, really, was that these create jobs in the hundreds; what is needed is jobs in the thousands. We are only going to get that through involvement and development of small business in that area. In my next speech in this area I will continue with that story.863012:55:008630Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—We can look forward to instalment No. 3 in the ongoing saga. I would just like to say to Senator Tierney that I think he is committed—and his aspirations are certainly laudable—in relation to regional development. Certainly we on this side of the chamber would agree that the role of governments is to assist regional Australia. We give them a hand up, not a handout. However, Senator Tierney's aspirations may well be somewhat truncated and limited by the empirical actions of the federal government in this area as exemplified by what I would like to talk about today with regard to what happened in Victoria on Saturday.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—That was interesting.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—It was very interesting, indeed. Probably Senator Tierney and others on the other side of the chamber would have had the degree of prescience necessary to predict it. Certainly Mr Anderson did make a statement several months ago in which he talked about two nations. I think many members of the opposition were concerned about what was going to happen in Victoria. However, from the federal government's perspective, nothing happened in terms of altering the policy paradigm in that respect.On this historic day, 18 September, the Victorian electorate delivered a very clear message to not only the Kennett government but also the coalition government in terms of rejecting an archaic and outdated approach to regional development policy, something which most of the Western world has rejected. Labor's regional development policy included worthwhile initiatives, such as Working Nation. Regional Victorians said they had had enough of being ignored. They had had enough of being bullied and enough of being completely cut out of the loop in terms of industry regional development employment initiatives. They said enough is enough.Anybody with even a passing or cursory interest in the Victorian result—which I imagine would be everybody in the federal parliament and in many state governments and oppositions—could not fail to note the reality of what happened in regional Victoria. Regional Victorians quite clearly voted against the Kennett government and its urban-centric policies. When I say `urban-centric', I do not actually mean `urban development'. I am actually talking about a piecemeal approach to urban development—which we also would not support; we support synergy between regional development policy and urban policy—that was clearly a policy failure.The Kennett government's policies were based on economic rationalism taken to absurd lengths. They took the voters for granted. When the voters voted the way they did on Saturday, they knew precisely what they were doing. I think it is sad that coalition senators, such as Senator Alston, have responded in this chamber by saying, `It was a protest vote. Look who they voted for. Perhaps they woke up on Sunday and wished they had changed their vote.' People in Victoria knew what they were voting for. If you actually have a look at the voting patterns, unusually for state elections, they did not park their vote with the minor parties. They went straight from the coalition to Labor. That was a very clear message. It was not a protest vote; it was a vote for Labor policies. They were clearly sick and tired of the Kennett government's policies, and there is no doubt—I think it has been successively shown by a number of elections—that they are also very concerned about, and sick and tired of, the federal coalition's policies.The policies of the federal and Victorian state government contributed to high unemployment in Victoria. After seven years of conservative government, 140,000 jobs had been created in Melbourne and only 10,000 in the rest of Victoria—something not lost on regional Victorians.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—How many have been lost, though, as well?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I will get to that, Senator Woodley. There have been massive reductions in state services. For seven years, regional Victorians have endured cuts to health, education and other community services with no real tangible benefit, from their perspective. The government promised imposition of new fees and charges for infrastructure in areas such as regional roads and Catchment Management Authority taxes.The Victorian result showed that governments who ignore regional communities do so at their own peril. In fact, in my own state of Tasmania—which is also your state, Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry—that was very clearly shown in the result in the last federal election, which was a vote from regional Australia sending a message to the coalition government.Under the coalition government, regional communities have been forced to make large sacrifices for the sake of what is termed `economic responsibility' by economic rationalists and yet they have not seen any real major benefits—the benefits have been minor. Voters in Victoria—and those in the rest of Australia, I suspect, are currently feeling the same—have said they are simply not prepared to put up with it any more. They want a hand up, not a handout. It is important to have policies that provide a hand up, and that is what we are missing. There is a policy vacuum.The federal government has to take greater notice of the issues facing regional communities. It is simply not possible anymore to transfer policies designed for metropolitan communities to regional areas and hope that no-one notices. There is an absolute truth in the axiom that the problems facing regional Australia are the same but the solutions for regional communities are different. That is the bottom line here and something that was completely lost in terms of the Victorian election. Regional communities expect and deserve elected representatives who will represent their concerns and interests. They demand and deserve policies that respond to their circumstances in a direct way, acknow ledging that there are exigencies in regional Australia with respect to economic and social conditions and that policies are required to target those exigencies.One policy which has done untold damage to regional communities is the omnipresent competition policy—not national competition policy in the broad, I hasten to say, because national competition policy does have benefits for everybody, from the big end of town to small rural communities. It is the way it is implemented that is the bottom line here. There is nothing wrong with providing services in an efficient and cost-effective way that has benefits for service providers and for the community. Like a lot of things, NCP delivered wrongly also has major costs. We have yet to see a balanced approach taken with regard to national competition policy to ensure that the community can benefit. Time does not permit me to go into that, but at a later stage—along with Senator Tierney—I will do a stage 2 which will deal with national competition policy specifically. A lot of it is in relation to how it is interpreted and how it has been mismanaged since the original intention of the policy introduced under Labor.In Victoria, the Kennett government has taken competition policy to the absolute extreme. Mr Kennett used national competition policy as a smokescreen to implement what was clearly an ideological agenda—an agenda which has been shown, since Saturday, to be thoroughly rejected by the Victorian electorate. His view was that the power of the market ought to reign supreme, sweeping aside any balanced discussion of the impact on regional communities, benefits and associated costs.NCP in Victoria has become synonymous with compulsory competitive tendering and contracting out. CCT is based on the idea of introducing competition to service provision, with the aim of finding the most efficient service provider. Local government has been particularly hard hit in terms of being at the forefront in relation to compulsory competitive tendering, given the plethora of services it provides. These services have been exposed directly to competition policy, which has resulted in major redundancies and contracting out.The ASU—the Australian Services Union—has estimated that 15,000 jobs, Senator Woodley, in local government in Victoria have effectively been contracted out. Of these 15,000 jobs, 5,000 have been filled by private contracts, which leaves a final loss of 10,000 jobs. Half of these 10,000 jobs—5,000—are in regional Victoria. I can imagine that those figures may well be replicated across the board. You can imagine—as Senator Woodley and Senator O'Brien know—the impact that job losses have on small regional communities and the impact on the sense of pride of small communities. Job losses are not the only cost that has been associated with CCT. A recent study by the Victorian University of Technology unearthed the following costs: significant cost increases associated with the tendering process, often outweighing the proposed savings that are supposed to emerge from CCT; the breakdown of important service synergies like the loss of local knowledge, well-established relationships, informed helping networks and a general sense of community, which is something that regional Australia is very concerned about; the destruction of worker morale and job commitment—people in local communities develop relationships with people who provide services and, when the contracting out occurs on a willy-nilly basis, this is lost; and the loss of information sharing and collaborative participation, particularly in the area of human services. These costs are significant but, here again, that is what the economic rationalist says. What we need to do is have a look at the human face of the costs in terms of service provision.As I said before, local government has been forced to carry the costs of CCT in Victoria. There have been some benefits but there have been major downsides, particularly in the area of human services. A survey in 1996 by the Loddon, Buloke and Towong shires of 38 non-metro councils found that 50 per cent of local government respondents reported no savings from CCT at all; 75 per cent of respondents said that CCT had been a net cost to councils. Yet in recent weeks local govern ment has again been forced into a position of uncertainty and caution, this time by the predictable flow-over from the first wave of the federal government's industrial relations laws.What has happened as a result of this is that a major anomaly has emerged in relation to CCT that has meant that workers doing identical work could be paid different rates, based on outsourcing and the competitiveness of individual tenders. In effect, local government outsourcing has seen a transfer of work activities from the council to private contractors, usually on a lower wage and usually with worse conditions. This is despite the government's claim that no worker will be worse off in relation to this. That is yet another blatant breach, Mr Acting Deputy President—which is no surprise to you or me—of the no-disadvantage test and something which we clearly pointed out in the discussions on the first wave.The Federal Court, as we predicted again, has been forced to come in, clarify and clean up another major anomaly in the first wave industrial relations legislation. Recent decisions by the Federal Court have reinforced the finding that outsourcing did involve the transmission of business. Clearly, people are doing the same work when they move from a government instrumentality or a local council to a contractor. Why should they get paid less if it is the same work?This decision will impact on up to 40 contractors who deal with municipalities in Victoria alone. The situation is best illustrated with the recent example of home care workers in the Dandenong region of Melbourne. These workers, predominantly women, are a group of unsung heroes. Working in people's homes, isolated from colleagues and performing tasks requiring great compassion, these workers show a commitment and application which would put most of us to shame. Yet when the company Silver Circle won the contract from an internal work force of the Greater City of Dandenong they refused to apply the same conditions. They refused to apply the Victorian Local Government Authorities Interim Award and council's certified agreement to their work force. The 90 home care staff employed by the Greater Dandenong Council had to accept award reductions or lose their jobs. The home care staff refused and the contract was awarded to Silver Circle. Many of the employees of Silver Circle had been performing identical functions but were receiving $2 an hour less, for no good reason whatsoever.The ASU, on behalf of its members, sought a Federal Court order forcing Silver Circle to pay its employees the council's and not the inferior conditions and wages it was offering. On 14 September, Silver Circle consented to a court order that recognised that the council award and certified agreement were predominant. Interestingly, the company put up a bit of a fight but, in the end, caved in. It knew that, as a result of a string of Federal Court actions, it had lost the case and it agreed with the ASU on the compromise. I would like to recognise the work of the ASU, particularly that of Brendon O'Connor, the assistant national secretary of the ASU, in relation to his assiduous approach to this matter and, on the broader issue of national competition policy, the other assistant secretary, Tim Lee.Obviously the shortcomings of the federal government's legislation have caused all sorts of problems for local government in Victoria. Despite having received the wrong advice, councils have acted responsibly, taking a cautious approach to future outsourcing and seeking to resolve similar cases. We are talking about up to 5,000 local government workers who are affected by this Federal Court decision. Their claims over loss of pay and conditions as a result of contracting out will amount to millions and millions of dollars—not simply in terms of the impost on the councils but also in terms of the imposts on the contractors themselves. That is an issue we need to bear in mind in terms of a commitment to small business.To conclude, here again local government has had to take the brunt of slipshod policies on industrial relations by the government and also of complete myopia by the federal government, in particular by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, who ought to be taking an interest in these matters and ought to be ensuring that industrial relations initiatives which were introduced do not impact in disparate proportion on local government, do not leave them in the lurch and do provide them with a situation where there is sufficient certainty.863413:10:008634Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Today in this debate I wish to talk about a worldwide movement known as Jubilee 2000. Recently in the Senate, Senator John Watson spoke on this issue and previously I have also mentioned it. Today I want to bring some more information to the Senate's attention. The movement Jubilee 2000 is based originally on a passage from the Hebrew scriptures in Leviticus 25 which proclaims a number of things. A contemporary version or summary of that passage in Leviticus says:You shall let the land lie fallow, that is, you shall practise Sabbath; You shall forgive debts, letting forgiveness in: You shall free captives and proclaim liberty; You shall find out what belongs to whom and give it back; You shall hold a great feast, learning to sing the canticles of "jubilate".That is a very ancient statement about a vision that the Hebrew people had of what the world would be like if we could do all of those things. But it is interesting that, perhaps almost 3,000 years later, groups as widely diverse as governments, churches and aid organisations have combined around the world to proclaim Jubilee 2000.To give the Senate an idea of how many people are involved in this movement, I will read to the Senate from an information document about the coalition that has taken off around the world:A powerful group of organisations and churches met in Washington in 1997 to launch Jubilee 2000 in the US. They include Bread for the World, Friends of the Earth, the Fifty Years is Enough campaign, the Sojourners, Witness for Peace, the Methodists, Mennonite and Presbyterian Churches, and the Catholic Bishops Conference. Jubilee 2000 in the USA is conducting a vigorous campaign to persuade members of Congress to back Jubilee 2000.It goes on:Additional to the nations already mentioned there are currently campaigns in Ireland, Ghana, Zambia, India and Kenya and we are supported by groups in Canada, France, Tanzania, New Zealand, Norway and many other countries.A central effort of the worldwide campaign is collecting signatures for the world's largest petition.I understand that upwards of 22 million signatures are being collected around the world.In Australia, the National Working Group for Jubilee 2000 has representatives from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the Social Issues Committee of the Anglican Church, the Australian Baptist World Aid, the Baptist Union of New South Wales—Social Issues Committee, the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission, the National Council of Churches, TEAR Australia, World Vision, et cetera. It is a very widespread and diverse group who have got together to attempt to proclaim, if you like, a jubilee for the year 2000.One of the issues that the Jubilee 2000 movement has taken up is world debt. This is a very critical issue for many nations in the world which have gone past any ability to repay what they owe to creditor nations. In many nations of the world, particularly the poorest nations, debt is absolutely crippling them, not only crippling them in an economic sense but causing great hardship for the populations of those countries. The Jubilee 2000 Charter proposes, amongst other things:. There is an overwhelming need for remission of the backlog of unpayable debts owed by highly indebted poor countries. Debt remission should relate to commercial, government and IMF/World Bank Debts, and debt reduction would comprehensively include all three forms of debt.. Creditors as well as debtors must accept responsibility for these high levels of indebtedness.. The remission should be a one-off, unrepeatable act, tied to the celebration of the new millennium. It would set no precedents for future loans.And so it goes on. There is already amongst many of the creditor nations movement through the United Nations for the highest indebted countries to have some relief, but this goes beyond that and seeks to get at the very real problems there are in many of the poor countries of the world.Today I want to go a little beyond what has been proclaimed in this worldwide movement because it concentrates on only one principle of Jubilee. I would suggest to the Senate that the other principles of that Jubilee ought also be included. These other principles include, for example, environmental responsibility. `Let the land lie fallow' was the old Hebrew command. Of course, that is more than simply engaging in particular agricultural practices. It goes far beyond that. It is about caring for the land in a global sense, because we understand today that that is the only way we can in fact save this earth from where it is heading if we do not begin to be far more responsible than we have been in past centuries. It is about sustainable agriculture. It is not only for Jews and Christians, for whom this command ought to be a high priority, but for all of the world's people learning to care again for the land and to be responsible.It is about freedom from slavery. I guess some people would say, `Well, we got rid of slavery a long time ago.' But we have not. There is the slavery which unemployed people know and understand and live with every day. There is the slavery which is very real around the world where millions of young people, particularly children, act and live and work as slaves. Child labour is a form of slavery.Another principle of the Jubilee speaks about the release of prisoners. One of the growth industries in Australia and in many of the developed nations is the building of prisons. We in Australia are all aware of the overrepresentation of indigenous people in our prisons. We are aware of the mandatory sentencing laws in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Particularly in the Northern Territory, those mandatory sentencing laws fall very heavily and overwhelmingly on the indigenous people of that state.I want to mention the work of a friend of mine in Brisbane, Father Dick Pascoe, who has worked tirelessly for many years to try to do something about the overrepresentation of indigenous people in prison. He has done this at great personal cost. He has been slammed in the media without any opportunity of giving a proper reply to those who have defamed him. He would be the first one to admit that not all he has done has perhaps been successful but, nevertheless, he has never given up in seeking to proclaim a Jubilee for indigenous prisoners in Queensland. He has sought, as we all ought to do, new ways of dealing with prisons and especially in dealing with proper rehabilitation, which often gets put down to the very bottom of the list when it comes to understanding the way prisons operate, especially in terms of prison budgets. We must take seriously this particular aspect of the Jubilee.The Jubilee also talks about the return of land to the original owners. We know that we have a High Court decision in Mabo which forever extinguished the doctrine of terra nullius, but it is quite clear through the mail I get that many people in Australia—many groups within Australia, many organisations within Australia—operate and speak as though Mabo never happened, as though native title does not exist. Some people complain about the cost of native title. Of course it costs. Over the last 200 years plus it has cost indigenous people an incalculable cost in the loss of land, in the loss of language, in the loss of culture, in the loss of their children, in the loss of hope and in the loss of life itself. The cost for them can never be calculated. Those of us who say that it is costing too much ought to put that cost that we presently may be faced with against the cost to the indigenous people of this country over the last 211 years. We must also commit ourselves therefore to this principle of Jubilee.These are the principles of Jubilee—not only the forgiveness of debt but freedom for slaves, the release of prisoners, to take seriously our environmental responsibility and the return of the land to the original owners. It is interesting that that very ancient Hebrew text was updated in the Christian scriptures by Jesus himself, who proclaimed his own Jubilee in exactly the same terms. What I want to say to the Senate today is that in Jubilee 2000 we have an update of 3,000 years of history of a vision which goes back that long of proclaiming to all the world a Jubilee. For the land, for those who are oppressed, for those who are in debt and for those who are in prison there is the possibility of freedom and liberty and a new way of life. In order to update and proclaim Jubilee 2000, there must be a commitment of all to proclaim that Jubilee in the land in which we live and to all the principles of Jubilee:You shall let the land lie fallow, that is, you shall practice Sabbath; You shall forgive debts, letting forgiveness in: You shall free captives and proclaim liberty; You shall find out what belongs to whom and give it back; You shall hold a great feast, learning to sing the canticles of "jubilate".863613:24:008636Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise today to speak on the matter of the constitutional referendum on the question of Australia becoming a republic. I have taken the view that, in deference to the constituents who have contacted me about this matter, I would state my position on the public record. I would like to thank those who have taken the time to communicate their views to me on this important matter and to let them know that I have thought long and hard about the issues and their ramifications for our nation's future.I commence by considering the history of the recent debate which has brought us to this referendum. In 1991 the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the University of Melbourne facilitated a constitutional centenary conference which I had the privilege of attending. The aim of the conference was to initiate debate and raise public awareness of our Constitution as we moved towards its centenary. The issues recommended for review by the constitutional conference were far broader than the single issue of the head of state and covered a range of issues including judicial independence, trial by jury, federalism, protection of rights and the impact of globalisation. The process had strong bipartisan support from the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Hewson, and the stage was set for a long-term, sensible and mature consideration of our Constitution.The whole concept of constitutional change, bubbling and simmering from a groundswell of public information, education and discourse, was something that evoked a strong kinship with our founding federationists. I did not envisage, therefore, a constitutional debate hijacked by a desperate Prime Minister Keating urgently needing to placate the Left and hoping the issue might divide conservative parties. In one fell swoop we moved from bipartisan support for a mature and extended examination of constitutional reform to the single issue of an Australian republic. By railroading the process, Paul Keating set back by years the cause of sensible and constructive debate on constitutional reform. The result has been a divisive constitutional debate and one where the broader issues of reform and community education and consultation have been lost in the `republic before 2000' hyperbole.The yes advocates make it sound very simple, but I have concerns with the proposed model. According to some, moving to a republic is a simple task of taking our copy of the Constitution and liquid papering out any and all references to the Crown, sovereign and the Governor-General and replacing them with the phrase `President of Australia'. I am highly sceptical that this can be done whilst retaining our political stability, our constitutional certainty and the soundness of our institutions. Whilst I accept that the transfer of the reserve powers to the President can be achieved through the proposed amendment, I remain unconvinced that the conventions which have governed the behaviour of our governors-general will necessarily follow.I have been profoundly disturbed by the lack of appreciation in the current debate of the values imparted by the concept of the Crown within our parliamentary democracy. An examination of our history shows an evolving Australian concept of the Crown which takes the lessons of European history and adapts them to the unique demands of the Australian nation. This ever-evolving Australian concept of the Crown has guaranteed the dignity and freedom of Australians since our inception as a nation.Contrary to the easy rhetoric of the republicans, the notion of the Crown in the Australian Constitution is far more than just the person of Elizabeth II. Over the centuries with the passage of time, war, regicide and heated debate has evolved the Westminster system and the constitutional monarchy. The role of the Crown has not only survived but also evolved to become the foundation for a system of democracy which is stable and sound. The Crown has been a solidifying and unifying institution in the Australian Constitution and is removed from the influence of politics and partiality. Yet too often the Crown and the protection it provides to our citizens are disregarded in favour of a confused, simplistic and sometimes petty discussion of the person of the Queen and her heirs.Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch who represents the human face of the Crown, just as the Governor-General represents the Queen in Australia. The role of the Governor-General has been a role that has evolved since its inception in 1901. Since 1965 all governors-general have been Australian citizens. The way in which they have seen their role in modern Australia has been different for each Governor-General, but the evolution and the transformation of the role has been a consistent and common feature.The Governor-General is entrusted with all the reserve powers of the constitutional monarch. Too often in this debate, the reserve powers have been brushed aside as a technical matter or treated like a nuisance or, at worst, characterised as somehow being undemocratic. The reserve powers are the invisible hand of our constitutional monarchy, regulating the behaviour of those who exercise power over the citizenry and ensuring flexibility in times of crisis. That is what I would emphasise, so I will say it again: the reserve powers are the invisible hand of our constitutional monarchy, regulating the behaviour of those who exercise power over the citizenry and ensuring flexibility in times of crisis.It is disingenuous to seek to disentangle the reserve powers from the historical context from which they evolved. We cannot guarantee that, with a stroke of the referendum pen, these conventions will transfer from the old Constitution to the new. We cannot guarantee that a President would be guided by centuries of law and convention which have evolved over a long time. Nor can we guarantee that the tenets of the Westminster system and the inherent impartiality of our present head of state will transfer to a President without diminution. I do not believe that there has been enough debate on the issue of reserve powers and the proposed transferral of these powers to the President, and this is because of what I believe to be a Cinderella mentality—a determined push by sections of the community to achieve constitutional change before the clock strikes midnight on 31 December 1999.A constitution is a living and breathing document that is the essence of the people who live under its laws, institutions and values. Those who argue that to value the current constitutional system is to be out of date or to belong to a bygone era of Mother England are missing the reality that the Australian constitutional monarchy—with its unique Australian understanding of the Crown—is modern, relevant and evolving. The Statute of Westminster in 1942 and the Australia Acts in 1986 both demonstrate the manner in which the Constitution has adapted and evolved and can continue to adapt and evolve without sacrificing our stability of process and the strength of our institutions.For nearly 100 years, Australia has functioned as one of the most modern, relevant and inclusive democracies in the world. Without civil war or widespread national division, our Constitution has accommodated great social and political change with only minimal constitutional hiccups. The guarantee of freedom, dignity and the rule of law which the Crown extends to all Australian citizens has drawn millions of migrants to our shores and improved the quality of life of succeeding generations of Australians, regardless of their country of origin. For these reasons, I will be voting no to a republic in the referendum on 6 November 1999.In closing, I would like to make the point that I consider that one of the more disappointing aspects of the debate thus far has been the level of personal vitriol generated by some with opposing views. I do not pretend to be the fount of all wisdom on the issue, neither do I wish to enter into personal attacks on those who have taken a different view. I do not intend to enter into that sort of debate and would like to put on the record my respect for those who have given a great deal of thought to this issue and have been willing to put their views into the public arena, many of whom differ from me in their views. It may well be that history will judge me to have been overly cautious. If the Australian people choose to move to a republic on 6 November, I will commit myself to working hard to ensure a strong and successful Australian republic.863813:33:008638O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The matter I want to talk about today does not deal with the republic at all but deals with public accountability. This government keeps talking about its commitment to reduce the charges it imposes on industry, and that is an appropriate policy objective. Government must provide services as efficiently as it can. A reduction in the costs imposed by government authorities on industries that use their services was a key policy objective of the former government. While I was not part of that government, I think I can fairly claim that both the Hawke and Keating governments were successful in their endeavours.This government has also talked about the need for transparency of the cost basis for government charges. I also agree with that commitment. It is just as important that governments not only keep charges down but also justify the basis for charges they impose.Last year, I asked a question on notice about a review that government had undertaken into the operation of Airservices Australia. That review in fact was completed in March 1998. According to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the purpose of the review was to determine what changes were needed to the structure of the authority to `facilitate the introduction of competition to the potentially commercial functions of the organisation'. I asked for a copy of that report that followed the review, but the minister, Mr Anderson, refused to release the document, as he normally does. Mr Anderson could never be accused of being a supporter of open government. In response to a question on notice, Mr Anderson said:The Government has decided not to release the report, and I am not prepared to comment on its findings and recommendations.Clearly, the endgame in all of this is the privatisation of Airservices Australia. That means the privatisation of everything, including air traffic control. The government has already attempted to privatise some air traffic services by way of regulation, but the Senate, quite rightly, blocked this move.As I said earlier, the claimed objective of the government's strategy generally and in relation to Airservices Australia in particular has been to cut costs and ensure that charges imposed on industry are transparent. It was, therefore, of some concern to me and, I am sure, the aviation industry when details of the salaries paid to managers and other staff in Airservices Australia were leaked to the media. This information was obviously leaked by someone who considers the salaries paid to some officials are difficult to justify.I was asked to comment on those alleged salaries—and I say `alleged' because I understand that the chair of Airservices Australia, Mr John Forsyth, has claimed that the schedule of salaries that has appeared in the media is not accurate. I look forward with considerable interest to Mr Forsyth releasing an accurate schedule of senior executive salaries to correct the record, if such a correction is required. In fact, I invite him to do so.It is important to note that Airservices Australia is accountable to the minister and the parliament through the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. It should also be accountable to the industry it serves and the Australian travelling public, who, through their tickets, ultimately fund its operations. That is the point I made to a journalist from the Sunday Telegraph who wrote a story about this matter. If Airservices is paying its executives very large salaries, it must be able to justify those salaries.The list of salaries paid to Airservices staff, which, as I said, somehow found its way out of that organisation and into the media, contained some very big numbers indeed. The minister has advised me that Airservices has initiated a full investigation into the leaking of the management salaries. The Manager, Corporate Security, Mr Peter Beaver, is undertaking the investigation. That inquiry was initiated by the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Pollard. Mr Anderson has advised that he expects the Beaver inquiry to be complete and a report with Mr Pollard by the end of this month. Clearly, both Minister Anderson and Airservices are very sensitive about the fact that these salary packages were made public, and one cannot be surprised at that.Some time prior to the Airservices management packages being exposed through the Sunday Telegraph, I placed on notice a question not about salary packages but about salary increases paid to Airservices executives. I asked how many increases in salaries or related benefits senior Airservices Australia officers had received since July 1995. I thank the minister for providing me with a prompt answer. I will not go through all of the information provided in that answer, but I want to highlight certain information contained in it. I might add that the answer itself generates a large number of issues, and the minister can, therefore, expect a large number of follow-up questions on the Notice Paper shortly.The Chief Executive and Managing Director, Mr Pollard, was appointed to that position in November 1995. He received a salary increase on 6 November 1996, on 6 November 1997 and again on 6 November last year. I will be interested to see if Mr Pollard receives a further increase in his salary on 6 November this year. The minister refuses to tell the parliament the quantum of each of these increases. According to the list of salaries that I referred to earlier, Mr Pollard currently earns $329,000 a year. I assume, again, that Mr Forsyth will correct this number if it is wrong.The General Manager, Corporate and Employee Relations received a pay rise on 1 July 1996 and another one on 14 May 1997, after what is described by the minister as a scope change. On 1 July 1997, just 47 days later, the General Manager, Corporate and Employee Relations received another salary increase. Then he received another increase on 1 July last year. The basis of all these increases, according to Mr Anderson, was independent advice from Mercers Cullen Egan Dell, the average weekly ordinary time earnings index and a performance appraisal by the Chief Executive Officer. The final decision of salary increases for this position rests with Mr Pollard, not with the board of Airservices. According to the list, this position currently attracts a salary of $256,214.The position of General Manager, Air Traffic received a pay rise on 1 July 1996, 14 May 1997, 1 July 1997 and 1 July last year. The basis for the increases, according to Mr Anderson, was, again, independent advice from Mercers Cullen Egan Dell, the average weekly ordinary time earnings index and a performance appraisal by the Chief Executive Officer. Again, it was Mr Pollard who had the final say on whether or not a salary increase was granted.The General Manager, Planning and Development has also done very nicely. She received a pay increase on 1 July 1995, 1 July 1996, 1 July 1997 and 1 July 1998. According to the list I referred to earlier, she currently receives $276,229 per annum. In the context of these salaries, it is salutary to recall that, as I understand it, the Prime Minister's salary is in the vicinity of $205,000.My understanding of the workplace relations regime under this government is that increases in salaries must be directly linked with increases in productivity. That is the key objective, as I understand it, of the Workplace Relations Act. But the increases in salaries paid to managers in Airservices Australia appear to be based largely on increases in average weekly earnings and an index provided by Mercers Cullen Egan Dell, which I understand to be related to surveys of executive salaries—in other words, so-called comparative wage justice, something that is not available to the ordinary work force.These increases appear to be locked in. They are granted on the same date each year. Accountability, in terms of an appraisal of the performance of these managers and the basis of increased salaries based on productivity gains, apparently rests entirely with the Chief Executive Officer. His only obligation is to consult with the Airservices board in relation to the principles that apply to salary packages. I asked the minister whether there was any obligation on Airservices Australia to advise the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business of the quantum and basis for each salary increase. Mr Anderson advised no, even though Airservices is a government authority. He said this was not a requirement on Airservices Australia.So what we appear to have—and the government can clarify this issue quite easily by telling the parliament how much these senior public servants are paid and what the quantum of increases in their salaries has been since July 1995—is a process of remuneration in Airservices that is not open to any sort of scrutiny at all, and it is the industry, and therefore ultimately the travelling public, who must pay the cost.I remind the Senate that earlier this year the government increased the avgas and avtur levies, despite having made promises to reduce them. According to the government, the additional funding was to meet the shortfall in the aviation industry's contribution to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's aviation safety programs. The reality is that CASA had overspent, and the government simply went back to the industry and extracted more money from it to meet the shortfall. The government also imposed a temporary surcharge on all aviation fuels. What for? To boost the Airservices budget. The government blamed the Senate for the increased levy because it would not allow the government to privatise air traffic services. That, I might say, was little more than a crude attempt to link a budget shortfall with an issue of public safety.In conclusion, I will quote the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. In his 1999 corporate affairs oration, he quoted Milton Friedman:In a free enterprise, private property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business . . . in so far as his actions, in accord with his social responsibility, reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. In so far as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customer's money. In so far as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Milton Friedman said that? 8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—That was indeed the Prime Minister quoting Milton Friedman. One only need reflect on that statement when wondering just why we do not get more information on this situation. This is about accountability—accountability of Airservices Australia to this parliament and, through that, accountability to the aviation industry and the travelling public, who must pay the bills.Sitting suspended from 1.47 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice864086408640Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Is it not the case that, by retaining the R&D tax concession of 125 per cent while reducing the company tax rate to 30 per cent, the government has cut the real value of the R&D tax concession by one-sixth? Given the substantial falls in business expenditure on R&D since your 1996 cut to the R&D tax concession, did your department make any assessment of the implications for business expenditure on R&D of this further cut in the value of R&D tax concession? Will the minister release any such assessment?8640Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—When we came into government we found we had a $10,000 million deficit and massive debt. We also found that we had significant rorting of the R&D tax concession involved in the process of syndication. Unlike the Labor Party, which sat around for 13 years doing nothing, we acted when we came to office both to correct the problems in the deficit and to remove the rorting involved in syndication. That involved a cut in the R&D tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. It was a necessary action to ensure the sharing of the burden of dealing with Labor's incredibly irresponsible approach to the deficit.I might point out that it costs $300 million annually to restore the 150 per cent tax concession. Labor has not made any attempt to indicate how on earth they are going to find $300 million to put the tax concession back up to 150 per cent. They just blandly say, `Put it back to 150 per cent.' Nowhere do they say how that is going to be paid for.What we have done is to provide to business the most fantastic reforms of business tax ever in this country, something Labor did not do in its 13 years. We are reducing the company tax rate to 30 per cent—one of the lowest tax rates in our region and one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the developed world. That of itself will provide a very significant incentive to engage in R&D expenditure. I need only quote to you, Senator Conroy, Tony Cutcliff of the Institution of Engineers on the impact of business tax reform. He said:The business tax reform will result in a rush of foreign money into high technology, more local R&D, more jobs for engineers, a halt to the brain drain and a healthier, more certain climate for domestic investment in start-up companies.Mr John Mullarvey, Executive Director of the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee, said:The lowering of the company tax rate to 30 per cent gives companies increased scope to think about medium and long-term benefits of higher investment in R&D and this is essential if we are to encourage more and better linkages between business and our research centres.What we have put together in this tremendous package that we released yesterday does retain the 125 per cent R&D tax concession. The lowering of the company tax rate and the tremendous reforms of capital gains tax, which the Labor Party has supported, will lead to greater investment in and support for R&D.8641Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I will actually go back to the original question, which the minister failed to address. Did your department make any assessment of the implications for business expenditure on R&D in relation to this further cut? Will the minister release any such assessment? Has your department modelled it?8641Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—What is clear from industry surveys and others is that you cannot attribute the recent falls in business expenditure on R&D to the lowering of the tax concession. I am as concerned as anybody to see business expenditure on research and development increase. We are doing as much as we can to bring that about. We are actually increasing the amount that we spend on support for R&D.What we have seen from survey after survey is that the recent falls in business expenditure on R&D—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. The minister had four minutes to address the question. He now has a further minute, which is almost up, and he is yet to address the question. The answer that he is giving is not addressing the question. I ask you to direct him to answer the question.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The minister is entitled to answer the question in the way he sees fit. I presume he is relating it to the issue of R&D announcements.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Madam Deputy President, what is clear from all the surveys and our work in our own department is that there is no clear evidence that the recent fall in business expenditure on R&D is a function of the lowering of the R&D tax concession to 125 per cent. There are a whole range of reasons why business expenditure on R&D has fallen. One is the low commodity prices in the minerals sector. The minerals industries in Australia are the primary spenders on R&D, and their recent difficulties have obviously led to them spending less on business R&D. (Time expired)86418641Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, would you please inform the Senate of the government's proposed changes to the Australian business taxation system? Would you also inform the Senate of what the key proposed changes are, and what feedback there has been in response to the government's announcement?8641Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank the senator for his important question. Madam Deputy President, I think the Australian Financial Review got it right today when one of their major headlines said `An overwhelmingly positive climate for investment'. What the Treasurer announced yesterday was the third plank in the historic overhaul of the taxation system by the government. This overhaul will create an environment for Australia to achieve higher growth and, more importantly, will lead to job creation. Furthermore, the review of business taxation aims to provide a sustainable revenue base so that the government can continue to deliver services to the community.Yesterday the Treasurer announced the government's business taxation proposals, as recommended by the Ralph committee, to lower the company tax rate from 36 per cent to 34 per cent in the 2000-01 financial year and to 30 per cent thereafter. As Senator Minchin just mentioned to the Senate, this represents one of the lowest company tax rates in our region. The United States has a 35 per cent rate; New Zealand, a 33 per cent rate; Japan, 42; and Canada 44.Our capital gains tax regime will also be overhauled. For individuals, only 50 per cent of the capital gains are to be effectively taxed, with the result that the highest rate of tax for individuals will effectively be 24.25 per cent. As for superannuation funds, only two-thirds of capital gains will be taxed, which will mean a concessional rate of 10 per cent.To move to the second part of the senator's question, about the community reaction to the tax package, it is true that there was an overwhelming response and that the response was overwhelmingly favourable to what the government announced yesterday. For example, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia said that the government response to Ralph is `fair and balanced' and that super fund members will gain through only two-thirds of capital gains being taxed. The Investment and Financial Services Association says that overall the review has `produced a set of proposals that will greatly enhance the capacity of the economy to produce improved savings and investment results.'The Australian Industry Group says that on early examination they believe that it represents a `generally positive and balanced approach to business tax reform.' And so the story goes on. The Financial Planning Association of Australia applauds the government's support for investors through tax reform. The Australian Society of CPAs says that small business and small investors are `winners' from Ralph. Importantly, the National Farmers Federation has indicated that most of Australia's farmers will be more competitive because they will be operating under a simpler and fairer system. There was also a statement from the Australian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association, whose director is a Mr David Epstein—C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—My friend.WW4Senator KEMP—Our friend, Senator. He is the former chief of staff to none other than Mr Beazley. He says that these reforms as proposed set out the possibility of unprecedented gains and benefits to Australian business. His press release said that `the new business taxation package proposed by the government today should provide considerable benefits for Australia's electrical, electronic and telecommunications industries'. (Time expired)86428642Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to the Ralph review of business taxation, which estimates the cost to revenue of $500 million over five years from the conversion of ordinary income into capital gains. Can the minister confirm that this is due to the substitution effect caused by the lowering of the capital gains tax rate versus higher marginal income tax rates? Is this substitution cost to revenue included in the government's `Fiscal Impact of Announced Measures' table contained in attachment T? If this cost to revenue has not been included in the government's calculations, can the minister please explain why it hasn't?8642Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The recommendations of the Review of Business Taxation are comprehensive and, in some cases, involve fundamental change to the taxation of business income. The government has decided to respond in two stages in order to balance the need to provide certainty to the business community and the need to allow the due consideration of the review's proposals.We believe that the measures which have been announced are revenue neutral, as mentioned. The capital gains tax measures, as referred to by Senator Cook, in fact effective ly produce income. Of course, one of the reasons for that is that with a more effective capital gains tax regime we avoid, among other things, a lock-in effect. That is one of the reasons we are seeing that the changes to the capital gains tax regime will produce great benefits to people who invest in assets and also produce an increase in revenue.10000The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I call Senator Cook.8643Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I was taken by surprise because the minister had plenty of time to finish his answer but he did not actually answer the question. Is this substitution cost to revenue included in the government's `Fiscal Impact of Announced Measures' table in attachment T? Is it or is it not? Does the minister agree that, as a matter of tax practice, the lowering of capital gains tax rates will encourage a substitution between lower taxed capital income as opposed to higher taxed ordinary income? Does the minister agree that creating and widening differential tax rates between the taxation of capital income versus the taxation of ordinary income only creates further anomalies in the taxation system, which will be exploited by aggressive tax planners?8643Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The reforms make, as I said in an earlier question, Australia's CGT internationally competitive. There is some scope for arbitrage acknowledged in Ralph, and he concluded that the benefits to the economy outweighed these concerns. Mr Ralph indicated that they would be complex to legislate against. I would point out to you, Senator Cook, that assets must be held for at least 12 months before being eligible for the 50 per cent exclusion.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy President. I did ask an explicit question: are they included in table T or not? You have not answered that. I had hoped, Minister, that before you sat down you would actually answer that question.Government senators interjecting—RF4COOKSenator Cook—I am pleased to see the answer so far, but it has not been to the question. I actually asked the question in the hope of getting an answer.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order. The minister is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. The question, if I remember it correctly, was will the reforms cause a switch from income to capital to avoid tax, and that is what I am answering. Sorry for answering your question, Senator! But if you want me to—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You are dodging the question.WW4Senator KEMP—As I said, this issue raised by Senator Cook—(Time expired)86438643Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate of the benefits to the Australian economy from the government's improvements to business tax? In particular, how will these measures boost the information technology sector to generate growth and enhance innovation? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals, and is the government giving these any serious consideration?10000The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I call Senator Alston.8643Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Thank you, Madam Deputy President—Senator Cook interjecting—10000The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Cook!10000Senator ALSTON—We will come to your policies later. I will demonstrate in clinical detail where—Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Minister, would you please address the chair. Senator Cook and Senator Faulkner will cease interjecting.LD4Senator ALSTON—Yes, I will. I was provoked, Madam Deputy President. I thank Senator Mason for his question because it goes to the heart of the difference between the parties in this important area. What we are concerned about is to stimulate innovation. We want to see investment in venture capital industries. We want to see people, with the incentives available, to really get in there and commercialise new ideas. It is not a matter of just talking about them, of getting out to the John Curtin Hotel and saying, `Isn't it a good idea that we could punish some of these people who have been earning too much money. We will take their capital gains away from them.'We are particularly concerned to ensure that the industries that have enormous potential in this country are not handicapped by an out of date and outmoded taxation system. The reforms that were announced yesterday have received very widespread support. Merrill Lynch Asset Management said that these are very favourable tax reforms. Clearly, they build on the Prime Minister's plans to encourage investment. Australia's IT&T communications sector is an engine of growth. Arthur Anderson's corporate tax partner said that the concessions for the foreign pension funds really make Australia competitive with the ordinary tax rules in America, the UK and other major countries.The CGT rates are enormously important if we are to stimulate investment in areas where there is normally a higher degree of risk attached. The rewards are there, but there has been a degree of conservatism displayed over a number of years, particularly by Australian superannuation funds. Certainly the US pension funds and other major pension funds around the world have treated Australia as a no-go area as the rates are punitive. They have made that abundantly plain on a number of occasions. We have had discussions with some of the leading pension funds to address this issue.I will pick up on the point about Labor's approach to this issue. At the last election when they were busy trying to introduce a whole range of other highly unpopular tax reforms they proposed that they would allow overseas funds, in concert with Australian investors, to invest through a limited number of tightly regulated, approved venture capital funds which would be required to place emphasis on start up and early stage development.Where you draw those boundary lines would be an absolute nightmare. But critically important, what they were proposing was that US pension funds could not make their own decisions. They had to do it in conjunction with Australian super funds. In other words, they were playing the old protection game. They were trying to ensure that you could not just come in and make a decision on its merits—you had to find a local partner.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Yes.LD4Senator ALSTON—Exactly. In other words, completely removing the flexibility from investors who want to make intelligent decisions on the merits and who might want 20 or 30 per cent or, on the other hand, might want 100 per cent. If that is the way in which they need to be persuaded to invest, then that is the degree of maximum flexibility that they ought to be allowed. That is what our system will permit. That is not what Labor was prepared to countenance. Once again, they were trying to tie one hand behind the back, trying to dictate how they should do it, in conjunction with whom they should do it and, in all sorts of ways, guarantee that the system simply would not work.It is perfectly clear that there is overwhelming support for our proposal. Labor tried the Management and Investment Companies Program, which did not work. They had 13 years to tackle all these issues and simply did not. The Venture Capital Association now says that instead of $500 million a year now flowing into venture capital funds in Australia the amount could quickly double or triple to reach up to $2 billion within the next few years. That might be very bad news for you, but it is very good news for those who are seriously interested in the issue. (Time expired)86448644Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the minister agree that in lowering the company tax rate to 30 per cent while the top marginal rate remains at 48.5 per cent, the government has created an even greater incentive for individuals to incorporate rather than remain as PAYE taxpayers? Can the minister explain why, in creating this added incentive, the government has not simultaneously introduced anti-avoidance provisions in order to protect against further erosion of the PAYE tax base via the alienation of personal services income which is encouraged by the significantly widened differential between the company tax rate and the top marginal individual tax rate?8645Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Sherry, we make no apology for lowering the company tax rate. We actually think that that is very good policy. To be quite frank, if I interpreted the shadow Treasurer correctly, the Labor Party thinks it makes sense to lower the corporate tax rate. I am not aware that the Labor Party wants to lower the rates of personal income tax, particularly for the higher income earners.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Do you remember what the question was?WW4Senator KEMP—That is exactly what the question was. We again have the Labor Party completely nitpicking. The Labor Party, as I understand from its spokespeople, has signed on to the 30 per cent corporate tax rate. The Labor Party is not proposing any change, if I am right Senator Sherry. When Senator Sherry stands up he can perhaps explain to us whether the Labor Party is proposing to lower the income tax rate for those at the highest level. If you are not proposing to do that then your question has no substance at all.The Treasurer has indicated that there are some other measures that the government has foreshadowed in this tax package concerning the alienation of personal services. The Treasurer stated:Now in addition to that there are some other measures that are foreshadowed, for example, personal service, measures directed against personal service incorporation, non-commercial losses, and the Government's view is that we in principle believe that steps will have to be taken in those areas.8645Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate of the current trends in shifts from the PAYE tax base to incorporation? Can the minister advise the Senate whether the government made any estimate of how many more people may seek to incorporate to take advantage of the lower company tax rate announced yesterday? If not, will the government be seeking to make such an estimate?8645Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It is always a problem when the supplementary question is written before the answer is listened to. Senator Sherry, you asked me whether we were proposing to take any steps, and I invite you to read the last part of my answer in which I quoted the Treasurer, Mr Costello, from yesterday.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam Deputy President, I have a point of order. My point of order goes to relevance. The supplementary question went to current trends in shifts from the PAYE tax base. He did not refer to that in his original answer. He should try to answer the supplementary question.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry, can I make it clear to you: I said the government's view is that we in principle believe that steps will have to be taken in those areas. That is what we said—that is what I said, and that is what the Treasurer said.86458645Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that taxation statistics say that 72 per cent of capital gains tax is paid by taxpayers earning over $50,000 a year and that half of that is paid by the top 1.6 per cent of taxpayers? Is the minister aware that, if capital gains tax for individuals is halved, the benefit on a $1,000 capital gain to a self-funded retiree on the lowest tax rate will be $85, which is a third of the benefit on a $1,000 capital gain for a high income earner? Can the minister explain to the eight million Australian taxpayers paying full tax on their wage-based income why the 600,000 mostly high income Australians should pay a much lower tax rate on their capital-based income? How will these individual capital gains tax cuts contribute to a fairer and more equitable tax system?8646Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Murray, you have to appreciate that the government is changing the capital gains tax regime from a situation where we taxed the real rates but at high rates, and of course there was an indexation factor and averaging. Now we are moving to a regime where we are taxing the nominal rates at a lower rate. We think this is a very positive move. In fact, I have to say this move has been very widely welcomed throughout the community, particularly in the press.Senator Murray asked why we are doing this. We believe that Australia needs a more internationally competitive tax regime and that is one of the moves which will help encourage that. We also believe that, by these changes in capital gains tax, we will encourage people to save and invest. We think that is very positive; it is extremely positive for jobs. With these changes, we cut down on a whole host of red tape as well. To be quite frank, these changes are very positive. It is worth noting, as I mentioned in the answer to Senator Cook, that this will produce more revenue not less because it leads to a more efficient system.Self-funded retirees will benefit very substantially under the tax package, and self-funded retirees vary from those on high incomes to those on comparatively low incomes. Let me just list, apart from the change we made in the capital gains tax, some of the other areas where self-funded retirees will benefit. First of all, we are cutting income tax rates, which is a big plus. Again, I do not think there is any proposal around this chamber to raise those rates. We are delivering the largest tax cuts in Australian history.One of the other very important factors in this which has been particularly welcomed by self-funded retirees is refundable imputation credits. This is one of the key demands from the self-funded groups. They have wanted the government for many years to move on this front to provide refundable imputation credits, and that is precisely what we have provided. Another big plus for self-funded retirees out of the government's overall tax reform package is the health insurance rebate, which again was a big demand from many people in the self-funded retiree area.So there are many big pluses in this package for self-funded retirees, indeed for all Australians. Senator Murray mentioned that there would be a different rate between income and capital. That is not atypical around the world in tax systems. Australia wanted to adopt world's best practice and we particularly wanted a tax system which encourages people to save and invest. That is precisely what we have done with this tax package and with the other reforms we have announced in the area of income tax and indirect taxation.8646Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I think, in summary, the equity issue will need further exploration. The minister would be aware that the abolition of indexing and averaging—which he mentioned—pays for only about 60 per cent of the cost of cutting capital gains tax for individuals, with the remaining $500 million coming from so-called extra capital gains. Isn't it the case that, if that money fails to arrive or if the Treasury estimate of tax avoidance through lower capital gains ends up an underestimate, then the capital gains tax cut is not funded and it would then just represent a net loss and a windfall tax cut to higher income earners?8646Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In response to Senator Murray's question, the figures we announced yesterday were figures which were prepared by the Ralph committee. They were not figures which were prepared by the government. We have said that we accept the figures which the Ralph committee prepared. These are figures which have been drawn from the work of that committee. They are the best estimate available and we think, on that basis, the figures we have produced are very sound indeed.86468646Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. How many hundreds of millions of dollars of tax will the Howard government allow to be avoided each year by complete inaction on the issue of the alienation of personal services income? Will the government release the advice it has received from the Treasury and the tax office on this issue? Why will the Howard government not act against very high income earners who are not paying their fair share of tax?8647Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We are certainly committed to taking action to ensure that people pay their fair share of tax. Indeed, I think in February this year the Treasurer made it plain that there were a number of measures under contemplation. Certainly we do not condone any action that might be taken in respect of personal services or other structures that would enable people to avoid a legitimate burden of tax.You will recall that Ralph recommended against imposing a minimum level of taxation to be paid by companies. We have accepted that recommendation and decided to instead ensure that the system is tightly regulated so that you do not have those avoidance mechanisms available. We will do the same, where necessary, for individuals. The whole notion of entity taxation is, I think, a tightening of the system. In various ways I think we will certainly ensure that we do not have people avoiding their fair burden of tax.8647Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am not sure that the Acting Leader of the Government understood the question at all. Why did the Howard government ignore the Ralph report's clear warning about the avoidance nature of the alienation of personal services income? Given these warnings, does the Prime Minister endorse the Treasurer's remarks yesterday, where he justified not addressing the issue by claiming that the problem only relates to the top one per cent of high income earners? What is the real reason the Howard government will not act against very high income earners who are not paying their fair share of tax?8647Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—You will recall that after 13 years of Labor, in a last desperate attempt to obtain re-election, the Labor government identified something in the order of $800 million that could be recouped from high net worth individuals. That is a matter that the Australian Tax Office has been working on since that time. The Treasurer has indicated that we will take steps if necessary to ensure that people are not able to use that status by inter-company—RF4COOKSenator Cook—This does not relate to the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, you are talking about personal services. I am saying to you that the one per cent of high net worth individuals are often able to artificially minimise their taxation by inter-company arrangements, by simply shuffling levels of income around in such a way that you do not ever have a proper taxation point. We are not prepared to tolerate those actions, and we will be taking the necessary action.86478647Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The Tasmanian salmon industry has grown from producing 20 tonnes in 1986 to 7000 tonnes in 1997. Minister Anderson, in a press release on 20 December, said that AQIS had finalised its decision based on extensive studies of some 24 diseases of salmon, most of which do not occur in Australia. The AQIS decision is based on scientific and technical grounds, which is entirely consistent with Australia's rights under the SPS agreement of the World Trade Organisation. AQIS, the Bureau of Resource Science and the Commonwealth Chief Veterinary Office have spent two years examining the scientific issues involved and consulting with scientific experts. Will the minister—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Harris, your time has expired for asking the question.8HCHARRISSenator Harris—I seek leave to conclude my question.Leave not granted.8647Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not think it is possible to divine what it was that Senator Harris was leading to, but to the extent that he was concerned about the procedures adopted by AQIS, it is quite clear that AQIS did subject the whole issue of salmon to very extensive assessment. It was required to accelerate its analysis to meet World Trade Organisation requirements. The process was transparent. It invited submissions from interested stakeholders and took into account the scientific issues raised by those stakeholders. It announced revised quarantine access policies for salmonoid products, non-viable fish, marine fin fish and live ornamental fish on 19 July last. And the policies are based on an extremely comprehensive and thorough import risk analysis process using the most up-to-date scientific information and the input of 14 independent Australian and international experts. It is the most intensive study of fish quarantine conducted by a quarantine service. It follows from all that that the measures announced by AQIS bring Australia's quarantine controls into conformity with our obligations as a member of the World Trade Organisation, and we will continue to adhere to those obligations.8648Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, minister, for very accurately setting out what AQIS did. If the minister is so confident that the importation of Canadian salmon will not pose a disease risk to our industry and environment, will the government indemnify our salmon producers against any loss sustained from such a result of lifting the import ban?8648Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As I indicated, we are not in the business of second-guessing the experts. It is not a matter for the government to express its own independent degree of confidence. What we are required to do, if anything, in terms of confidence, is to be confident that AQIS has the necessary resources and capability to conduct those inquiries. It did conduct very extensive inquiries; it did take expert advice; it did consult the industry extensively; and it has indeed been looked at independently at World Trade Organisation level.Against that background, the government is confident that the AQIS findings are valid—in other words, there is not likely to be any significant risk posed by the importation of Canadian salmon—and that the restrictions that have been introduced will provide the necessary degree of comfort. In those circum stances, there are simply other commercial risks that will be required to be taken by industry. (Time expired)86488648Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Could the minister explain how Australia is going to be able to rotate Australian troops who have been deployed to East Timor, given that the Howard government abolished the Ready Reserve Scheme in their first term of government, they removed leave for Defence Force reservists as an allowable matter under workplace relations legislation, and they have effectively disregarded the Australian Defence Force Reserves ever since they were elected?8648Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Isn't it interesting that somebody who took no interest in defence matters before is suddenly jumping on a bandwagon—Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order on my left!BE4Senator NEWMAN—when her own government's involvement in defence was quite dishonourable in many respects. For example, the 13 years of Labor meant that we had a navy with so many admirals and not enough ships.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What rubbish. Why don't you answer the question?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!RF4COOKSenator Cook—You cannot answer it. You don't know. You're just bluffing.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Cook!LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point or order. It is not sufficient to simply hear what you say by way of direction and totally ignore it. What Senator Cook is embarking upon is a deliberate tactic of intimidation, designed to shout down a minister who has been asked a question by one of his colleagues. You indicated twice that he should come to order. He totally ignored you. If Senator Cook has any point of order to take, there is a proper process to be followed. He is not in any shape or form attempting to do that. He is simply sledging and screaming across the chamber in a way that does no credit at all to this chamber and certainly does not assist Senator Newman in answering the question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: I think you would agree that it is an important question that has been asked in relation to how Australia is going to be able to rotate the Australian troops who have been deployed to East Timor. I think there is no more important issue in the public mind in Australia at the moment. I think the Senate is entitled to an answer to that question. We now have a situation, thanks to Senator Alston taking a spurious point of order—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—What is your point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am speaking to yours—that Senator Newman has now been able to turn up the brief on this matter. Let's get an answer.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I would ask for order on both sides.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Oh!XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—What have you got against that?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Bolkus. I do not need your assistance or your chastisement of other people. Senator Cook, I would appreciate silence from you, too. Minister, you may return to your answer and I hope you will be able to make it relevant to the question.BE4Senator NEWMAN—If I had 10 minutes I would be able to tell the Labor Party a bit more about defence and their failures during the time they were in government.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Answer the question.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Carr!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam Deputy President, it is very relevant to the question that was asked because the defence force that we inherited from Labor was top heavy with senior ranks, it did not have enough warriors, it had too many clerks, and that has been remedied over the 3½ years that we have been in government.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about rotating the troops?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam Deputy President, they like to shout me down. They do not like to hear the facts. But the reform process which has been in place since we came into government has meant that as of now our government has been able to bring a second brigade in northern Australia to such a state of preparedness and readiness that it can support the brigade that has already gone from Townsville. The brigade in Darwin was raised in June or July this year to 28 days readiness. The Labor Party never had two brigades at that level of readiness in all the 13 years they were in government.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about the rotation?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!BE4Senator NEWMAN—You silly duffer! I am just telling you about the readiness and rotation. Why don't you listen?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Minister, please address the chair and ignore the interjections from Senator Carr, which are unparliamentary. I will have some order, thank you.Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Whoa, Hyacinth!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Schacht!ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Tell us about the clever duffer.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Crowley, I am on my feet, thank you. I will have some order. Minister, please address the chair and try to ignore the unruly interjections from Senator Carr, thank you.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam Deputy President, I do rather sympathise with you that some of your colleagues are duffers.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is not parliamentary to reflect upon other members in this place, either.Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order on my left!BE4Senator NEWMAN—It is hard to draw a conclusion other than they are duffers because I had just given an answer which demonstrated that there was the ability—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The minister's language is unparliamentary. I have already borne some of her sledging. I ask you to ask her to withdraw.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Minister, I would appreciate you using language which is more circumspect, please. Would you mind withdrawing the aspersions you cast upon members on the other side, please.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam Deputy President, am I to understand from that that it is unparliamentary to call Senator Carr a duffer?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is unparliamentary to reflect upon other members of this place and the other place, as you well know.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam Deputy President, if it has been taken that that is a reflection on Senator Carr, then I withdraw it. However, I would like to suggest he do a bit of study about what the answer he was given actually means. It means that the first brigade is able to be supported and you will have a rotation of front rank troops ready to go. We have that now.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Is that right? The second one in three months.BE4Senator NEWMAN—No, 28 days from the end of June. So we have two brigades now that are ready to go and can reinforce each other. That was the purpose of my answer which Senator Carr had so much difficulty understanding. I think it was actually a direct answer. Senator Collins asked for details about our performance in government. The significant answer is that we have regulars now ready to go at a level of readiness and in numbers that the Labor government never managed to achieve in 13 years of focusing on submarines that would not fire weapons and that were dangerous to go to the bottom of the ocean in, and an over-the-horizon radar system which has left Telstra with a very big embarrassment and difficulty, and which is still not working effectively.The Labor Party focused on big toys for big boys like Mr Beazley and Senator Ray. They did not show any concern at all for the fact that our peacekeeping roles—now our peace enforcement roles—and any warlike service at all required men and weapons on the ground to take and hold ground. That is the reality that our troops are facing. Thanks to the reforms that we have put in place, our men and women are better protected and better able to be reinforced than any such force that has gone away since Vietnam.8650Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Contrary to the minister's sledging, I do have an interest in the impact of the government's IR agenda on the Defence Force. I have spent half of my life living in RAAF environments.Government senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order on my right! The minister cannot hear with the noise that is being made.GB6Senator JACINTA COLLINS—My question was about Defence Force leave, and the supplementary question is: will the minister guarantee that Australian troops that have been deployed to East Timor will receive that and be replaced within six months so that they are not separated from their families for an unreasonable period? Can the minister outline what action the government is taking to ensure this in an environment where there is no longer Defence Force leave for reservists?8650Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am afraid the last sentence leaves me a bit perplexed. Suddenly you are talking about reservists' leave.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—You have never heard of—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Crowley, it is nice of you to help Senator Collins, but I do not think you are taking it any further.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Minister, would you please address the chair and ignore Senator Crowley's interjections.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am sorry; I should not be distracted. The reality is, as I understand from what the minister has said previously, at this stage the length of the deployment is not known.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—But we have no Defence Force!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Collins would like to answer for me. The reality is that it is expected that the peace enforcement process will be relatively short but that peacekeeping process which will follow will be longer. At this early stage, both of them are of uncertain duration. As far as I know, no announcement has yet been made as to what the term of service will be. But the ability to rotate people is there because we now have two brigades that are able to go when needed. (Time expired)86518651Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources.Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much general conversation going on across and around the chamber. I cannot hear Senator Crane, and I guess the minister cannot hear either.UW4Senator CRANE—Would you like me to shout to get over the noise?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, I would not like you to shout. I would like you to speak at a normal level, and I would like everybody else to remain silent.UW4Senator CRANE—Would you like me to take a point of order on this?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No. Just ask the question. UW4Senator CRANE—I ask the minister: how will the government reforms to the indirect and business tax systems—Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, on my left! I do not need any help.UW4Senator CRANE—Minister, how will the government reforms to the indirect and busi ness tax systems assist Australia's manufacturing and mining industries to be more internationally competitive? In particular, could you inform the Senate of the very positive reaction to this package?8651Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Crane for his lucid question. Two great sectors of this economy have borne the brunt of Australia's horse and buggy tax system. They are manufacturing and mining. Manufacturing and mining, in particular, have had to wear the load of the wholesale sales tax which, for reasons that are completely inexplicable, the Labor Party seems to think is such a wonderful tax—shared only by the Solomon Islands and a few others, of course. We have recognised that the tax system is putting a completely unfair burden on manufacturing and mining in this country. That is why we have reformed our indirect tax system, and that is why we announced yesterday major reforms to Australia's business tax system. They will, in combination, represent and mean a very big boost for mining and manufacturing, for investment and exports and, most particularly, for employment in these two key sectors.The manufacturing sector get the benefit of the drop in the company tax rate to 30 per cent by 2001. They lose absolutely the burden of the wholesale sales tax. Fuel costs are reduced; compliance costs are reduced. Our tax reforms are terrific news for the 85 per cent of manufacturing enterprises that qualify for the new simplified tax system and retention of accelerated depreciation. In relation to the car industry, we have rejected the Ralph committee's recommendation that the FBT arrangements be modified in a way that we believe will damage that vital industry.Research by the economic modellers Econtech shows that manufacturing output will increase by three per cent as a result of our tax reform initiatives. Output in the mining sector is going to increase by over six per cent as a result of our tax reforms. Mining also gets the benefit of our cuts to the company tax rate. They retain the benefits of the deductibility of the removal of mining overburden, prospecting and exploration. They remain immediately deductible. Probably the best news for mining is that, from 1 July 2001, deductibility for so-called black hole expenditures like export market development, mine closures and defending native title claims will be immediately deductible, which the mining industry has been seeking for years. As the Treasurer said, we will be retaining and enhancing for major, long-life capital intensive projects the strategic investment incentive process, with particular regard to investment allowances, on a case by case basis.Eighty per cent of mining companies in this country have an annual turnover of less than $1 million. That 80 per cent will still retain the benefits of accelerated depreciation and will also get the new simplified tax system. Of course, mining loses the costs of the WST, fuel taxes and other taxes. The reaction from both sectors has been positive. John Conomos of Toyota said:It is a good result for the automotive industry.I previously quoted Tony Cutcliff of the Institute of Engineers of Australia. He says:. . . a rush of foreign money into high technology, more local R&D, more jobs for engineers, a halt to the brain drain and a healthier, more certain climate for domestic investment in start-up companies.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You read this out of your brief!JX4Senator MINCHIN—Yes, but you were not listening. The Minerals Council of Australia has welcomed the government's pragmatic approach. David Stewart, the Managing Director of Pasminco, said that when you look at it in totality it is a very balanced outcome. The Financial Review was very accurate when it said today:Mr Costello can rightly claim that the package will help make Australia a place for investment, business growth and particularly jobs.86528652Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, representing the Minister for Defence. Given that the ADF is now undertaking its greatest operation since the Vietnam War, what action has the government taken to ensure that Australian troops in East Timor will have the appropriate level of medical support for their operation? Can the minister inform the Senate how many more specialist medical officers have been recruited to cover this huge deployment of troops?8652Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Hogg. I know that he has a continuing interest in these matters. In relation to the question that was asked of me before by Senator Collins, of course the Defence Force has long relied on the reservists—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. We are well aware that Senator Newman could not answer the question asked by Senator Collins. She is not entitled to answer a question she could not answer previously. I would ask you to direct her to answer the question asked by Senator Hogg.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Newman was less than 30 seconds into her answer. She had virtually only said that she thanked Senator Hogg for asking the question, and here is Senator Faulkner again on his feet trying to do everything possible to disrupt the process, not wanting to give Senator Newman any serious opportunity to answer the question and trying to reduce question time to the rubble that it would be under the Labor Party.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The minister is only 20 seconds into answering the question.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—How did I rate a mention?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Collins, I do not need your assistance, thank you. I am sure Senator Newman will be getting to the medical support area shortly.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam Deputy President, you are interested in medical care for Defence Force personnel from a long time back. You would know that reservists, as Senator Hogg knows, are very honourably represented amongst the ranks of the medical corps. In fact, specialists in particular come almost exclusively from the reservists. That has been the case for a long time, too. We currently have reservists in the medical corps serving on Bougainville, but the longstanding call-out legislation, which allows for a reserve to be called out in the defence of Australia or in a declared defence emergency, does not apply in East Timor. Reservists are able to serve on deployment in other positions within the ADF after volunteering for full-time service. That is how we have reservists in Bougainville at the moment. The health support to the Australian members is integral to the operation, and the processes that have been put in place are good to ensure optimum health preparedness for the deploying ADF personnel.Pre-deployment briefings on current health intelligence, specifically on the environmental and situational health threats that are, or may be, present in Timor have been given to all deploying ADF personnel. Pre-deployment medical and fitness screening is mandatory. Only those persons who are fully vaccinated and operationally fit have been deployed. All deploying ADF personnel have been given antimalarial medication, which will be resupplied as required by the ADF medical facility deployed to East Timor. All deployed ADF personnel have received basic first aid training, and all units have ready access to advanced life support trained medical personnel. To minimise disease and injury threats, preventative medicine trained personnel are being deployed to East Timor. They will provide environmental health support to the deployment and environmental and occupational health advice to the deploying personnel and to their commanders.All personnel have been dentally checked and any dental problems rectified prior to deployment, and deploying health elements will provide basic dental support in East Timor. Psychological briefings have taken place prior to deployment, and procedures are in place to ensure psychological debriefing of all personnel once they return from this operation. Medical resupply and logistics processes are in place. Air transport will usually be utilised for all medical material. Only blood and blood products sourced from the Australian Red Cross will be used for the treatment of ADF members, and 30 units of blood have been deployed with other stock being kept on hand in Darwin for rapid resupply.8653Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam Deputy President, I have a supplementary question. Minister, you failed to address the question that I asked, which is: how many more specialist medical officers have been recruited to cover this huge deployment of troops? Secondly, does the minister recall the warning from Australia's Army Land Commander, General Hartley, earlier this year about the critical shortage of medical specialist personnel in the ADF? Why didn't the government respond to that warning instead of denying the shortage, as the Minister for Defence did in parliament last month? Finally, will the minister now give a guarantee that ADF personnel serving in East Timor will have the medical support they are entitled to?8653Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the question is yes. As for the answer to the detail about medical specialists, I think Senator Hogg is under a misapprehension. Medical specialists rarely deploy to a battlefield or an active war zone, which is the situation that could be presented here.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—It may not be a battlefield, but people may be getting shot at. It is rare for specialists to be deployed in those circumstances. You will get emergency first aid in your unit. You will get a GP type service from the medical officer in your unit. Then, if the matter is more serious than that, you will be evacuated to Australia for specialist service. That is the way you will be treated. Some of those specialists may be Army, Navy or Air Force reservists specialists or civilians in our hospitals in Australia.86538653Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. Is the minister aware that the draft report of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation into the class G airspace trial finds that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board and director failed to act on two critical recommendations: that the trial be reconsidered and that the draft BASI report states that both the Australian Air Transport Association representing the major commercial airlines and CASA's own Airspace Standards Branch believe the model for the G airspace trial was flawed? Does the government know why the CASA board chose to ignore these two very high level recommendations?8654Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—No, I do not know. I will ask Mr Anderson if he is aware of it. This question follows on from a matter that Senator Woodley raised with me a couple of days ago when he asked me if I was concerned about the fact that BASI had not released its final report into the G airspace demonstration. As I indicated then, we are not concerned as a government. The G airspace report is a very important one on a very complex matter and it has required a great deal of investigation and analysis. It will be released towards the end of this year. So it will be finished within about a year of when the investigation actually started. That time frame, I am told, Senator Woodley, is entirely normal. You might recall that BASI's investigation into the Monarch Airlines crash in 1993 took just over 12 months and the investigation into a near miss at Sydney airport in 1991 took some 18 months. So the length of time that it has taken for BASI to complete its report into the G airspace demonstration is not unusual.I am sure that Senator Woodley, as someone who follows these things, will appreciate that it takes some time to put together a detailed, professional and definitive air safety report. Specifically, in response to your question, I would expect that a lot of the allegations that you are making, and a lot of the comments that you have made, will be addressed in more detail when the final BASI investigation is released towards the end of this year.8654Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder, however, Minister, in talking further with the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, whether or not you would seek from him an assurance that what BASI describes as `systematic weaknesses' in CASA will be fixed?UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This is a matter that, as Senator Woodley well knows, is before a committee that he chairs and a committee that I chair. Standing order 73(l) states quite clearly that questions shall not contain `proceedings in committee not reported to the Senate'. I ask whether or not this question is in order in view of the fact that there is a reference to both of these committees.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that it is in order. The standing order that you read out relates to the committee of the whole. As long as Senator Woodley is not anticipating something that is in a report, he is within order.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Can I get a further clarification of this point of order? This matter that is being examined is directly related to the BASI report and substance from it, as I understand it. I would question whether or not, in view of the fact that it is related to that—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The rule refers to the committee of the whole—as in, this particular chamber when it is in the committee of the whole. Provided that Senator Woodley does not reflect upon something that is in the report of the committee that is being developed, he is within order.8654Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I am sure that, if the BASI report does make recommendations to improve the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, they will be followed up, particularly if these recommendations are serious or have arisen out of serious incidents. I would mention to Senator Woodley, although I am sure that he does not need to be reminded, that there is an estimates round towards the end of November or early December. Without being definitive, I would expect that the BASI report would be released and available by that time. Senator Woodley will no doubt, in his normal way, very perceptively question the relevant officers at those estimates hearings. It is refreshing at times—and I do not want to praise Senator Woodley—to have Senator Woodley at those estimates hearings because he does ask serious questions of policy, unlike the Labor members present at those hearings.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam Deputy President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice8655865515:05:008655Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Last Monday, Senator Faulkner asked me a series of questions in relation to US military personnel involvement in the East Timor crisis. I seek leave to incorporate a supplementary answer.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—On Monday, 20 September 1999, Hansard page 8359, Senator Faulkner asked me, as acting Leader of the Government in the Senate;(1) 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?(2) On what date did the government first formally seek United States participation in the International Force for East Timor?(3) Did the government at any time seek the commitment of US combat troops; if so (a) when; and (b) how many?The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question.(1, 2 and 3) The government is fully satisfied with the contribution that the United States is making to the multi-national force in East Timor.865515:05:008655Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I seek leave to incorporate an additional response to a question from Senator Crowley in the last sitting.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Response for Senator Crowley"Child Care in Australia" provided an annual time series of place numbers from June 1991 to June 1998 that is year by year.- Part year figures would not be comparable in an annual time series due to seasonal influences.- The Department did not have full year 1998-99 figures to put in the July report. The figures for December 1998 were available at the time of publication of "Child Care in Australia" but the Department did not consider it appropriate to use them in a table representing annual time series data and my office was not consulted about this issue.The December 1998 figures, including numbers of services, were released by the Department on 31 August in its Departmental Journal "Australian Social Policy" (1999.1).- This clearly indicates that neither the Department nor the Government is trying to hide the facts. June 1999 data will be available as usual in the Department's Annual Report.865515:06:008655Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions without notice asked by Senators Gibson, Cook, Mason, Sherry and Murray today, relating to changes in the business taxation system.There were a number of questions asked of government ministers today on the government's business tax package. It was released yesterday with a lot of hoopla. We thought the government would be able to answer questions of detail on their own measures. What we were faced with was a series of platitudes that led nowhere and certainly shed little light on the detail of a 1,000-page document that the government put down yesterday. It seems once again that the Senate is being ill-served by government ministers. We had this during the GST debate in which matters of detail on tax changes were not able to be answered directly in this chamber. It seems that we are facing the same situation again.The Labor Party, through the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer, Simon Crean, yesterday responded to the government's Review of Business Taxation by saying that there are a number of initiatives that Labor could support. These include a lower company tax rate; the simplification of tax arrangements for small business; measures to encourage greater investment in venture capital in Australia, particularly by foreign pension funds; the issue of rollover relief for scrip for scrip takeovers; and tighter anti-avoidance measures. Indeed, many of those things were matters in our tax program that we put to the electors at the last election and that have now been taken up by the government—we are pleased to see—in these changes. So it is no wonder we could support them.In today's Australian Financial Review in the opinion pages, the distinguished economic columnist Alan Kohler had this to say about the government's tax package:Treasurer Peter Costello has pioneered a new technique in tax policy announcement: you defer the nasty measures for "further consideration" but still count the proceeds from them.That is indeed a view that could easily be formed. When we look at the measures that have been deferred, we find that, to meet the need of this package to be self-funding, there is a $3.8 billion shortfall. Between the measures being offered in the package and the measures taken to fund the changes being made there is a $3.8 billion shortfall.This is a serious matter of great consequence because, if business pays $3.8 billion less in tax, who makes up the difference? Ordinary taxpayers on wages and salaries in Australia make up the difference. If this difference is not made up from within business tax, who pays the burden? Ordinary Australians do, and there is a massive shift from the business sector to ordinary PAYE taxpayers. That is why it is very important that the government answer questions about who will pay, where the money will come from and whether they can assure us that ordinary taxpayers will not be slugged again in order to compensate for cuts in business taxation. My question was about the Ralph report's estimate of a $500 million loss to revenue because of personal income taxes being taxed higher than the income through capital gains, and I referred to attachment T of the government's own document. The Assistant Treasurer could not tell us today or, if he did know the answer, declined to tell the Senate whether or not the figure of $500 million identified in the Ralph report is included in that attachment to the government's own report. Now, $500 million is not a trifling amount. Surely the minister can tell us that. He did not even take it on notice. He should come back and tell Australia, through this chamber, what the facts are on that matter.But, worse still, the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Alston, did not explain whether the Prime Minister endorses massive tax avoidance by the wealthy—the top one per cent of income earners in Australia—because in this package they are let off. If there is one way of paying for tax changes, it is by slugging tax avoiders. Because the government remains quiet on this point—it will not say what it is prepared to do—a huge question mark is left that maybe ordinary wage and salary earners are going to have to make up the difference, because the government does not have the courage or the desire to take on tax avoidance in Australia. They are significant issues that require an answer. Because the government knows its own package and declines to answer, the only conclusion one can come to is that it is hiding here. (Time expired)15:11:008656Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—As usual, we get nothing but criticism from the Labor Party when any reform is undertaken or initiated by this government. We heard some encouraging noises from Senator Cook's colleague in the other place—the shadow Treasurer, Mr Crean—last night following the announcement of this much needed business tax reform package. But, in a sense, it is faint praise because as soon as they acknowledge the need, to a degree, and acknowledge some of the benefits that will accrue from this tax reform package, they are back to their old carping criticism.What is the essence of the criticisms we have heard from Senator Cook? One of the claims he made is that this package is not revenue neutral. I think the Treasurer himself has acknowledged that there might be an approximately $1 billion shortfall in terms of the revenue raised by the current tax system in the business sector as against the proposed reforms. When you are talking about a budget of some $150 billion or more—as in the current federal budget—$1 billion in relative terms is neither here nor there. As was pointed out by economic experts yesterday, it is also well within any margin of error in terms of doing calculations on reforms of this nature.For the Treasurer to acknowledge the possibility of a $1 billion shortfall is, in reality, neither here nor there. It does not take into account the incentive effects of this new tax structure for business. The Treasurer in his assessments has not taken any account of the incentive effects of the change to business taxation because you cannot measure those in this situation. But, of course, there will be incentive effects from business tax reform: there will be more growth and there will be more employment which, in itself, has beneficial revenue effects.The reality is that over time—notwithstanding these changes to taxation in relation to business: lower tax rates for business, reducing the company tax rate from 36 cents in the dollar down to 30 cents in the dollar and halving the capital gains tax rate—it is highly likely that more revenue rather than less revenue will be raised. So that really obliterates the point Senator Cook is trying to make on the revenue issue.He also raised the issue as to the tax rate for capital gains tax. He claims that because capital gains tax will now be effectively taxed at half the rate that income is taxed, that is somehow unfair. What Senator Cook firstly ignores is that, in the main, capital gains are achieved from assets that are purchased from after tax income, by and large, particularly by individuals. What often happens is that individuals save their after tax income, purchase assets of one form or another with that after tax income and then at some later date may realise a profit on those assets. So to relate the tax rate that you might apply to those assets to the income tax rate is a fallacious argument because, as I have already pointed out, it is after tax dollars in the main that contribute to the accumulation of those assets.But the more important point is that, in terms of the overall welfare of Australians, it is important that our capital gains tax regime be equivalent to that applied by other similar countries around the world. Even with this great cut to capital gains tax—it has been cut in half—our rate will still be higher than that of some of our competitors. But at least we are now competitive. The cut will, I think, mean that our rate is only one or two per cent, on average, higher than that of the United States, for instance. That is an important factor when we talk about attracting development capital to this country, because one of the main disincentives to development capital coming into Australia has been our punitive rate of capital gains tax. Unless we urgently implement reforms in that area, capital which is much needed for development in Australia will stay away.Senator Cook has raised this issue of the relative rate of tax between capital gains and income, but it is not relevant because of the after tax savings that go into capital gains. But, more importantly, in terms of the welfare of all Australians and in terms of the capacity for our economy to expand and create more jobs and create higher incomes for Australians, it is absolutely essential that we have a much lower rate of capital gains tax to encourage that investment and growth in development. That is exactly what the government is doing here. If any criticism could be made of these changes, it is that they do not go far enough, not that they go too far, as Senator Cook would have us believe. (Time expired)15:16:008657Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I also rise to take note of the answers given by ministers about the government's proposal for business tax reform. As someone who comes from a manufacturing base—I spent all my life in the manufacturing industry and the manufacturing sector—I, like the shadow treasurer, welcome the proposals for reform in the areas of capital gains tax and provision of funds for venture capital. They are long overdue. There is, however, nothing new about the proposals for reforming this area. It is not something that John Ralph suddenly discovered over the past 12 months, it is not something that the Treasurer suddenly discovered over the past 12 months, and it is not something that this government suddenly discovered over the past 12 months; it is an issue that has been on the table in the forefront of debate on manufactur ing, mining and the development of our economy for several years.I recall tabling a report in this chamber in September 1997, a report called Rebuilding Australian Industry, produced by my old union, which contained several similar recommendations on this area. I recall, in the very early stages after my election to the Senate, participating in the production of a report by the Senate Economic References Committee. Creating opportunities: promoting Australian industry was the title of the report. It carried a number of recommendations which went to capital gains tax reform, provision of venture capital funds and a range of other mechanisms to encourage and develop our industrial base. So there is nothing new about these issues.Senator Alston is, I notice, still in the chamber. He keeps talking about the ALP being a policy free zone. But Senator Alston and his colleagues had no difficulty picking up the 1998 ALP policy platform and ripping out the provisions for changes to capital gains tax to encourage investment in this country and ripping out the proposals for changing the rules facilitating investment of American industry funds in our venture capital industry. Those proposals were there in the early part of 1998; they were adopted by the party in 1997. You do not have any difficulty, Senator Alston, taking those policies from the ALP that you think are useful to you and your government. I presume if you look at a number of your other reforms you will see that some of them are contained within ALP policy.But I specifically want to raise a couple of issues arising out of the report yesterday. The first one is capital gains tax reform. One of the concerns that I have is that there has been no modelling done by the Treasury or by anyone else of the changes that are being proposed to capital gains tax to see whether or not, at the end of the day, they will result in productive investment in the Australian economy. There has been no modelling to see whether or not the reforms that are being put in place will result in funds finding their way through to investment in industries—new industries, new production lines, new forms of manufacturing or new goods and ser vices—whether they will find their way back into bricks and mortar or whether they will find their way into further investment, more rapid investment or more rapid turnover of shares on the stock market, which only inflates the value of companies that currently exist. That has not been modelled. That has not been put to the test. The umpire is still out on that issue. In terms of revenue neutrality I just want to quote briefly what the Treasurer himself said in his press release. He said:It is expected that the second stage measures recommended by the Report (and not ruled out today) will be adopted to reduce the cost of the package in the outyears in accordance with the goal of revenue neutrality.He has conceded in his own press release that the package will not be revenue neutral, except in the year 2000. (Time expired)15:21:008658Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I offer my good friend and colleague Senator George Campbell congratulations for at least sticking to the subject. It looked as though he had done a bit of preparation before he came here. But I wonder how long Senator Cook's staff spent trying to find the one comment in this morning's newspapers which made some slight criticism. It seems to be a new Labor Party tactic to quote commentators or newspapers. We heard Mr Beazley and Senator Faulkner yesterday quoting ad nauseam from commentary in the newspapers in relation to the motion on East Timor. While Senator Cook's staff were wading through volumes of paper this morning in order to find the one comment that might suit his argument, I wonder how on earth they went past the media release from the Certified Practising Accountants, where Angela Ryan said:"The government appears to have heeded the call from small business who are drowning in red tape,". . . . . . . . .Taken together, these capital gains tax reforms will make investment in small business a much more attractive proposition, and should assist in the growth and employment generating capacity of the economy as a whole—the sort of efficiency gains the Ralph review was aiming for.I wonder why Senator Cook's staff went straight past that press release.Then there was the press release from the Investment and Financial Services Association, entitled `Good news for saving and investment'. Their CEO, Lynn Ralph, said:Overall, the Review has produced a set of proposals that will greatly enhance the capacity of the economy to produce improved savings and investment results.I wonder how Senator Cook's staff went past that media release. Then there was the voice of superannuation, ASFA—who have not always been that complimentary towards the government, I can promise you—which said that the Ralph outcome was largely `balanced and positive'. That is the greatest endorsement you could ever get from ASFA. They said:. . . the government's response to it has been hailed as positive and balanced . . . I wonder how Senator Cook's staff went straight past that press release or the one from the National Farmers Federation, which said:Farmers relieved over Ralph CGT decision.In fact, the National Farmers Federation in their press release are totally positive and support the government's position.I wonder how Senator Cook's staff happened to go past the press release of the Taxation Institute of Australia. What do they have to say? They said:Ralph's Revolution creates a brave new world for Australian business.I have never heard Senator Conroy commenting on, or giving any credit to, all of these people who have put out press releases yesterday, all in support of the positive moves that have been made by the government in relation to the Ralph report. I just do not know how Senator Cook's staff can retain their jobs if they walked past that press release. Then we have one from the Australian council of university presidents:Ralph creates the climate for stronger venture capital investment in R&D.What did Senator Cook—and Senator Conroy in his question—have to say about research and development? Here the Australian council of university presidents claim that the Ralph report and the government's decision will create a climate for stronger venture capital investment and R&D. I am sure that Senator Conroy's staff would have gone straight past that press release too, because it would have not have suited his argument. Senator Cook's staff, once again, went straight past that one.I have not got time to go through them all, but let me say that the Australian Industry Group, one of the major bodies, also welcomed the Ralph report. The Taxation Institute again talks about small business being a `big winner under business tax reforms'. I wonder whether I should post all of these press releases around to Senator Cook's office, because it is obvious that they were not received by his staff. When they searched through to find Alan Kohler's comment, they must have gone straight past that press release. The Certified Practising Accountants again said:Small business and small investors the winners . . .We are looking after small businesses and small investors, because they are so important to Australia's economy. Then we have the media release from IFSA, which said:Good news for savings and investment.We have Senator Cook coming into this place and providing us with one quote from one commentator. If he is going to be consistent, the way the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Faulkner were yesterday, he should quote the lot. They were prepared to quote the lot yesterday; how about quoting the lot today? I hope Senator Conroy is going to be the next speaker. I am not sure whether he is on or not but, if he is, I am quite sure that he will want to pick up on those endorsements from practically every commentator in Australia in relation to this important report that was released yesterday. (Time expired)15:26:008659Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I am hoping that Senator Ferguson will stay, because selective quoting is something he has been guilty of before, and I am afraid he has been at it again today. I invite Senator Ferguson to come and visit Gisborne and Seymour in Victoria. You go on the road out there and you start touting your tax reform package, and you will see exactly how quickly you pull them back into the coalition seats. I have to tell you—notwithstanding Senator Alston's capacity to perhaps run now in Gisborne or Ballarat, where there is a lot of spare presel ections on for the Liberal Party in Victoria—that there is plenty in this package to criticise.We have opinion from Alan Kohler in today's Financial Review. Did you miss it? It said that the new business tax system unveiled yesterday is a:. . . triumph of smoke, mirrors and . . . political tap dancing.Then you go to Tom Allard in the Sydney Morning Herald . The headline reads "`Heroic' hope for revenue balance". Here is where the deceit in this package is. Mr Allard says:The Federal Government has relied on . . . an "heroic" assumption that halving capital gains tax (CGT) will cost little in lost revenue to achieve in part its aim of revenue neutrality.The government wants to say there is a dividend: `When we cut the capital gains tax, there will be a spurt of activity and all of this extra revenue will come in.' Those of you who have followed economics for a while may have heard of Mr Laffer and the Laffer curve in supply-side economics. They ran a huge deficit in America and it is largely discredited.On the one hand, the government is prepared to argue that it will gain revenue because of this which will offset the losses from the lower rate so that it is a neutral thing. But what it will not acknowledge—and what Mr Costello yesterday in his press conference refused to acknowledge—is that there is now a massive incentive to set yourself up so that you can minimise your tax and have your income in the form of assets, so that when you make capital gains on it you then pay less tax. The revenue neutrality argument on the GST makes the assumption that there is no behavioural change on the income tax side.If you are prepared to believe in that, you believe in the tooth fairy, because the whole reason capital gains tax was introduced in 1985 was the rorts that the wealthy in this country were pulling to avoid income tax. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say there is a positive behavioural impact from lowering the rates and no negative impact from the income tax revenue collections. These are two conflicting assumptions. You know they are conflicting and you do not care. These figures are as others have described them—rubbery.Brian Toohey is another one that perhaps Senator Ferguson did not bother to read this morning as he quoted ad nauseam from all of the Liberal stooges out there. Chris Murphy—fair dinkum! Senator Ferguson and I have both met Mr Murphy, and Senator Ferguson is fully aware that Chris Murphy and Econtech are the Prime Minister's preferred modellers.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Have you rung up Lateline to complain about John Edwards not being identified as a former adviser?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Senator Alston wants to talk about the fact that John Edwards may have been an adviser to a previous government. Who is Chris Murphy's wife? Guess what, she works in the Prime Minister's office. If you want to start throwing that stuff around, that is fine. But you cannot have it both ways. Let us make it perfectly clear that this bloke is a Liberal Party stooge and has been for years. He rorted and put rubbery figures out during the last election to support your GST package—and he is doing it again.Do Treasury work for a living nowadays? Treasury were not allowed to model the GST package because they did not show that it was going to be good for you. You have done it again with Senator Minchin today. Has the Department of Industry, Science and Resources modelled the impact on industry? No. What do the public servants down in these departments do now? You just hire your private sector mates, who will produce reports that say exactly what you want. That is the game involved here. That is what is going on. Where are Treasury? Where is the rigour? Treasury should be embarrassed by this performance yet again. (Time expired)15:31:008660Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—This is the third limb of the government's taxation reform. We had a GST and personal income tax cuts, and now we have business tax reform. One of the great achievements of this government has been its capacity to invigorate the economy, enhance investment, promote growth and create jobs. To attract business and investment, and to do so in an equitable fashion, has been this government's great performance. The ALP often make the mistake—and Senator Conroy perhaps typified this—that if business succeeds it must somehow be detracting from the average Australian; that somehow if business wins the average Australian loses.It is a paradox born of Labor Party history—sitting under the tree at Barcaldine during the shearers' strike. It is a paradox that is wrong. That is the talk of last century. That is the talk of a Labor Party still glibly talking of class warfare. The only way this country can progress is if business continues to work. All of those things your party fought for for a hundred years can only be paid for if business works. Socialism is dead. They will only be paid for if business works—and you know it.One of the great things about the Hawke-Keating governments was the fact that they recognised that, with social welfare, the cake gets bigger if business wins. It was one of the great achievements of your government.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I was just concerned that Senator Mason was not addressing the Senate through the chair. It is a very interesting contribution he is making but I would like him to conform with the standing orders, and I am sure you would too.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Mason, I would ask you to take note of the point of order.84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—The paradox that Senator Conroy pointed out today is, of course, wrong. It is wrong because the workers own the capital. They own the companies. That is the problem. It does not matter what company it is, ordinary Australians own the big companies. That is what hurts. It is no longer a battle between the owners of capital and the workers. That debate is won and, with globalisation, the ideology that says as a worker you are not an owner of capital, well, that debate is finished.The great thing this government has done is to provide the best economic outcomes in the last 30 years. It has done so on the back of great taxation reform. The current unem ployment rate of 7.1 per cent is the lowest since 1990. These reforms will create more jobs for average Australians. That is another great achievement of this government. In 1998 economic growth in Australia was 4.3 per cent, more than double the OECD average for growth. Why? It was partly on the back of taxation reform. This is the third leg.We have also experienced low inflation during the last years. More importantly for a party that say they represent the workers, over the last years of this government, wage earners, particularly the low paid, have experienced significant real wage increases. That is one of the great achievements of this government. These are excellent results and it has been a marvellous outcome for average Australians. Those caught in the time warp of believing benefits for business are contrary to the benefits of average Australians are speaking the language of a century ago.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You believe all this, do you?84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—I remember hearing Senator Faulkner on the radio talking about how it was marvellous that the Blair government was elected in Great Britain.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Was it a good speech I made?84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—It was a marvellous speech. The interesting thing was that he welcomed the election of Mr Blair. It was the end of the awful Thatcher regime. The marvellous thing about it was that Mr Blair endorsed the Thatcher compact and wanted nothing to do with the unions. He endorsed the economic proposals of the Thatcher government. There is nothing that Mr Blair would agree with Senator Faulkner on. That is the marvellous thing about the ALP today: they are not relevant to the debate. That is finished. They are irrelevant.The endorsements that Senator Ferguson spoke about say much more about the truth of where this country is going than old, irrelevant socialist rhetoric. The marvellous thing about Mr Blair is that he recognises the irrelevance of the socialist ideal. That is the great thing about him, and that is why I suspect he will continue to be elected. That is why he is so strong. Both parties in Britain—all parties throughout the Western world—agree with that. The last people who agreed with that old socialist stuff were some members of the Australian Labor Party. I want to just talk about small business. Small business employs most Australians. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.866210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:86621158EP5Ferguson Sen AlanTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned demonstrates our non-support for the proposed radioactive waste dump in South Australia does not proceed.Your Petitioners ask/request that the Senate:Should take the necessary steps for the radioactive waste dump not to proceed.Senator FergusonEP5Senator Ferguson(from 1,158 citizens)Petition received.Notices86628662Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes the disturbing parallel between the uncaring and arrogant policies of the Kennett and Howard Governments which have seen a dramatic decline in the quality of services in Victoria.Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Australia in relation to Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation be extended to 7 December 1999.Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with concern: (i) the Government's failure to give appropriate priority to the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999, (ii) the listing of this bill as government business order of the day no. 54 on the Notice Paper of 22 September 1999, and (iii) that the bill provides for the appropriation of $918 million, one-third of the public funding for technical and further education (TAFE) for 2000; and(b) urges the Government to take steps to have the bill debated as soon as possible in order to provide funding security to Australia's 84 TAFE institutes.Senator Calvert to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the tragic destruction caused in Taiwan by the earthquake on 20 September 1999, with 1 546 people confirmed dead, 3 841 people injured and 2 304 people unaccounted for;(b) expresses sincere sympathy to the people of Taiwan affected by the earthquake and to those who have relatives injured in the quake; and(c) expresses hope that relief efforts will be quick and effective in restoring essential services to the affected areas.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958 , and for other purposes. Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999 .8662Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 SPRING SITTINGSAppropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999. Reasons for Urgency: The introduction and passage of the above bills in the 1999 Spring sittings is crucial as commencement of key elements of the tax reform package are contingent on these appropriations. They include important elements of the government's compensation arrangements and environmental measures.Results if bills are not dealt with in these sittings: Passage of the bills in the Spring sittings would provide greater certainty to community and business regarding the commencement date of the GST and the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance and Administration)Committees86638663866315:40:008663Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the 15th report of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 15 OF 19991. The Committee met on 21 September 1999.2. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:. ACIS Administration Bill 1999. ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999. Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999. Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999. Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999. Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Border Interception) Bill 1999. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999. Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition Bill 1999. Tradex Scheme Bill 1999.The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 29 June 1999). Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999. Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 10 August 1999). A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999. Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Electronic Transactions Bill 1999. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1999. Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999. General Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999. Superannuation Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999(deferred from meeting of 24 August 1999). Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999(deferred from meeting of 21 September 1999). A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999. Convention on Climate Change (Implementation) Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair22 September 1999 Notices86648664Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 309 standing in the name of Senator Brown for 27 September 1999, relating to Western Sahara, postponed till 28 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 23 September 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Murray for today, 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 23 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 27 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 27 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 307 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to genetically-engineered hormonal milk, postponed till 27 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 291 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to compensation for the stolen generation, postponed till 29 September 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 23 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 311 standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, relating to the Victorian state election, postponed till 23 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 312 standing in the name of Senator Cook for today, relating to the Victorian state election, postponed till 23 September 1999.Bills86648664Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous8664Motion (by Senator Bartlett and Senator Woodley) agreed to: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.Committees866486648664Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Gibson) agreed to: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) 1999.86648664Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Ferris) agreed to: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.8665866515:43:008665Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I ask that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today, relating to the reference of matters to a committee, be taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.8665866515:44:008665Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 136 standing in my name for today before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.Leave granted.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I amend the motion as follows:Omit paragraph (2), substitute:(2) The committee inquire into matters pertaining to superannuation and financial services referred to it by the Senate and inquire initially into: (a) prudential supervision and consumer protection for superannuation, banking and financial services; (b) the opportunities and constraints for Australia to become a centre for the provision of global financial services; and (c) enforcement of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge; and report on paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) by the last day of sitting in June 2000.I ask that the motion as amended be taken as formal.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being made formal?15:45:008665Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—by leave—It is with regret that the opposition has been forced to move an amendment to the Democrat motion to establish a Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services. However, it is indeed very necessary and will serve to highlight the hypocrisy the Australian Democrats have displayed on this issue and many others to do with superannuation recently. Labor's amendment is essentially the same motion which Senator Allison gave notice of in this place on 9 March this year—that is, the original Democrat motion.Since that time, much has happened. Many hours have been spent negotiating the terms of reference for the establishment of this fine committee—terms of reference which could be accepted by all political parties. Senator Allison's original motion to re-establish the superannuation committee was broad ranging but contained a number of elements which the opposition was eager to see examined by the committee. The motion stated: (a) the adequacy of the tax system and related policy to address the retirement income and health care needs of Australians into the new millennium; (b) strategies for building more effective national retirement income and long-term saving outcomes; (c) reforms that could be implemented following the completion of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge phase-in to 9 per cent; (d) the taxation of superannuation, particularly the Superannuation High Income Earners Tax Surcharge legislation and alternative payment mechanism;These issues are of vital importance to all Australians. The time is right to examine them through a committee that Senator Lees described in a speech to the Investment and Financial Services Association last night as `among the most influential of any Senate committee'.However, as senators will notice in the motion amended by Senator Allison, the critical issues mentioned above have been excised from the committee's terms of reference. They are completely gone. Gone is the examination of the adequacy of retirement incomes and health. Gone is the examination of the taxation of superannuation, particularly the superannuation surcharge tax. Gone is the national savings focus.There are two new issues that the committee is being encouraged to examine in Senator Allison's amended motion. They are the prudential supervision and consumer protection of superannuation, banking and financial services and the opportunities and constraints on Australia becoming a centre for global financial services. These issues are important and should be dealt with in an appropriate way. In fact, they are Labor's issues which I sought to have included in Senator Allison's original motion and which she agreed to.Why is Senator Allison gutting her own motion by removing the references for the committee to examine the critical issues of the adequacy of health care and retirement incomes, the effectiveness and efficiency of the taxation of superannuation and the importance of developing strategies for boosting national savings? The only reason I can think of is that the government has asked Senator Allison not to include these items in her motion for reference to the committee.I can understand that. After all, why would the government want to have the superannuation surcharge re-examined by a specialist committee which would rake over the fact that it is a policy that is considered a joke? Why would the government want a specialist committee to examine its record on national savings and to point out how it has gutted Labor's co-contribution policy which would have seen billions of dollars flow into savings and point out how it has introduced a raft of policies designed to undermine the confidence of superannuation and savings? Why would the government want a committee to examine its record on the damage it has caused to retirement incomes? The answer is that it would not want these issues examined. It has clearly made this point to Senator Allison.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. We gave the honourable senator opposite leave to make a brief statement. I think he has actually picked up the wrong statement because this is not a brief statement, it is a debate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—There is no point of order.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you for your contribution, Senator Campbell. It was as insightful as ever. As I was saying, the an swer is that the government does not want these issues examined. It has clearly made this point to Senator Allison who has acted accordingly by gutting her own notice of motion. We are not prepared to let that happen, hence our action in denying this motion formality. Labor is happy to support Senator Allison's original motion. That is the amendment we will seek to move to Senator Allison's amended motion. We want to see how Senator Allison and the other Democrat senators will vote on what is essentially their own motion. If they vote against it, they are sending a clear message that they will do whatever the government asks them to do.We all heard the Treasurer say yesterday that the fairies at the bottom of the garden are in the lounge room and taking tea. This motion is absolute proof of that. We have seen the Democrats recently flip-flop around on a choice of funds. Now they are doing it with the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services. We want to make it clear to the superannuation industry and the business world who may be thinking that the Australian Democrats are a serious political party that they are quite willing to try to take the applause for re-establishing the Senate committee but have baulked at the hard decisions and slip and slide around at the begging of the government. Perhaps that is what makes the Democrats so attractive to big business—all you have to do is apply a bit of pressure and they will bend over backwards to assist the government to get its program through, no matter what the cost.We have always indicated that we would support Senator Allison's motion, albeit we asked that the committee not be established until after 30 June this year to allow for a full and open debate on the GST package. That was always our position and still is our position. We did have a couple of issues relating to the financial services part of the committee that we wanted included and they have been. Labor has been negotiating with the Democrats on the terms of reference.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 187 which says that a senator shall not read a speech. This senator is clearly in breach of that standing order. I ask you to call him to order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order: I think it is a silly point of order that Senator Campbell has taken. Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It may well be valid, I do not know. On the point of order, I make this point. In the chamber at 2 o'clock yesterday, Senator Alston, I think appropriately, read a speech for well in excess of 20 minutes, as did I. He did it as Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate and I did it as Leader of the Opposition. It happens often in this place. I do not know whether Senator Conroy is reading a speech.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—He sought leave to make a brief statement. He is reading word for word from a speech.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I do not know whether or not he is using copious notes. I am listening to the substance of what he is saying.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, I have called you to order a number of times now. I shall not call you to order again.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I was just making the point that it is an easy point of order.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Do you want to challenge me?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Acting Deputy President—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That remark was made to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—As I say, it is normally made when senators become frustrated with other senators, sometimes when they have been given leave to make a statement—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—A brief statement.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Or sometimes when they have been given leave to make a brief statement. As you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, this has always been generously interpreted by the chair. It is often the case that speeches are read in here. It is often appropriate that speeches are read in here. It is often appropriate that copious notes are used.Mr Acting Deputy President, I think it would be sensible for you to treat that point of order in the way that many others who have occupied the chair have treated such a point of order when it is made out of frustration, as clearly appears to be the motivation of the Manager of Government Business at this time. He is possibly a little out of control and I think we can forgive him for that. I really do think you should not rule in favour of that point of order and you should ask him to seek some counsel from wiser heads in the government before he takes that sort of point of order again.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the precedents established by previous presidents and previous acting deputy presidents, I will rule that Senator Conroy is reading from copious notes. I will, however, remind Senator Conroy that he did ask leave of the Senate to make a brief statement, and I think he is testing the bounds of the definition of `brief'.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I take your point, Mr Acting Deputy President. I can assure you I have almost finished making all the points I wish to make on this issue. If I can continue uninterrupted, it will be over in a moment.Labor has been negotiating with the Democrats on the terms of reference for the committee for some time. I was under the impression that just over two weeks ago we had an agreement on a terms of reference which we were confident the Senate would support. However, we now find out that the Australian Democrats have changed their mind on the committee's terms of reference and have removed the substantive elements on the government's bidding. That is the key point: on the government's bidding.That sort of policy slip-sliding is not good enough. Senator Lees claimed in her IFSA speech last night, `Like every political party, we have aspirations to eventually govern.' Serious political parties who have aspirations to govern do not give notices of motion then substantially change them without good reason. No such reason exists for the amendments moved by Senator Allison, and this issue has done little to assist people treat the Democrats as a serious political party. Our amendment will restore the major terms of reference to this motion and I ask the Senate to support it. Senator Murray recently commented, `We're no longer the fairies at the bottom of the garden. We're a bunch of trolls.' I can only agree.15:55:008668Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—by leave—I need to respond to the remarks of Senator Conroy. This reference to a new select committee for superannuation to reconvene in fact the previous one has been around since 6 October. I do not think any terms of reference for anything at all in this chamber has taken as many drafts, as much consultation and as much time as this one.Let me just go through the ways in which the Democrats have accommodated the ALP in respect of the details of the terms of reference. The ALP requested that looking into the question of Australia becoming the centre for the provision of global financial services should be addressed by this committee. We agreed, although strictly speaking that has very little to do with superannuation.The starting date of 11 October was simply to accommodate the ALP's need for staffing this committee—again, we went along with it. That the chair would be appointed by the Senate is, again, another concession to the ALP. It is one which I think is quite reasonable, but it was again part of our consultation which accommodated the ALP's concerns about timing for themselves and their own staffing. The question of the enforcement of the super guarantee legislation was another important issue brought in in the last couple of weeks to accommodate people in the union movement and also the ALP. Again, it was another accommodation. Senator Conroy also said that we have been, I think the words were, `slip-sliding' on this issue of the question of the adequacy of the tax system and related policy to address the retirement income and health care needs of Australians into the new millennium. This is the term of reference which he complains about having disappeared.The ALP over the last few weeks has agreed that we would start with those three issues—the prudential supervision and consumer protection for superannuation, the centre for provision of global financial services and SGC. It was always agreed between our parties that that would be the work the Senate committee would embark on initially and that it would report by the last day of sitting in June next year on those issues. They are all very substantial. They will take that amount of time. They are complex. They are difficult.We accommodated the government, who did not want us to spell out exactly what the next round of inquiry would be about. But we do have in the terms of reference the words which make it quite clear that this Senate committee will look at superannuation and financial services issues. Senator Conroy, Senator Sherry and others in the ALP have had my commitment that, by agreement of the Senate, we will proceed down that path when these other matters are dealt with. But there are a number of superannuation bills which I would like to think this Senate committee could deal with as well.So it is not appropriate for us at this time to be spelling out in great detail an inquiry which we will not likely get to at least until the latter part of next year and maybe not at that time either. I agree with the government. It is not appropriate for us to be providing at this early stage such detail on an inquiry which may not take place until well into the future. I would be happy if it started quickly, but the Senate can only manage so many terms of reference at any time, and I do not think this committee could deal with more than the terms of reference that are already up.I think the ALP is just procrastinating. I think it has just offered up another opportunity to bash the Democrats, as the ALP has been so fond of doing lately. Really we are talking about semantics; we are talking about two or three words being in or out. It does not matter one way or the other. It is not to be dealt with by this committee. The terms of reference in my motion make that very clear indeed. I really think it is time that the ALP simply got on with this whole question—or perhaps it does not want this committee to be set up; perhaps it is not interested in superannuation issues at all.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Is there any objection to this being taken as formal?16:00:008669Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I want to briefly respond to aspects of Senator Conroy's remarks which I felt were particularly offensive. The Democrats are more than able to defend themselves, and they have done so very successfully. One reason why people find it impossible to deal with the Labor Party, to reach agreement with the Labor Party, is the sheer level of abuse which occurs in dealings with your party.There were three parties to the negotiations. Each of us had particular interests. As Senator Allison has pointed out, the terms of reference which this committee is looking at are essentially those which Labor strongly support, and some of which Labor initiated. What a joke for Senator Conroy to get up and attack the superannuation surcharge. As far as I am aware, the Labor Party now supports the superannuation surcharge. Maybe it does not; maybe we are due for another backflip—our third or fourth. In noting that the advisers are in the box, I do wish the Labor Party could get their lines straight on this. They are all over the place. I may well make a longer speech on this in due course.Senator Conroy got up and spoke about the co-contribution. What a joke: it was not Labor's policy. Labor dropped that policy at the last election. Senator Conroy never listens to anybody, but maybe his advisers in the box will point out to him that this was not Labor Party policy. So to stand up and read this trite nonsense is pathetic.We had negotiations over a very long period of time. I felt in the end that the various particular preferences of all parties were met. The motion, from our point of view, is not ideal—that is the truth. But we had to note the numbers in this chamber and we had to reach accommodations. That is precisely what happened.For those that read Hansard on these matters, I would note for their information that we have seen another relentlessly abusive speech from Senator Conroy; it is the very aspect of the Labor Party which I think a lot of people absolutely detest—and quite rightly so. Senator Conroy, you will remain on that side of the chamber for as long as it takes for the Labor Party to learn its lessons and learn to sit down and talk with people, not try to browbeat people in the way in which you have done this afternoon.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Yes.8669Contingent motion (by Senator Allison, at the request of Senator Lees) proposed:That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lees moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 136.16:04:008669Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The unfortunate situation that we have before the chair is that arrangements that have been come to by parties in the chamber appear to have been breached. That is always a difficulty and often the Senate debates similar issues. In any chamber of any parliament where no one party or coalition of parties has a majority, there often need to be situations where there is discussion and consultation and negotiation on issues that come before us.The situation which we face in this instance is that there has been consultation and negotiation and, as a result of that level of discussion and involvement, agreements have been reached—and that is often the case—but unfortunately those agreements and understandings have been dishonoured. That is why we have now had three senators seeking leave to discuss the substantive issue before the chair. I would be as disappointed as Senator Conroy, or my other colleagues who have carriage of these sorts of issues, if I had been intimately and directly involved in negotiations and come to understandings and found that they did not stand after a little bit of arm twisting from the government.I put seriously to the Australian Democrats that it is just simply no way to do business in this chamber. I would acknowledge that it is not normally the case—in relation to the way this chamber works, the procedures of the place, the processes that we have—that understandings reached outside the chamber are not honoured when we come to finalise matters actually in the parliament itself. It is an unusual circumstance; it is not the norm. It normally does not occur. I think most senators in this place would acknowledge that that is a fair comment.It leaves us all in a very difficult situation when we face this unfortunate set of circumstances. I certainly understand the very great disappointment and anger that my colleague Mr Kelvin Thomson in the House of Representatives feels, given the amount of time and effort that has been involved in coming to understandings with Senator Allison on such an important issue.This has meant that the opposition is going to progress the agreement it properly reached with the Australian Democrats. We have no alternative in that circumstance but to declare this motion not formal. We will support the suspension of standing orders to allow Senator Allison to put her motion. We will not continue to debate the suspension of standing orders now. Other senators may care to engage in that debate. But we want a capacity to put before the chamber an amendment which will allow the arrangements that were come to between senators, in good faith, so the chamber itself can determine this particular issue.I say very seriously to the Australian Democrats, but it is as well directed to anyone in the chamber including members of the government as well as members of the opposition: if you come to these sorts of arrangements, as you must do in a chamber like this where no party has a majority, where this place works best if we come to understandings and conduct negotiations in the lobbies, in the margin, and then they are breached, unfortunately this place is simply not going to work. We will support the suspension of standing orders on the basis and for the reasons I have outlined. (Time expired)16:09:008670Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—As the Australian Green watching in on this debate, I will also be supporting the suspension of standing orders. The best I can do in this situation is ask: what is in the public interest? Well, superannuation affects every Australian. What I am hearing here is that the Labor Party wanted to at least consolidate, if not expand, the terms of reference of this committee to make sure that important items were not left out of the purview of the committee that is going to do the investigation and had reached an agreement with the Democrats on that matter. What I also hear is that, through negotiations with the government, the reverse has occurred: the government wants to constrict some very important matters that this inquiry might look at as far as the interests of Australians going into the next millennium are concerned—in particular, to hold off the impact of tax policy, for example, on superannuation.It is a simple matter for me to arbitrate as far as the public interest is concerned here. You have one side putting pressure on the Democrats and the Democrats acceding to narrow the matters that the inquiry might look at. You have the other side, the Labor Party in this case, saying, `Let's make sure that nothing is left out.' In those circumstances, I believe the Democrats are doing a disservice to their own initial approach to this matter and to the public to have caved in to the government.Senator Allison herself has said, `Well, some matters we will put off to a later inquiry,' and indicated that that inquiry might not even occur. It might disappear into the wide blue yonder. I am not going to support that. I think the Labor Party is correct here. If I hear the amendment correctly, I will also be supporting that. I would ask the Democrats to reconsider what is in the public interest here. I think if they do that they will also be supporting the arrangement that was touted apparently outside this place with the Labor Party and now that it is here in the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.8671Motion (by Senator Allison, at the request of Senator Lees) proposed:That general business notice of motion no. 136 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; those against say no. Senator Conroy, you don't speak to this motion.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I hear your ruling from the chair that you do not speak to this motion. This of course is a matter of opinion, and I do recall on one or two occasions—on a very few occasions—when the opposition has chosen to speak. I think we have all accepted that it is not the norm. It is an unusual circumstance.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You are getting a bit unctuous, John.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, no. But it has occurred, so I would not want the Hansard record to show that it is not competent for senators to speak on the procedural motion. I think it would be fair for you to make the point that it would be an unusual circumstance. I think it has occurred in the past and it has been a matter of some discussion, as you may be aware, at the Procedure Committee about the appropriateness or otherwise. On this occasion the opposition will not be exercising its rights to speak, but I do draw your attention to a capacity to speak to the motion if senators so require, albeit a comparatively unusual circumstance in this chamber.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Faulkner. It is not the substantive motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.8671Motion (by Senator Allison) proposed:That— (1) A Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services be appointed with effect on and from 11 October 1999, with the same functions and powers as the Select Committee on Superannuation appointed by resolution of the Senate on 5 June 1991, and reappointed on 13 May 1993 and 29 May 1996, except as otherwise provided in this resolution.(2) The committee inquire into matters pertaining to superannuation and financial services referred to it by the Senate and inquire initially into: (a) prudential supervision and consumer protection for superannuation, banking and financial services; (b) the opportunities and constraints for Australia to become a centre for the provision of global financial services; and (c) enforcement of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge; and report on paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) by the last day of sitting in June 2000.(3) The committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the minutes of evidence and records of the Select Committee on Superannuation appointed in the previous three Parliaments.(4) The committee consist of 7 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 nominated by other parties or independent senators.(5) The nomination of the final member to be determined by agreement between the other parties and independent senators and, in the absence of agreement, duly notified to the President, the question of representation on the committee of other parties or independent senators be determined by the Senate.(6) The Senate, by subsequent resolution, appoint a member of the committee as its chair.16:14:008671Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Do we really need Faulkner in here?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I appreciate Senator Kemp's assistance, as always. We have the peanut gallery over there. I welcome their contribution.UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator Conroy, address the chair.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I have amendments. I rise to speak again. I have already spoken, briefly, on this issue, so I do not intend to take up too much time in the chamber. I have made a number of points. Senator Brown is absolutely right, and Senator Brown was party to the agreement. I spoke with both Senator Brown and Senator Harradine on this issue, and I obtained their support. As Senator Allison is not denying, I also had an agreement with Senator Allison. The key point Senator Allison made herself was that, following pressure from the government, she agreed to amend the motion without consultation or referral back to the Labor Party. She came to us and said, `We're taking this out because the government don't want it.' The question for good practice is whether every single motion that is now to be passed through this chamber has to have the agreement of the government. That is the implication that Senator Allison has given us in her speech. It is the implication we have been getting from Senator Lees. Whatever happened to expression, democracy and Senate inquiries that are not subject to veto by the government? That appears to be where we are today. The Democrats will say, `We don't want any terms of reference to go forward in this chamber unless the government agree to it.'It is not good enough. This is an independent chamber. It is not part of the executive of government. It is not here to rubber-stamp what the government wants. It is here to look at issues. It is here to look at the issues, in particular, that the government does not want it to look at. We spent six months on the GST inquiry, and we came up with a whole host of information that the government had sought to hide from the people of Australia during the last federal election. Some have even gone as far as arguing that this GST committee proved the need for the independence of the Senate. Independent commentators like Laurie Oakes said that the information that flowed from the GST inquiry—which, at that time, the Democrats were prepared to stand up for—proved the need for the independence of the Senate.We now see the trolls, as they were described by Senator Murray, cuddling up into the kitchen. This is your leader, Senator Kemp. He said, `The fairies have come into the kitchen.' They are taking tea. The government have invited them into the cabinet room with a bit of Earl Grey and a few chocolate biscuits and, all of a sudden, the Democrats have abandoned every principle they ever had about the independence of the Senate.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Never had any!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you. I will take that interjection. What is at stake today is that, if the government put pressure on the Democrats about an inquiry into something the government do not want inquired into, the Democrats will fold. This will not serve them well, because this is the model of Victoria, and we have just seen what happened on the weekend in Victoria. Secret government saw the government over there destroyed. Where is Jeff Kennett today? He is crawling to the Independents and to the bloke that he referred to in somewhat unflattering terms. He has had to give them a ring and say, `Mate, I didn't really mean it. I didn't really call you that.' Where are the honesty and the openness? Where are the government in Victoria's members in Gisborne, Seymour, Ballarat, Bendigo and Ripon? What happened to all of them?5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. We do not mind the honourable senator talking at length, but will he please return to the subject?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am concerned that the honourable senator is responding to a lot of interjections. I would ask him to address his comments to the chair.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for that. I am making a point about openness and democracy, and that is what this chamber is meant to be about. That is what the Democrats have championed for years. They want a vibrant Senate that will examine parts of government that the executive—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and, in particular, the Assistant Treasurer—do not want us to examine. We know what happens. This committee has been an embarrassment to Senator Kemp. This committee has humiliated the Assistant Treasurer. It has consistently brought forward sound policy positions that the Assistant Treasurer has been humiliated over. He has shown to be not across the details. He has been shown to be incompetent on the issues that have been raised and incapable of defending himself when the committee has brought its reports down.That is the nub of this debate. This debate is about the Democrats getting into bed with Senator Kemp to protect Senator Kemp. The Democrats have nothing to fear from this committee. The Democrats have no reason to give in to the government. The only reason they have to give in to the government is to protect Senator Kemp. You, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, know more about this topic than the Assistant Treasurer. That is the constant embarrassment to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Day in and day out the committee comes up with coherent, responsible public policy. The Assistant Treasurer sits here and mumbles his way through question time. He has not a clue. He can barely manage his brief, and he is exposed consistently.Why would the Democrats want to stop good public policy discussion? That is the question. That is why we are moving this amendment. Why wouldn't you want the committee to talk about the adequacy of the tax system and related policy to address the retirement income and health care needs of Australians into the new millennium? Why wouldn't you want a committee to look at that? That is a significant public policy issue. The health care needs of the baby boomer generation are going to be hitting. If you wait until 2015, you will suddenly go, `Oh, all of a sudden we've got this health care crisis.' We need this committee to look at it now. We need to know about the retirement income needs of Australians in the next 10 years.If you wait 10 years and spend your time now pretending it is not a problem and sabotaging the retirement incomes of Austral ians—like this government has been doing for the last 3½ years—you will not be able to respond when the time comes. Why wouldn't you want terms of reference that look at the strategies for building more effective national retirement income and long-term savings outcomes? How could you possibly want not to examine that? Senator Kemp has consistently tried to confound the establishment of this committee and demanded that the terms of reference be acceptable to the government or it will vote against it. That is what has been going on. They do not want terms of reference that look at the effective national retirement income and long-term savings outcomes.The original terms of reference also included a reference to reforms that could be implemented following the completion of the superannuation guarantee charge phase-in to nine per cent. We all know that in this country we have a looming crisis in this area. The government abandoned the former government's co-contribution and abolished its own contribution.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You abandoned it, too!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—You abandoned it and have done nothing. We got the savings rebate. Remember that, Senator Allison? It was a joke. Treasury admitted publicly, again to the humiliation of the government and of the Assistant Treasurer, that the so-called savings rebate would, in actual fact, lead to a reduction in national savings. The savings rebate saw money being taken from ordinary battling Australians and given to people who already had wealth and savings. You did not have to create any new savings to qualify for the savings rebate. All you had to do to qualify for the rebate was already have some money or savings. Not only was there no incentive for increased savings but you got the rebates by doing nothing.This parliament knows and has acknowledged consistently for 10 years that we need to look at what we are going to do after the superannuation guarantee phase-in to nine per cent is finished. Nine per cent is not enough for the majority of Australians to live on. It is acknowledged that somewhere between 15 per cent and 23 per cent of your annual income needs to be put into long-term savings so that you have enough money to live on when you retire. The former government had a policy to get it up to 15 per cent. This government chose not to pursue it. It was its right to do so. I think it is bad policy, but it is its right to. We now have many hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians who will be retiring with just nine per cent and will still require access to the social security system.The whole point when it was designed with bipartisan support—I believe the Democrats also supported it, so there was unanimous support in the chamber—was for the co-contributions. Senator Kemp, I know you did not have responsibility in this area, but leading into 1996 the government said, `We will keep that, but we choose to vary the means of delivery.' Four billion dollars worth of tax cuts would have been put into people's long-term retirement incomes that you said in your 1996 election platform you would support. Then, like a number of other core commitments, it suddenly became non-core. This government abandoned it. That was the first part of the destruction of people's retirement incomes. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of retirement income were tossed out by this government so that they could give money to people who already had money.Even the government became embarrassed by the savings rebate. Last year when the ANTS package came, what happened to the savings rebate that was there to fix this problem? They abandoned it. They knew the savings rebate was a dog. They knew it would lead to lower national savings and yet they did not care. They cared about looking after their mates. Like in the Ralph package yesterday, where again they have not addressed this issue, they are giving money to their mates. We are seeing huge gains for the people on higher incomes.I noted that in question time today Senator Murray even had a question for Senator Kemp on this issue. He said that 70 per cent of capital gains at the moment go to the top 20 per cent. He did not mind voting for a tax package a few months before which saw 50 per cent of the gains from the ANTS package going to the top 20 per cent. They shaved $1 billion off it. All of a sudden, he has a conscience about the 70 per cent of capital gains revenue that will be given away to the top 20 per cent. No doubt if he is able to knock a couple of hundred million dollars off that, he will be voting to give the top 20 per cent all the big benefits in the business tax reform package as well.Many good things are in the business tax reform package, as the shadow Treasurer has said. If this government was actually prepared to talk to the Labor Party rather than just being insulting and abusive as the Treasurer was yesterday, it might be able to get a decent bipartisan package. The Treasurer might be prepared to do so. You can sit there on the other side of the chamber and say, `What did he call you?' Then, when it is pointed out that all the Treasurer was doing is abusing us, the Assistant Treasurer just laughs. He wants it both ways in this debate.But what is wrong with having a look at the taxation superannuation, particularly in light of the Ralph report? What is wrong with looking at the taxation of superannuation, particularly the superannuation high income earners tax surcharge legislation and alternative payment mechanisms? Why don't the government want to look at that and, more importantly, Senator Allison, why don't the Democrats?What we are moving today may seem very familiar to you because it was originally listed as `Notice given on 9 March 1999, 136, Senator Allison: to move'. This is your original motion. You have let the government bully you and force you into abandoning your own position, and you have caved in to Senator Kemp and Treasury. That is what has happened. Caving in to Senator Kemp! It is almost too frightening for words. Wait until they turn up the pressure and wheel out Senator Alston and Senator Hill on you again, and wait until the Treasurer and the Prime Minister start on you on Ralph. You have caved in on something that is simple and fundamental to this chamber and, if the government are not prepared to support a terms of reference for a select committee, you say, `Well, we will not do it; we will give them what they want.'How on earth can opposition parties stand back and not say anything when we reach a deal with you—when we think we have an agreement? We have taken responsibility for the fact that two weeks ago you stood up and sought to move the original motion and, due to confusion on our side, it was denied formality. Within two weeks and after a couple of phone calls from Senator Kemp and his office, you have caved in. What sort of serious political party do you try to portray yourselves as? A bit of pressure from Senator Kemp! I would not mind if it was from Senator Alston. I would not mind if at least a few of the heavyweights had been brought in to put the weights on you—then, at least, it would have been, `Well, you know, we were called in.' I would not have minded if it had been Senator Hill or Senator Alston—one of the bovver boys from over there. I know Senator Alston has called you a lot of names over the years in the chamber. I would not have minded him—but Senator Kemp! It is an insult to all Democrat members. It is an insult to Senator Brown, who was party to the agreement, and it is an insult to Senator Bartlett that you caved in to Senator Kemp.The substantive issue that we are debating in these amendments, which are now circulating, is what is wrong with those issues. I am looking forward to your contribution. Do not just stand up and say that the government did not like them. Stand up and argue why you do not want to look at retirement incomes and health care needs, why you do not want to look at the national retirement income and long-term savings outcomes, why you do not want to look at what we should do after the nine per cent phase in has finished, and why you do not want to look at the taxation surcharge. I know why Senator Kemp does not want to talk about the surcharge. It is called a tax, for a start. It represented the big lie in their first budget and it represented dishonesty to Australian people when the government said that they would not put in any new taxes. They called it something else fancy and then they turned around and put in a surcharge, and it has been a disaster. They have not been able to get as much money from it as they projected and it has caused enormous cost to ordinary, battling superannuation earners. But Senator Kemp is forever trying to pretend that it is a great measure.Why don't we look at another mechanism? You have suggested other mechanisms in the past, Senator Allison, and we have suggested other mechanisms in the past.Senator Kemp interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—What we are seeing is Senator Kemp, over on the other side, flapping his gums as he always does—the waffle will come out. I hope that he is going to make a contribution. Why don't you stand up and tell us why you do not want these things, Senator Kemp? Let us hear even a minute. That is an invitation, a standing invitation, for you to give us the government's reasons why you do not want these investigated, why you do not want the Senate to look at these. Because you do not understand them—that is the answer.Senator Alston interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Senator Alston, I invite you to join the debate. You are at least a heavy hitter, someone with a bit of political experience. As I said, the preselections in Frankston East or Ballarat are now available, Senator Alston. I know that you have run for Ballarat before. I know that you have had a go and lost. I know that you have been up there wandering around in the past, but here is your big chance. You can get on that white charger that Jeff rode off on and ride back into town. They need someone to save them down there. They have absolutely collapsed.Senator Alston interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It is important that this chamber has independence, Senator Alston. It is important for the future of Australians' retirement incomes that they know what faces them. Your contribution today, Senator Allison, by caving in to the government, is letting down hundreds of thousands of Australians who want to know the sort of information that this very high quality committee—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! Senator Conroy, you have referred to your amendments, but I do not think you have moved them.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I seek leave to move my amendments together.Leave granted.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I move the following amendments to Senator Allison's motion:(1) Paragraph (2), omit "matters pertaining to superannuation and financial services referred to it by the Senate and inquire initially into".(2) Before paragraph (2)(a), insert: (aa) the adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of the current superannuation tax arrangements and related public policies to address the retirement income, aged and health care needs of Australians into the new millennium;(3) Omit paragraph (2)(c), substitute: (c) the administration of small amounts, including enforcement of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge, portability and access to the Lost Members' Register.(4) At the end of paragraph (2), add "and on other matters on a date to be determined by subsequent resolution".16:35:008676Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Very briefly, I concur with the thrust of Senator Conroy's remarks because this is a very important inquiry and it should be taken seriously. I was amenable to the wider terms of reference of the inquiry but, apparently, due to government pressure, Senator Allison and the Democrats have taken these key issues of the retirement income and health care needs of Australians off the agenda of that inquiry. We have two questions to ask there. The first is: why don't these matters relate to the other terms of reference of the inquiry into the superannuation welfare of Australians? The second is: why did the Democrats agree to government pressure to narrow the terms of reference of the inquiry when they did not have to? The mathematics of the Senate is such that, had the Democrats proceeded, they had both the Australian Greens' support and the Labor Party's support, and therefore they had the numbers in the Senate to ensure that their original terms of reference got through. They did not have to bow to the dictates of the government.As a political party that has always supported transparency in the public interest, we need to hear much more from Senator Allison about the negotiations that took place between the government and the Democrats. Every Australian is aware that there is a new configuration of power in this place. But when you see an important issue like this being altered when it does not need to be—in other words, the Democrats are doing this as a favour to the government because, had they stood their ground, they would have prevailed and the inquiry would have proceeded as originally put forward by them—you have to ask: what is the quid pro quo? What are the other factors that have been brought in to the discussions with the government? The public has a right to know this.Otherwise, and I say this to the Democrat members present, the public will begin to gain the impression that the Democrats not only are moving closer to the government but also are in a working relationship with the government for mutual advantage which is not in the public interest. Changing these terms of reference is not in the public interest—it is in the government's interest but it is not in the public interest. We have the Democrats unnecessarily working against the public interest by narrowing these terms of reference.Senator Allison may not even know what is being traded here. It may be that other members of the Democrats such as the Leader of the Australian Democrats or senior staffers are negotiating with the government on a range of other matters and have agreed, for the convenience of the government, to accede to narrowing the terms of reference of this inquiry. We need to know—the Senate ought to be putting pressure on the Democrats now and that is what I am doing here—what those other matters are. What is going on behind closed doors in the mutual self-interest of the Democrats and the government against the wider interests of the public of Australia?The Democrats have been sticklers for transparency in government. What has happened here is they are now becoming part of the government. So they have to be consistent and transparent about this when they are affecting government outcomes. This is a government outcome that we are dealing with here.I say to Senator Allison, because I know she is going to follow me in this debate, that a lot of people will be listening carefully to what she says in answer to this question: what are the other issues that have come into play to break an agreement that the majority of the Senate had arrived at and to unnecessarily narrow the terms of reference of this inquiry because the government wanted it? You just do not do that off the cuff; you just do not do that to be nice because the public interest is here. Something else is being traded. The Senate has a right—because the public has a right—to know what that something else is.I say to Senator Allison: be straight with us; tell us what the other matters are and tell us what the other advantage to the public is that the Democrats see in agreeing with this arrangement unnecessarily with the government. Then both the public and I can understand. Only then—if necessary and if it is important enough—would I change my voting intention here, which is to vote with the opposition. There is the challenge: it is not to simply get up and say, `We have an arrangement with the government and we have agreed to change an agreement made with the rest of the Senate'; the challenge is to get up and say what is being traded here. That is what I want to hear.16:41:008677Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I am closing the debate, I hope. What we have seen this afternoon is political opportunism at its worst in this chamber in the last three years since I have been here.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—What is your price?1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Senator Bolkus, if you wanted to say something, perhaps you could raise the matter of the EPBC Bill. Why not? Let us open the debate altogether. You had your chance; you should have got up a little earlier.We can always expect Senator Brown to jump on the bandwagon—Senator Brown who has had little involvement in the committees in this place; Senator Brown who has not come along to any of the committees that I have been involved in, and that is a consider able number; Senator Brown who has moved in his place his own terms of reference to the environment references committee which I chair and who has never even bothered to consult me about this matter individually. For Senator Brown to come into this place and complain about breaches of agreement and lack of consultation, openness and transparency is the height of hypocrisy, and I could not believe I was hearing it.Let us just look at exactly what we are talking about here so that we see the absurdity of the ALP proceeding down this path. We are talking about terms of reference which have changed very slightly in their wording. I am going to go through those terms because those people who are listening to this debate would have no idea. They would imagine that the Democrats have agreed to some amazing arrangement with the government that is beyond the scope of this place or beyond anything the ALP might have imagined, so let me just go through the wording. The ALP amendments state:The committee inquire into matters pertaining to superannuation and financial services referred to it by the Senate and inquire initially into . . . Then there are three matters: prudential supervision and consumer protection for superannuation, banking and financial services; opportunities and constraints for Australia to become a centre for the provision of global financial services; and enforcement of the superannuation guarantee charge. At every point in the discussions over these terms of reference, the ALP has agreed that this committee will look at those three matters initially and that it will report back in June next year.Senator Conroy and Senator Faulkner talk about breaches of agreement. This was always the agreement, such as it was, in terms of consultation and drafts going from one office to the other trying to reach some agreement, some accommodation, on this issue. It was always understood that those would be the matters this inquiry would look into initially. The adequacy of the tax system and related policy to address retirement incomes et cetera are fine things for the Senate to look into, and have my support, but we always agreed not to deal with those matters until we had dealt with these other matters. I am quite happy to entertain terms of reference which go to the wording of the ALP, but we all agreed that this was not the right time to do that.It has been fairly obvious to me since coming into the Senate three years ago that the best outcomes from the work of the committees in this place come from reaching consensus, reaching accommodation, with each of the parties in this place. That is what I have attempted to do for the last seven months—since 6 March this year. Senator Conroy says there has been no discussion with his office. That simply is not true. The emails just in the last week between my office and his and between my office and Senator Kemp's office are almost too numerous to count. So for Senator Conroy to now have the gall to stand up here in this place and say that the Democrats have breached some agreement is an outrage and an absolute fabrication of the truth. Senator Conroy would happily have the Democrats and the ALP agree to something with which the government did not agree and proceed down that path—he would be very happy to do that. But to reach accommodation is apparently out of the question for the ALP and the opposition. I do not operate that way.If there is a possibility on a committee such as this of us reaching agreement then I will seek to do that because I think that you have the best kind of cooperation in, and the best outcome from, committee inquiry processes if all parties are happy with what they are doing. In the case of setting up this committee, it seemed to me to be a very opportune thing to proceed down that path and to reach agreement. Down the track, once we have finished these inquiries—that is entirely up to the ALP and ourselves, and possibly it will not include the government; I do not know about that—it is entirely up to the Senate to determine when we move to the next stage of the inquiry. I am happy with that; the Democrats have said all along that is what they are interested in. But it is a question of staging, of timing. This committee cannot take on board broad terms of reference that go into so many different areas. These three matters will occupy the time of the committee very substantially between now and then.It is all very well for Senator Brown to stand up and say, `The committee should do it all,' but he does not have to be on these committees. He does not turn up to these committee hearings. He is not part of the process. I really think he should mind his own business because, quite frankly, these three matters that are before us today, that are part of these terms of reference, will occupy a great deal of the time of this committee. They are very substantial and do not need to be added to by the further broad terms of reference that Senator Conroy has proposed in the amendments he has moved. It is totally disingenuous for him to stand up and say we are now rejecting something which was agreed previously and that we are somehow caving in to what the government wants us to do.I am really disappointed in this whole debate, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have proceeded on good faith. I have attempted to reach consensus and an accommodation with the parties involved. Clearly the ALP simply see this as an opportunity for them to stand up and bash the Democrats yet again. Senator Conroy brings into the debate the question of the GST. I ask him: what has that got to do with this particular debate? Again, this is nothing to do with the real matters: what is appropriate for this committee to deal with and what sort of staging we should adopt to get sensible reporting out of this committee when it has looked at very important issues. This is about the ALP again taking the opportunity to attack the Democrats. I for one am very disappointed because I worked with the previous superannuation committee and found it to be one whose members could cooperate across political parties. It was, in my view, a very effective committee. But clearly Senator Conroy does not want that in the future. He sees this as an opportunity for political point scoring. Quite frankly, I am disappointed with that. I have, as a result, some fairly low expectations of what this committee will be able to do if that is the attitude which prevails. If it is not, fine—we will proceed to do some good work. But if Senator Conroy proceeds with this kind of political point scoring there is not much to be gained by that committee. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Conroy's ) be agreed to.16:54:00The Senate divided. (The Deputy President—Senator S. M. West)26Bolkus, 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. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.39Abetz, E. Allison, 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.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Greig, B. A. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.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. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.Bishop, T. M. Reid, M. E.Crossin, P. M. Lightfoot, P. R.Faulkner, J. P. Tierney, J.Lundy, K. Hill, R. M.Ray, R. F. Eggleston, A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Allison be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.86798679Motion (by Senator Bartlett)—by leave—not agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 1999:(a) an examination of fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, including: (i) the impacts of fisheries on the world heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef, (ii) an assessment of whether the fisheries in the reef are ecologically sustainable, (iii) the reforms needed to ensure ecological sustainability in fishing practices and management, (iv) state and federal fisheries management, policies and practices, (v) an assessment of the adequacy of legislative framework regulating fisheries, (vi) an identification of the various Commonwealth and state agencies with responsibility for managing fisheries in the reef, (vii) an evaluation of the adequacy of management of fisheries by those agencies and whether they are discharging their responsibilities properly,(viii) whether those agencies are properly resourced, and (ix) the best way of achieving structural adjustment for fisheries in the reef;(b) the adequacy of the areas of protection for biodiversity found in the World Heritage Area, with particular reference to: (i) current zoning including green zones (`no take zones'), (ii) the comprehensive, adequate and representative areas program, (iii) whether those areas should be increased, and (iv) the timeline for increasing those areas; and (c) the potential impacts on the World Heritage Area and associated intertidal zones from all coastal oil shale mines, including: (i) increased sediment pollution of sea grass and mangrove systems due to land clearing, construction and mining, (ii) disturbance of acid sulphate soils, (iii) disturbance of clay material in the marine environment, (iv) offsite water and air pollution from the project sites, (v) future increases in oil tanker traffic, including oil spills from accidents during transport and oil loading and transfer, and (vi) the impact of open cut mining in the World Heritage Area and associated intertidal zones.8680868016:59:008680Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 14th report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 14 of 1999, dated 22 September 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous86808680868016:59:008680Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I present additional information received by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee relating to the budget estimates hearings for 1999-2000.Committees86808680868017:00:008680Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present further additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee in response to its inquiry into the provisions of the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 .8680868017:00:008680Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: No. 6 of 1999—RAAF Base Townsville Redevelopment, Stage 1; and No. 7 of 1999—Darwin Naval Base Redevelopment. I move:That the Senate take note of the reports.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—RAAF Base Townsville Redevelopment, Stage 1Madam President, the reports which I have just tabled concern the proposals to redevelop RAAF Base Townsville and to upgrade existing facilities and construct new facilities at the Darwin Naval Base.The estimated out turn cost of both proposals is $99.45 million.The Public Works Committee has approved the redevelopment works.The first report, the Committee's sixth of 1999, involves the Stage 1 redevelopment of RAAF Base, Townsville.For this inquiry, the Committee held a public hearing into the proposal in Townsville on 16 June 1999 and received a number of written submissions.RAAF Base Townsville is located approximately 5 kilometres west of the Townsville city centre, within the suburb of Garbutt. The Base is a joint user airfield, supporting both military and civil aircraft operations.RAAF Base Townsville was developed during the Second World War and many of the existing facilities have been only slightly modified since this period. The Base forms part of a chain of military airfields across northern Australia to Learmonth in the west. It provides for the air defence of northern Queensland and its approaches. The Base's primary function is as a deployment base for combat aircraft during a contingency and as an air head for the 3rd Brigade's Ready Deployment Force. The proposal examined by the Committee aims to provide new operational facilities and upgrade or replace current Base facilities, including:. a purpose built Ordnance Loading Apron complex;. a Quick Reaction Alert Facility;. a dedicated Fighter/Strike Operational and Technical Support Facility;. light tactical aircraft facilities;. consolidated vehicle and battery maintenance facility; and. replacement of existing perimeter road with a sealed all-weather surface.An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the redevelopment has been undertaken. The findings of the EIA have led to a determination that there will be no significant environmental impact resulting from the proposed Redevelopment Stage 1. Concurrent with the EIA process, substantial consultation was undertaken with special interest groups and environmental agencies to assist in determining the environmental issues associated with the proposed project. An Environmental Management Plan for the Stage 1 Redevelopment construction activities is to be developed and approved before construction commences.The Committee is satisfied that the Department of Defence appears to have undertaken sufficient consultation with the relevant authorities and interest groups in the consideration of environmental and heritage issues associated with the redevelopment.When referred to the Committee, the estimated cost of the project was $95 million. However, the approved budget figure is $87.05 million. Defence indicated to the Committee that attempts will be made to make some savings throughout the project, allowing funding of the full scope of the works outlined in the proposal. However, budgetary restraints may result in some lower priority elements of the project being moved to a subsequent stage.Redevelopment of Darwin Naval Base ProjectThe second report I have just tabled, the Committee's seventh of 1999, relates to the redevelopment of Darwin Naval Base.For this inquiry, the Committee inspected existing facilities and sites for the proposed works. The Committee also held a public hearing into the proposal in Darwin on 6 July 1999 and received a number of written submissions.Darwin Naval Base is located within Larrakeyah Barracks two kilometres from the Darwin Central Business District and was constructed between 1980 and 1982 at a cost of $17.7 million. The Base provides support for vessels undertaking patrol activities, the Commander Northern Command, major fleet units, submarines and visiting warships from foreign navies exercising or operating in northern Australian waters.The operational tempo in Australia's north has increased significantly over the past few years. Defence has advised the Committee that the proposed facilities are necessary to overcome existing occupational health and safety (OH&S) issues and operational deficiencies.The proposal examined by the Committee involves the:. construction of a new 146 metre wharf to accommodate up to nine patrol boats;. improvement and extension of the existing wharf;. realignment of the boat ramp to be parallel with the existing wharf;. construction of three new hardstands;. provision of an additional fuel storage and reconditioning facility;. provision of an under cover naval stores receipt and dispatch area; and. relocation of 36 Water Transport Troop to the main Base complex.The proposal will relocate approximately 130 personnel and 120 dependents to Darwin, but the total number of Navy personnel will remain basically the same, due to the effects of the Defence Reform Program.The development provides an opportunity for locally-based businesses to benefit through contracting, sub-contracting and the supply of goods and services. Increased expenditure in the Territory is expected through provisioning and maintenance contracts for the additional ships. It is anticipated that the redevelopment will result in greater opportunities for companies supporting patrol boat maintenance in Darwin.The Committee is satisfied that the Department of Defence has adequately addressed environmental and heritage concerns. Defence has completed a flora, fauna and aquatic survey of the area and forwarded the resulting report to Environment Australia and the Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment. Both authorities have agreed to the project proceeding. An issues identification study will also be used as a basis for detailed consultation. Factors to alleviate community concerns will be built into Defence's plans for the project, for example, relevant concerns will be incorporated into the project environmental management plans.Concern was expressed by local residents that the works may result in an increase in the flow of traffic, particularly heavy vehicles on local roads. The Committee has recommended that in order to alleviate excessive traffic noise related to the operations of the Base, the Department of Defence should continue to consult with Darwin City Council and local residents. This should include consideration of existing guidelines governing the level of noise permitted from construction activities, particularly those carried out outside normal working hours and on weekends.The Committee also heard safety concerns from local residents that the project may result in an increase in the transportation of weapons along residential roads. The Committee was satisfied that the movement of ordnance is not an environmental or safety risk due to the limited quantities transported, the nature of the ordnance being transported and Defence's compliance with transportation rules and regulations.When referred to the Committee, the estimated cost of the project was $12.4 million.Madam President, I commend the reports to the Senate.8682Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At question time today, Senator Newman was criticised by the opposition about the government's non-activity in defence matters and the fact that not enough money was being spent on defence. I think these two reports put the lie to that. These reports put forward two proposals amounting to almost $100 million. One of them is the RAAF Base Townsville. Part of the activity there and money being spent there is on the development of the Air Force base which, as everybody who is interested in the matter would know, particularly Senator Ian Macdonald, is an airhead for the 3rd Brigade's ready deployment force, which of course is in East Timor at the moment. It just shows that the government is supporting the 3rd Brigade. The other relates to the Darwin naval base redevelopment, as Senator Patterson would know, and approves facilities to enable more patrol boats to be stationed in Darwin to carry out patrol work to avert the further incursion of illegal immigrants and others into Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ministerial Statements868217:03:008682Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I seek leave to incorporate a ministerial statement on Australia's readiness for the year 2000 in Hansard , together with a background information paper, and to make a brief statement.Leave granted.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The only thing I wanted to add to this ministerial statement, under the heading of `government leadership', is an acknowledgment of the efforts of Senator Ian Campbell, the parliamentary secretary with particular responsibility for year 2000 issues. Senator Ian Campbell has been assiduous in speaking to all elements of industry and government with a particular interest in this matter. It is often a difficult and technical task, and it is one that he has conquered and pursued with great enthusiasm. I am particularly indebted to him for that.The statement read as follows—INTRODUCTIONFrom the growing amount of information available, Australia is extremely well prepared to deal with the Year 2000 date change.The Year 2000 issue has a simple cause. Until recently, there was a need to use as little computer memory as possible because of its very high price, and so dates were stored without reference to the century. The solution is far more complex.But what began as a computer problem has become a national opportunity.In the process of fixing the bug, we have created better systems and stronger networks, building a solid foundation for the 21st century.The Government is confident that the community will be able to enjoy the holiday season and New Year's Eve celebrations, and that industry can look ahead to a new year full of expanding business opportunities.Today, I will outline Australia's preparations and provide a national picture of our Year 2000 readiness.GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIPSince 1996 the Commonwealth Government has:. provided leadership in preparing and reporting on its own systems;. monitored preparations in sectors it's responsible for—in particular banking and finance, aviation and communications;. helped raise awareness in industry through the Year 2000 National Steering Committee;. provided legislative and taxation support for business efforts; and . informed the wider community of the preparedness of key sectors.The Commonwealth Government has been actively monitoring progress towards Year 2000 compliance of over 3 500 business critical systems across 124 Departments and agencies, and has released results publicly since December 1998. The level of detail in these reports places Australia at the forefront of public reporting by governments around the world.I am pleased to announce that according to the most recent public report released today, as at August this year, 97 per cent of the business-critical systems identified in Commonwealth agencies had been fixed. All the available evidence suggests that the community can have confidence that key Commonwealth Government services will be able to be delivered seamlessly into the year 2000.The Government will now receive monthly reports on the small number of outstanding systems until all work is complete. Less than 1 per cent of systems (or 21 systems) are likely to be non-compliant by the end of this month. The majority do not have a role in the delivery of key services. Half of them relate to building systems.The Government also monitors the progress of 51 government business entities (GBEs). These include Telstra, Australia Post and the Sydney Airport Corporation. At August 1999, Commonwealth GBEs reported they had achieved average compliance levels of 93 per cent. Full compliance for all GBEs is scheduled for end October 1999.The Commonwealth Government's remediation work is substantially complete. Agencies are required to develop contingency plans aimed at delivering services as usual in the event of any unforseen problems—whether Year 2000-related or not. This latest report shows 78 per cent of contingency planning is now complete.NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORSThe Commonwealth Government is responsible for the delivery, or regulating the delivery, of three key national infrastructure sectors—banking and finance, aviation and communications. Since April 1999 we have reported publicly on preparedness in these critical sectors.Banking and FinanceThe Australian banking and financial sector is well prepared for the Year 2000 and is internationally recognised as exhibiting world's best practice. Australia's banks and other financial institutions have completed the vast majority of remediation and testing of all critical systems. This should ensure that it will be `business as usual' in the financial sector.Institutions are also finalising their contingency plans to deal with unexpected problems or prob lems outside of their control. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) is continuing to closely monitor the Year 2000 preparations of financial institutions.A comprehensive program to test the Year 2000 readiness of the Australian payments system was successfully completed by 30 June 1999. No Year 2000 problems were reported by test participants and payments mechanisms, such as ATMs, EFTPOS and credit cards, are Year 2000 ready. Contingency plans for the payments system are also nearing completion.The public can be reassured that their deposits are safe and that their records are not at risk from Year 2000 related problems. There is no need for people to withdraw more money over the New Year period than they normally would for a long weekend. However, the Reserve Bank has built up ample stocks of currency notes to meet any extra demand should it occur.AviationSince July 1998 the Department of Transport and Regional Services has chaired a Year 2000 Aviation Committee of government, industry and consumer representatives which meets monthly to monitor and report to Government on the preparedness of the various players in the aviation industry.Airservices Australia is confident there will be no disruption to the services it provides the aviation industry as a result of the impact of the millennium bug on its own systems. To the extent Airservices relies on others, it has determined they are compliant or where appropriate has developed extensive contingency plans.The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has called on all licensed air operators, aviation maintenance organisations and licensed aerodromes to provide information on their Year 2000 readiness and contingency planning by 30 September 1999. CASA has sent a comprehensive Operator's Guide to Year 2000 Readiness and Contingency Planning to all licence holders.Major Australian airports have advised they are progressing well towards full compliance and have programs in place to ensure business continuity during the year 2000 period.Qantas and Ansett, their subsidiaries and regional partners, have been working on the Year 2000 problem for a number of years. The manufacturers of aircraft used by Qantas and Ansett (Boeing, Airbus Industrie and Bombardier) have advised that there are no safety or airworthiness issues relating to the Year 2000 compliance of their aircraft.The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has developed contingency plans which will be used to manage air services during the transition period. AirServices Australia was actively involved in the development of the plan for the Asia Pacific region.CommunicationsGiven our dependence on telecommunications, it's imperative this sector be fully prepared for the Year 2000.In recent reporting to Government, the four major carriers (Telstra, Cable and Wireless Optus, Vodafone and AAPT) have indicated that preparations are well advanced. More than 90 percent of remediation work on critical network and IT systems has been completed by these carriers, with full remediation of critical systems scheduled for October 1999 or earlier. Their current focus is on contingency planning. In general, the smaller carriers and carriage service providers report that they are also well advanced in their Year 2000 preparations.The Government, through the Australian Communications Authority (ACA), will be continuing to monitor further developments closely.In August 1999 the industry body, the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) reported that telecommunications carriers and service providers had successfully completed a range of cross-network service continuity tests for the Year 2000. Successful call connections were made across different carrier networks and between different services such as fixed-line and mobile.The tests confirmed that dates do not pass between networks, which greatly limits potential for any Year 2000 impacts that one particular operator experiences to be passed on from that network to another.The major Australian carriers are also testing interconnectivity with international carriers through the International Telecommunication Union and other carrier-specific international relationships.Emergency 000Following a program of evaluation and testing, Telstra reports that it expects its 000 emergency service to operate without the Year 2000 date change having any impact on its functionality.BroadcastingReports from the industry regulator, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), indicate that licensees are generally well advanced in their Year 2000 preparations.The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported that 97 per cent of its business critical systems were compliant at the beginning of August, with the one outstanding item expected to be compliant by the end of September 1999. The Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) reported 84 per cent compliance, with the remaining 16 per cent awaiting compliance certificates. Surveys conducted prior to the recent sale of the national transmission network found no critical Year 2000 compliance issues within network equipment or systems.PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESSOne key national forum for addressing the Year 2000 issue is the Year 2000 National Steering Committee (NSC). The Government established the NSC in 1997 under the chairmanship of Mr Maurice Newman AM, with funding of nearly $10 million. The NSC comprises members of Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments, Local Government and industry associations.Major NSC initiatives include national television, radio and print advertising campaigns, a national telephone hotline (1800 11 2000) seminars and workshops, and a round of national infrastructure forums.The forums provided a platform for businesses to brief each other and the community on their Year 2000 readiness.The very high levels of awareness of the Year 2000 issue demonstrated in surveys of Australian business significantly reflect the outstanding efforts of Mr Newman and his committee.ASX required disclosureThe Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) has used its role effectively in encouraging the remediation efforts of our major companies. The ASX has twice now requested its 1 200 listed companies—primarily larger organisations—to provide detailed reports about their Year 2000 readiness and compliance efforts. The third and final disclosure date is 30 September 1999.The ASX, itself a listed company, has released comprehensive reports in relation to its own preparations to demonstrate best practice.In a further initiative to assess the level of readiness of the finance industry, the ASX coordinated a Year 2000 Equities Industry Test during April 1999. The 15 day test involved 10 brokers, five institutions, six banks, Australia's largest share registry processor and the ASX. Testing involved trading and settling equity transactions around key dates. The ASX has announced that no date related problems were found.The ABS surveyTo determine the levels of Year 2000 preparedness of Australian business, the NSC has commissioned nation-wide surveys of Australian business by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).Preliminary results of the latest survey confirm that by June 1999, Australian business had made considerable progress in dealing with the Year 2000 issue. A total of 35 per cent of businesses surveyed reported that they had completed their preparations. Encouragingly, virtually all businesses which haven't already completed their Year 2000 work report they expect to achieve completion by December 1999.While 44 percent of businesses do not intend to undertake Year 2000 work, the overwhelming majority of these businesses are very small and report that they are not significantly dependent on technology.STATES RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROGRESSAll States and Territories are collecting information about government Year 2000 readiness and contingency planning, using reporting frameworks tailored to each jurisdiction's requirements. All have released this information publicly. Based on the most recent information available, State and Territory Governments are typically more than 80 per cent ready, and most are more that 90 per cent.Contingency planning is also well advanced—the State and Territory averages range from 52 to 97 per cent, with half being above 80 per cent.LOCAL SERVICES AND UTILITIESAustralia's Federal system poses particular challenges for ensuring a coordinated national response to the Year 2000 problem.The States and Territories have responsibility for a range of services including the key utilities—electricity, gas and water—and local services such as public transport systems and hospitals.Reporting by States and Territories together with reports by private utilities and infrastructure providers, combine to provide the following picture on local key services and utilities.ElectricityStatements from State and Territory Governments, the National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMMCO) and the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) indicate that the industry as a whole has nearly completed analysis, assessment, and testing of business critical systems, and is well advanced in contingency planning. The industry advises that extensive testing to date has not revealed any problems associated with the Year 2000 that would affect current supply reliability. Remediation activities have reached the 90 per cent mark and are scheduled for completion by September 1999.Contingency planning in the electricity industry is normal practice. The industry already has extensive contingency plans to deal with disruptions to electricity supply that can occur at any time through events such as storms, unplanned outages at power stations and damage to power poles and lines. State and Territory Governments reports indicate that contingency plans are increasingly in place and complete in some jurisdictions. Water and sewerageState and Territory Government Year 2000 reports indicate that the Year 2000 readiness of water supply across the majority of States and Territories is above 90 per cent, and contingency plans range from 75 to 100 per cent complete. Information on the readiness of water supply in some areas of Queensland is not yet complete. Some jurisdictions—for example Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT—report a heavy reliance on gravity-fed water systems that make little or no use of date dependent technology.Water suppliers report that they are developing additional contingency plans to cope with any unexpected problems arising from the Year 2000 issue.GasIn Australia gas is supplied primarily by the private sector.Based on current information available from the gas industry, the sector is confident gas will continue to flow on and after 1 January 2000.TransportState and Territory Government Year 2000 reporting on road transport covers road infrastructure, including signalling and traffic management systems. Where reported, readiness levels are generally above 90 per cent.The rail transport sector is predominantly State and Territory Government controlled and Year 2000 progress is reflected in their public reports. Year 2000 readiness levels of rail transport reported by States and Territories tend to be 90 per cent or above. The reported level of contingency planning is variable.Australia's major port facilities are owned and operated by State and Territory Governments. Many are reporting levels of Year 2000 readiness above 90 per cent, and some at 100 per cent. The Commonwealth Government's Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has embraced the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) Code of Good Practice on the Year 2000, aimed at producing a safe environment for normal business in ports and navigation during 2000.From 1 July 1999 AMSA surveyors stepped up their program of checking that ships have addressed the Year 2000 issue in accordance with the Code. Ships entering Australian ports are required to demonstrate Year 2000 compliance or readiness and a satisfactory management strategy.FuelThe Australian Institute of Petroleum (AIP) formed a joint Year 2000 Committee with the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) in 1997 to assist member companies on the Year 2000 issue. The committee is discussing contingency plans with the emergency services authorities in States and Territories.The Australian petroleum industry has examined its systems and, where necessary, remediated and tested them. The industry is reporting that remediation activity is almost complete. Supply chains have been checked. Business continuity plans are being finalised. Contingency plans are a normal part of business in the fuel industry for safety purposes—fuel is a volatile product and the safety of the public and workforce is of paramount importance.The industry is ensuring all parts of the supply chain are prepared and is confident there is at least two weeks of stock within the system.Health and Aged CareThe Australian health and aged care sector includes the public hospital system, private hospitals, community health services, aged care facilities, doctors' surgeries, medical services such as X-rays and pathology and blood services.The Commonwealth Government and each State and Territory have been checking equipment and systems likely to be affected by the Year 2000 problem. Equipment and systems identified as having a problem are either being repaired or replaced and contingency plans developed to ensure services can be provided if unexpected incidents occur.The Commonwealth Government, in partnership with general practitioners through the profession's peak national body for computing, the General Practice Computing Group, has developed a guide to assist individual general practitioners address Year 2000 issues.The Commonwealth and the States and Territories have provided information to the nursing home and hostel sectors on preparing for the Year 2000.Hospitals and other health care facilities are putting in place plans to allow them to switch from normal operations to contingency mode with minimal disruption to the care provided to patients in the event of a Year 2000 issue arising.Reporting on the Year 2000 readiness of medical devices has been required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and the State and Territory Health Departments have been undertaking and/or advocating the thorough testing of medical equipment.Pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers have indicated that they have undertaken thorough Year 2000 compliance reviews underpinned by appropriate testing and remediation programs, and are planning to operate normally throughout the Christmas/New Year period. Local GovernmentThe key service supplied by some local governments is water and sewerage services where, as noted already, good progress is being made.The State and Territory Governments have the primary role of managing Local Government within their jurisdictions.New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania report on the Year 2000 preparedness of Local Government as part of their government reporting framework. Year 2000 progress is varied—although in all three jurisdictions there are increasing numbers of Local Governments reporting 100 per cent Year 2000 readiness and high levels of completed contingency plans.COMMUNITY INFORMATION The Commonwealth Government will distribute information to ensure that Australians are kept informed of the progress being made on Year 2000 work. State and Territory Governments are providing the community with complementary local information.The Commonwealth Government is about to distribute information for the community on Australia's Year 2000 preparations through a series of press ads outlining Australia's preparedness and providing a comprehensive community booklet (via a telephone hotline); radio messages about preparations in key service areas; and a Commonwealth Government Year 2000 website (www.year2000.gov.au).EVENT MANAGEMENTCommonwealth, State and Territory Governments are working together in preparing to monitor and manage any consequences in the unlikely event of a Year 2000 failure over New Year's Eve and the following period.A network of Year 2000 National Coordination Centres (NCCs) is being established in each capital city including Canberra, to monitor events regionally and nationally. The Commonwealth NCC will build on existing Emergency Management Australia (EMA) facilities.NCCs will be monitoring event management activities within their own jurisdictions, will coordinate assistance if required and provide high level policy advice to governments. In addition, the centres will collect and consolidate key information to provide a State and Territory and national picture for Australian and international audiences.The Commonwealth centre will have responsibility for monitoring and providing a national picture. It will also participate in a UN-sponsored exercise to deliver early advice to other countries on Australia's progress through the date rollover.All centres will keep the community informed by issuing regular updates to the media. INTERNATIONALThe Australian Government continues to attach a high priority to ensuring it meets the significant challenges posed by the international dimensions of the Year 2000 issue.International cooperationThe Australian Government is working with other governments and Australian industry on coordinated approaches to these challenges, including through APEC, the United Nations and its International Y2K Cooperation Centre, the Year 2000 National Steering Committee, and other relevant international organisations.Australian industry, often in conjunction with government, has been particularly active in cooperation in international aviation, telecommunications and banking and finance.Through the aid program, Australia is providing substantial technical assistance to Papua New Guinea and other South Pacific countries to help them prepare for the Year 2000 transition. Australia has also provided some assistance in Asia in key areas such as aviation and telecommunications.International preparednessThe Government has been monitoring Year 2000 preparations overseas, and working closely with other governments on information sharing and risk reduction strategies, including contingency planning.A roundtable meeting was held this month with a group of Australian manufacturing and services exporters and importers to share information on preparing for the Year 2000. The roundtable provided the Government with valuable, additional perspectives concerning the nature of any international Year 2000 effects on business and the implications for Australia.The Government has an ongoing duty of care to inform the travelling public where the potential exists for Australians to experience difficulties—particularly where personal safely, health considerations or other restrictions are of concern.From early 1999 the Government has been providing information to the Australian community on the international dimensions of the Year 2000 issue, particularly through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website and through regular consular travel advisories.The Government proposes to continue to closely monitor international Year 2000 preparations throughout 1999 and into the year 2000 and to make any necessary amendments to our public advice.SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING MESSAGESMadam PresidentAs the countdown to the end of the year rapidly approaches, this last quarter of 1999 marks the critical stage in Australia's Year 2000 preparations. The cooperation and hard work on Year 2000 issues across the country means we can expect to have good reason to celebrate when the clock ticks over on midnight 31st December 1999.No single government or sector is responsible for the Year 2000 issue. The solution is a shared one. And because all sectors have responded to the challenge, Australia is extremely well placed for the transition to the Year 2000. Governments and industry have worked together to ensure that key services are ready. Publicly available information on these preparations suggests strongly that we can expect business as usual for essential infrastructure such as electric power, telecommunications, banking and transport—with little or no disruptions.All the evidence suggests that Australia is one of the best-prepared countries in the world. Indeed, just last week the BBC, reporting on advice from the British Foreign Office, said that `Australia is thought to be the best place to beat the millennium bugIt was one of the first to take the bug seriously and as a result it's better prepared than almost anyone.'BACKGROUND INFORMATIONINTRODUCTIONThe Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts delivered a statement to Parliament on 22 September 1999, outlining Australia's preparations for the Year 2000 issue. This document provides further detail and should be read in conjunction with the statement.THE NATIONAL APPROACHThe Commonwealth Government of Australia recognised early that the implications of the Year 2000 issue for Australians, and for the economy generally, were potentially significant. Since 1996 the Commonwealth has:. provided leadership in preparing and reporting on the Government's own systems for the Year 2000;. through its various regulatory bodies, overseen the Year 2000 preparations in the sectors for which it is responsible, in particular banking and finance, aviation and communications;. raised awareness of the need for business to be prepared, with a particular focus on small-to-medium sized enterprises;. provided appropriate legislative and taxation support for business efforts; and. informed the wider community of the state of preparedness of key sectors.Similarly, the State and Territory Governments have: . remediated and reported on their own systems in preparation for the Year 2000 issue;. overseen the preparations of key infrastructure and services for which they are responsible—such as the energy, transport, health, water and sewerage, and emergency services sectors, including through cooperative arrangements with the private sector;. worked with the Commonwealth to raise industry awareness of the Year 2000 issue;. supported the Commonwealth by passing complementary information disclosure legislation where necessary; and. complemented national awareness messages for the community with local information.In relation to listed Australian companies, the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) has required a series of disclosures regarding Year 2000 preparedness.In addition to these formal frameworks for awareness raising, cooperation and reporting, a stocktake commissioned by governments of national activities to address Year 2000 issues found that a range of supplementary informal mechanisms exist in addition to formal monitoring. These include:. functional area forums set up by State governments for sectors such as health and emergency services, promoting information exchange in areas of common interest;. industry working groups to ensure that key areas of common interest are addressed effectively, such as the Interbank Working Group (IWG) and the Aviation Year 2000 Committee;. issue-driven working groups, for example health sector groups addressing business continuity planning and prescription drug logistics management; and. bilateral contacts such as those between the major food retailers and their suppliers, or transport and logistic companies and the owner drivers who work for them.In addition, the stocktake identified widespread use of the Internet, public and private seminars and conferences, published material, information packs and helplines to raise awareness of Year 2000 issues and how they are being addressed. A copy of the stocktake, undertaken by Admiral Management Services, can be found at www.year2000.gov.au.A key national forum for addressing the Year 2000 issue is the Year 2000 National Steering Committee (NSC). The Government established the NSC in 1997 under the chairmanship of Mr Maurice Newman AM, with funding of nearly $10 million. The NSC comprises members of Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, and local government and industry associations, and was charged with developing and implementing a national awareness raising strategy to encourage business and industry to prepare for the Year 2000. The NSC has targeted its messages particularly at small and medium enterprises.Major NSC initiatives include national television, radio and print advertising campaigns, a national telephone hotline (1800 11 2000), seminars and workshops, and a round of national infrastructure forums. The forums focused on providing a platform for business to brief industry and the community on their Year 2000 readiness, and to engender a spirit of cooperation. The very high levels of awareness of the Year 2000 issue demonstrated in surveys of Australian business must significantly reflect the outstanding efforts of Mr Newman and his committee.NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PREPAREDNESSThe level of detail of reporting on public sector Year 2000 progress in Australia has placed this country at the forefront of public reporting by governments around the world.Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments are all working towards the common goal of maintaining business as usual for the delivery of key services in 2000, and all are developing contingency plans to cope with any unexpected problems that may arise. Each jurisdiction has developed an approach to addressing and reporting on Year 2000 progress that best serves its particular circumstances and requirements.Governments around Australia are also working cooperatively. Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for Year 2000 issues have met on a number of occasions to exchange information and to support the development of a national approach to Year 2000 issues. Year 2000 Project Directors from Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments meet more regularly to support this process.Australian governments are now entering the final phases of their Year 2000 projects and are on target to have them completed ahead of the critical date change period. This means that the Commonwealth, States and Territories are well on track to deliver services normally on and beyond 1 January 2000.COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT REPORTINGThe Commonwealth Government has been actively monitoring the progress towards Year 2000 compliance of over 3 500 business critical systems across 124 budget dependant Departments and agencies. Agencies include, for example, Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.The Government has compiled quarterly reports on the Year 2000 readiness of portfolios since 1997, and released results publicly since December 1998. Public reports are now being issued at agency level, placing the Commonwealth at the forefront of public sector reporting.The most recent Commonwealth report released today (22 September 1999) reveals that as at August this year, 97 per cent of the business-critical systems identified in Commonwealth agencies are now fixed. This means they are either fully compliant, or have been remediated and brought back into service, awaiting the executive sign-off necessary to achieve full compliance. All the available evidence suggests that the community can have confidence that key Commonwealth Government services will be able to be delivered seamlessly into the year 2000.The Government will now receive monthly reports on the small number of outstanding systems across all agencies until all work is complete.The Government also monitors the progress of 51 government business entities (GBEs). These include Telstra, Australia Post and the Sydney Airport Corporation. As at August 1999, Commonwealth GBEs report that they have achieved average compliance levels of 93 per cent. Full compliance for all GBEs is scheduled for end October 1999.The Commonwealth Government's remediation work is substantially complete. However, like any other organisations, Government agencies are dependent on supply chains, distribution systems and basic infrastructure such as electricity and telecommunications to operate normally. Even though no major disruptions to key national infrastructure services are expected, agencies are required to develop contingency plans aimed at delivering services as usual in the event of any unforseen problems—whether they be Year 2000 related or not. The most recent quarterly report also shows 78 per cent of contingency planning is complete, and the report is available online at http://www.year2000.gov.au or by calling 02 6271 1252.NATIONAL SECTORSThe Commonwealth Government is responsible either for the delivery, or for regulating the delivery, of three key national infrastructure sectors—banking and finance, aviation and communications. Since April 1999 the Commonwealth Government has reported publicly on the preparedness of these three critical sectors in an effort to provide Australians with as much detail as possible about Year 2000 progress.It has encouraged other governments and industry to follow the Commonwealth lead and make public statements on those key services and products for whose delivery they are responsible.Banking and financeThe Australian banking and financial sector is well advanced in its Year 2000 preparations and is internationally recognised as exhibiting world's best practice. Australia's financial institutions have devoted substantial effort and resources to testing and remediation and, as such, have virtually completed the remediation and testing of critical systems.The vast majority of banks have completed the remediation and testing of all critical systems. In those exceptional cases where testing is yet to be completed, the industry regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) is satisfied that there are adequate fallback arrangements in place to ensure that it will be business as usual.Banks have almost completed their contingency plans to deal with unexpected problems or problems outside their control. Similarly, other financial institutions (namely, building societies, credit unions, life and general insurance companies, superannuation funds and friendly societies) have also completed the vast majority of remediation and testing of critical systems, and are now well into the contingency planning phase.A comprehensive program to test the Year 2000 readiness of the Australian payments system was successfully completed, on time, by 30 June 1999. No Year 2000 issues were reported by test participants.APRA is continuing to closely monitor the Year 2000 preparations of financial institutions. It is now focusing its attention on the development and implementation of contingency plans by regulated entities. Planning is now well underway, with contingency plans for all clearing arrangements scheduled to be ready by end-September 1999.The public can be assured that electronic payments mechanisms, such as ATMs, EFTPOS and credit cards, are already, and will continue to be, Year 2000 ready.The public can also be assured that their deposits are safe and that their records are not at risk from Year 2000 related issues. As such, there is no need for people to withdraw more money over the New Year period than they normally would for a long weekend.However, if they wish to do so, the Reserve Bank has built up ample stocks of currency notes to meet that demand. The Governor of the Reserve Bank attested to this in his statements to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in June 1999.AviationAustralia has two principal air transport operators—Qantas, a publicly listed company, and Ansett Australia, a private company. Both operate international and domestic flights and have regional airline subsidiaries or affiliate partnerships. Major airports in Australia are owned by the private sector, with the exception of airports in the Sydney Basin, which remain in Commonwealth ownership. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is the statutory authority responsible for aviation safety. Airservices Australia (ASA), a Government-owned commercial authority, is responsible for air traffic management.Since July 1998 the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DoTRS) has chaired a Year 2000 Aviation Committee which meets monthly to monitor and report to Government on the preparedness of the various sectors in the aviation industry. The Committee consists of representatives from the Commonwealth Government, the aviation industry and consumers of aviation services and reports on a regular basis to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.ASA has been working since 1996 to ensure its services are maintained normally during the Year 2000 transition. ASA has advised that the majority of its internal systems are Year 2000 ready. ASA is confident that there will be no disruption to the services it provides to the aviation industry as a result of the impact of the Year 2000 issues on its own systems. To the extent that ASA relies on others, it has determined they are compliant and, where appropriate, has developed extensive contingency plans.The Department of Defence is undertaking a comprehensive remediation program to ensure that all relevant military aviation systems are Year 2000 compliant before 1 January 2000. Already 100 per cent of critical systems and airfield technical equipment are certified as Year 2000 compliant.CASA has called on all licensed air operators, aviation maintenance organisations and licensed aerodromes to provide it with information on their Year 2000 readiness and contingency planning by 30 September 1999. To assist this, CASA has sent a comprehensive Operator's Guide to Y2K Readiness and Contingency Planning to all licence holders.Major Australian airports have advised that they are progressing well towards full compliance and have programs in place to ensure business continuity during the Year 2000 period. As part of its Year 2000 Project, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has conducted site visits to 70 major international airports worldwide, including Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.The Australian Airports Association has been working closely with other airport operators, particularly those in regional Australia, to ensure they are aware of Year 2000 issues, and to provide advice and guidance on compliance issues.Qantas and Ansett, and their subsidiaries and country regional alliance partners, have been working on the Year 2000 issue for a number of years.The airlines are significant contributors to industry initiatives on addressing the millennium bug. The manufacturers of aircraft used by Qantas and Ansett (Boeing, Airbus Industrie and Bombardier) have advised the industry there are no safety or airworthiness issues relating to the Year 2000 compliance of their aircraft.Through its membership of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and APEC, its contacts with other countries on a bilateral basis, and international assistance projects, Australia has taken a leading role internationally in raising awareness of the Year 2000 issue and its implications for aviation. ICAO has developed regional contingency plans, and the Asia Pacific regional contingency plan, which will be used to manage air services during the transition period, was approved by the ICAO President in August 1999. Airservices Australia had an active involvement in the development and finalisation of this plan.CommunicationsGiven the dependence of contemporary society on telecommunications it is imperative that this sector is Year 2000 ready.The Australian telecommunications industry includes around 50 major service providers, including some 30 carriers, and around 800 Internet service providers. Together they use wire, cable, radio and information technologies to provide a vast range and number of telecommunications services from simple telephony to sophisticated broadband services.The industry regulator, the Australian Communications Authority (ACA), has a significant role in relation to technical regulation and consumer protection. Together with the industry body the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF), both have played a key role in coordinating Year 2000 preparations in an industry highly dependent on network linkages.In recent reporting to Government, the four major carriers (Telstra, Cable and Wireless Optus, Vodafone and AAPT) have indicated that their Year 2000 preparations are well advanced. More than 90 percent of remediation work on critical network and IT systems has been completed by these carriers, with full remediation of critical systems scheduled for October or earlier. Their current focus is now on contingency planning. The four major carriers anticipate that by the end of June 2000 their expenditure on Year 2000 preparations and remediation will be in the vicinity of $540 million.In general, the smaller carriers and carriage service providers report that they are also well advanced in their Year 2000 preparations. Many are advantaged by their comparatively recent entry into the market. Their equipment is already compliant, and they also rely on the services of the major carriers.The Government, through the ACA, will be continuing to monitor further developments closely. In August 1999, ACIF reported that telecommunications carriers and service providers had successfully completed a range of cross-network service continuity tests for the Year 2000. The three-month test program involved a range of carriers and various call types. Successful call connections were made across different carrier networks from fixed-line services to mobile services, fixed-line services to fixed-line services, mobile services to mobile services, and mobile services to fixed-line services. The tests confirmed that dates do not pass between networks, which greatly limits potential for Year 2000 impacts in the highly interdependent cross networks. With the cross-network testing program complete, ACIF is increasing its focus on intercarrier and industry contingency planning activities.The major Australian carriers are conducting interconnectivity testing with international carriers through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and other carrier specific international relationships.Telstra is playing a key leadership role in supporting the regional Year 2000 initiatives of the ITU.Emergency 000Telstra has reported that it completed its program of evaluation and testing of individual elements of the 000 emergency service in 1998. Telstra has indicated that it expects its 000 emergency service to operate (before, during and after 31/12/99) without negative impact on its functionality from the date change to the Year 2000. Operation of emergency services depends upon the effective workings of the network and functioning interconnectivity between carriers. ACIF has been working methodically for a number of months on this area, including testing, and on contingency planning.BroadcastingThe Australian broadcasting system is made up of two national radio and television broadcasters and some 247 commercial radio broadcasters, of whom 240—245 are currently broadcasting. There are also about 320 community radio broadcasters, which includes those broadcasting to remote aboriginal communities. There are 54 television broadcasters, comprising 48 commercial, 3 principal subscription and three community broadcasters. Reports from the industry regulator, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), indicate that licensees are generally well advanced in their Year 2000 preparations. Responses from commercial licensees were better than those from community licensees.The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has reported that 97 per cent of its business critical systems were compliant at the beginning of August 1999, with the main outstanding system expected to be compliant by the end of September 1999. Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) reported 84 per cent compliance, with the remaining 16 per cent awaiting compliance certificates.Surveys conducted prior to the recent sale of the national transmission network found no critical Year 2000 compliance issues within network equipment or systems.PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESSASX required disclosureThe Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) has used its role effectively to encourage the remediation efforts of our major companies. The ASX has twice now requested its 1200 listed companies—primarily larger organisations—to provide detailed reports about their Year 2000 readiness and compliance efforts. The first disclosure was due by 30 June 1998 and the second by 31 March 1999. The ASX is requiring a third and final disclosure by 30 September 1999.The ASX, itself a listed company, has released comprehensive reports in relation to its own preparations as a means of demonstrating best practice.In a further initiative to assess the level of readiness of the finance industry, the ASX coordinated a Year 2000 Equities Industry Test during April 1999. The 15 working days test involved 10 brokers, five institutions, six banks, Australia's largest share registry processor and the ASX. Testing involved trading and settling equity transactions around key dates. The ASX has announced that no date related problems were found.The ABS surveysTo determine the levels of Year 2000 preparedness more generally among Australian business, the NSC has commissioned the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to undertake nation-wide surveys of Australian business.The first survey of some 8 000 businesses conducted in October 1998 found that levels of awareness of the problem were already extremely high at 92 per cent.In June 1999 the ABS repeated the survey, this time involving over 13 000 businesses, of which 74 per cent responded. Preliminary survey results released on 31 August 1999 confirm that Australian business has made considerable progress in dealing with the Year 2000 issue. 35 per cent of businesses surveyed report that they had completed their preparations. Encouragingly, virtually all businesses who haven't already completed their Year 2000 work report that they expect to be completed by December 1999.The survey reinforced the electricity, gas and water supply sectors as those where the highest proportion of businesses were undertaking, or had completed, Year 2000 work. The finance and insurance industry reported the highest rate of completion of Year 2000 work and testing. The proportion of businesses not intending to undertake work has remained constant at around 40 per cent. Nearly 80 per cent of these are micro businesses with less than 20 employees, and low levels of technology dependence. They are found across all industry sectors. The majority of businesses not intending to undertake any Year 2000 work reported that they either don't have any technology that will be affected, or they don't believe their businesses will be affected. The proportion and general characteristics of business not undertaking Year 2000 work in Australia is broadly consistent with experiences in the US and other well prepared countries.The survey suggested, however, that there is no room for complacency, with many businesses identifying the need to complete contingency planning in the remaining months ahead.Based on the latest data, the ABS has revised downwards its estimate of the costs to Australian business of addressing the Year 2000 issue to around $10 billion. When public sector remediation costs are added, total estimated expenditure in Australia on Year 2000 is around $12 billion.As more information becomes available on the preparedness of individual organisations, business and governments will be better placed to make informed decisions about the level of contingency planning required. This may further reduce the total cost estimate of Year 2000 expenditure in Australia.Government support for businessIn providing support for businesses efforts, the Government announced in the May 1998 Budget that most Year 2000 software expenditure incurred up to 31 December 1999 would be immediately deductible for taxation purposes. This includes initial diagnosis, software modification and upgrades, and remediation and testing.If organisations are to target their contingency planning effectively, they require an understanding of the preparedness of their customers, suppliers and utilities. The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act1999 (the "Good Samaritan" legislation) was enacted by the Federal Parliament in February 1999. The legislation is designed to encourage public disclosure and sharing of information on the state of Year 2000 preparations between organisations. Complementary legislation has been passed by the States and the Northern Territory to provide national coverage (the Australian Capital Territory is covered by the Commonwealth Act).STATES RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROGRESSThe States and Territories commenced public reporting on Year 2000 preparedness earlier this year, following an agreement by Commonwealth, State and Territory Year 2000 Ministers in December 1998. All States and Territories are collecting information about government Year 2000 readiness and contingency planning using reporting frameworks tailored to suit jurisdictional requirements. They release this information publicly. All States and Territories have Year 2000 websites containing the public reports, general Year 2000 information and contact details for obtaining additional information.Based on the most recent information available, States and Territory Governments are typically more than 80 per cent ready, and most are more than 90 per cent ready.Contingency planning is also well advanced—the State and Territory averages range from 52 to 97 per cent, with half being above 80 per cent.LOCAL SERVICES AND UTILITIESAustralia's Federal system of Government poses particular challenges in ensuring a coordinated national response to the Year 2000 problem. While sectors such as banking and telecommunications are the province of the Commonwealth Government, the States and Territories have responsibility for a range of other services including the key utilities—electricity, gas and water—and local services such as public transport systems and hospitals.As well as reporting publicly on the progress of their own government agencies, State and Territory Year 2000 Ministers have undertaken to report on key services under their responsibility, including electricity, water and gas. Local Government was added in April 1999.The reporting by States and Territory Governments together with that of private utility and infrastructure providers combine to provide the following picture on local key services and utilities.ElectricityA reliable supply of electricity is fundamental to the maintenance of normal business and community services. The electricity industry in Australia is organised according to four regions: Tasmania; Western Australia; Northern Territory; and the National Electricity Market, which supplies the Eastern Seaboard (covering all other States/Territories). Single, vertically integrated companies supply both Western Australia and the Northern Territory. In Tasmania the industry is divided into three companies: one each for generation, transmission and retail.On the Eastern Seaboard the National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMMCO) manages the wholesale market for the supply and purchase of electricity. Participants in the Eastern Seaboard market include generators, distributors, retailers and wholesale customers.Information on the Year 2000 readiness of all organisations involved in the delivery of electricity is contained in State and Territory Government Year 2000 reports, except in Queensland where reports on private sector participants are published by the Queensland Electricity Supply Industry (QESI) Year 2000 committee.The two peak electricity industry bodies—NEMMCO and the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA)—have established a number of forums on Year 2000 issues to facilitate information sharing, cooperative approaches to issues and coordination of activities.The industry as a whole has reported it has nearly completed analysis, assessment, and testing of business critical systems, and is well advanced in contingency planning. The industry advises that extensive testing to date has not revealed any problems associated with Year 2000 that would affect current supply reliability. Remediation activities have reached the 90 per cent mark and are scheduled for completion by September 1999. State and Territory Governments report that contingency plans are increasingly in place and complete in some jurisdictions.Contingency planning in the electricity industry is normal practice. The industry already has in place extensive contingency plans to deal with disruptions to electricity supply that can occur at any time through events such as storms, unplanned outages at power stations and damage to power poles and lines. NEMMCO chairs an industry group that examines contingency planning, including for the Year 2000. Those plans are being reviewed in light of the Year 2000 issue.States such as Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory are used to dealing with electricity outages during the summer months, which are cyclone and storm seasons. In these areas end users who have a reliance on electricity generally have alternative arrangements in place (e.g. diesel powered generators) should the service fail. Similarly, those organisations with greatest dependency on electricity generally have contingency plans in place to continue operations over the short term.Water and sewerageLocal water authorities are responsible for the collection and distribution of water and the environmentally safe collection, treatment and disposal of sewage. The water sector is owned and operated by State, Territory and Local Governments, except in South Australia where it is supplied by a government-owned and private sector operated entity. The number of entities varies by State and region.State and Territory Government Year 2000 reports indicate that the Year 2000 readiness of water supply across the majority of States and Territories is above 90 per cent, and contingency plans range from 75 to 100 per cent complete Information on the readiness of water supply in some areas of Queensland is not yet complete. Some jurisdictions, for example Victoria, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania report a heavy reliance on gravity fed water systems that make little or no use of date dependent technology.Disruptions to water supply, such as a burst pipe, can occur without warning. As with the electricity sector, contingency planning is part of normal business planning for water suppliers, but they report that they are also developing additional contingency plans to cope with any unexpected problems arising from Year 2000.GasIn Australia gas is supplied primarily by the private sector. Western Australia is the exception, where gas is distributed by the State-owned AlintaGas corporation. In New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory the gas sector is almost entirely owned and operated by the Australian Gas Light Corporation (AGL). In all other States and Territories there are a number of large and small organisations involved in the supply, distribution, transmission, retail and wholesale of gas. In the Northern Territory, 99 per cent of gas is used in electricity generation, and 95 per cent of electricity is generated by gas. Tasmania does not currently have natural gas. The main activity of the Gas Corporation of Tasmania is the supply of bulk LPG to thousands of consumers throughout the state.In Western Australia the major gas producers, users and pipeline owners have formed a Gas Industry Group to facilitate industry exchange and cooperation on Year 2000 issues. A similar group has been formed in South Australia, which includes representatives from Western Australia and Queensland.While gas has wide domestic use, especially for heating systems, the Year 2000 critical date period is considered to be a low usage period in Australia as it will be summer. For industry also it will be a low usage or close down period of the year. Gas is also used to power electricity generators. In the main, gas fired generators are used to manage peak demand. In the Northern Territory, however, its five major electricity power stations are powered by gas.Most gas companies in Australia report their Year 2000 status through the ASX, and in one case to the New York Stock Exchange. A number of States report on the preparedness of the gas sector as part of their reporting framework. Victoria has brought the entire sector—gas distribution, retail and transmission—into its standard state government reporting framework. By July 1999, it reported that its gas industry was 98 per cent ready for the Year 2000, and that 88 per cent of contingency plans were in place. Western Australia reports that by June 1999 gas distribution was 92 per cent Year 2000 ready, with 90 per cent of contingency plans in place. The Queensland government is monitoring the gas industry in its jurisdiction, reporting that by August 1999 all but one of the major operators was more than 80 per cent ready.Based on current information available through extensive reports by the gas industry, the sector is confident that gas will continue to flow on and after 1 January 2000.TransportStates and Territory Governments are generally responsible for passenger and freight road transport, passenger and freight rail services, and shipping and port facilities. Where transport activities are government-owned or controlled, advice on Year 2000 progress is contained in State and Territory Government Year 2000 Reports. Larger private entities generally report through the Australian, London or New York stock exchanges.The Australian road transport industry consists of commercial companies that operate fleets or provide logistics services to others; independent owner-operators; and bus and coach fleets, about one third of which are government operated. The road infrastructure itself is a State and Territory Government responsibility, with the provision and maintenance of services delegated to State and Territory agencies or local government. State and Territory Government Year 2000 reporting on road transport covers road infrastructure, including signalling and traffic management systems. Where reported, readiness levels are generally above 90 per cent.The rail operating businesses of Australian National (SA Freight, Tasrail and AN Passenger) were sold to three privately operated consortia in 1997. The interstate freight operator National Rail is owned jointly by the Commonwealth and the New South Wales and Victorian Governments. It has reported that it is scheduled to be compliant by the end of October 1999. Otherwise, the rail transport sector is predominantly State and Territory Government controlled and is part of their Year 2000 reporting frameworks. Year 2000 readiness levels of rail transport where reported by States and Territories tend to be 90 per cent or above. The reported level of contingency planning is variable.Australia's major port facilities are owned and operated by State and Territory Governments, and are therefore part of the State and Territory Year 2000 reporting framework. Many States and Territories are reporting levels of Year 2000 readiness above 90 per cent, and some at 100 per cent. The Commonwealth Government's Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has embraced the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Code of Good Practice on Y2K . The Code of Good Practice is aimed at producing a safe environment for normal business in ports and navigation during 2000. From 1 July 1999, AMSA surveyors stepped up their program of checking that ships have addressed the Year 2000 issue in accordance with the Code. Ships entering Australian ports are required to demonstrate Year 2000 compliance or readiness and a satisfactory management strategy. Ship owners have been warned that from 1 November 1999 ships may be detained on a visit to an Australian port unless and until they can demonstrate adequate levels of Year 2000 preparedness. State and Territory marine authorities and/or port authorities may take action in addition to that of AMSA, depending on their legislative responsibilities.FuelFormal reporting on Year 2000 preparedness in the fuel sector occurs through Australian and international (New York and London) stock exchanges or the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Australian Institute of Petroleum (AIP) formed a joint Year 2000 Committee with the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) in 1997 to assist member companies on the Year 2000 issue. The committee is discussing contingency plans with the emergency services authorities in States/Territories. The Committee has also met with ESAA, the New South Wales and Victorian Electricity Supply Associations and Telstra.Along with electricity, fuel is critical to enabling normal business and community activity. Contingency plans for a range of businesses which involve backup electricity generation units generally rely on fuel for operation.The Australian petroleum industry has examined its systems and, where necessary, remediated and tested them. The industry is reporting that remediation activity is almost complete. Supply chains have been checked. Business continuity plans are being finalised. Contingency plans are a normal part of business in the fuel industry for safety purposes—fuel is a volatile product and the safety of the public and workforce is of paramount importance. The fuel industry is IT-dependent but it also has manual back up systems—such as turning valves by hand, and trucks with their own power and pumping ability to enable fuel to be moved wherever it is required.The industry is ensuring that all parts of the supply chain are prepared and is confident that there is at least two weeks of stock within the system. This gives a very large margin of time to get the refineries operating again in the unlikely event of any disruption.There is no need, therefore, for business or the community to stockpile fuel which could endanger public safety.Health and Aged CareThe Australian health care system involves a diversity of arrangements for planning, funding and delivering health services. The sector includes the public hospital system, private hospitals, community health services, aged care facilities, doctors' surgeries, and medical services such as X-rays, pathology and blood services.Commonwealth health policy is administered through its portfolio agencies under the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The Commonwealth contributes to funding for hospital services and some community-based health care and aged care services, and administers the Medicare Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.Each State and Territory Government is responsible for the administration and funding of its public health authorities. Local governments and private, non-government organisations (including not-for-profit organisations) also provide health services. Most medical and dental care services are provided by private practitioners.The Commonwealth Government and each State and Territory Government have been checking equipment and systems likely to be affected by the Year 2000 issue. Equipment and systems identified as having a problem are either being repaired or replaced and contingency plans developed to ensure services can be provided if unexpected incidents occur.The Commonwealth Government, in partnership with general practitioners through the profession's peak national body for computing, the General Practice Computing Group, has developed a guide to assist individual general practitioners address Year 2000 issues. The guide gives doctors resources to put strategies in place which will allow them to continue to run their practices throughout this period.The Commonwealth and the States and Territories have provided information to the nursing home and hostel sectors on preparing for the Year 2000. These aged care facilities have been encouraged to identify date sensitive electronic systems and equipment, take reasonable and necessary steps to manage risks, and prepare contingency plans.The Health Departments of each State and Territory are already well-versed in dealing with critical incidents such as loss of power and communications or other events that could be caused by the Year 2000 issue. To deal with these incidents, hospitals and other health care facilities are putting in place plans to allow them to switch from normal operations to contingency mode with minimal disruption to the care provided to patients.Reporting on the Year 2000 readiness of medical devices has been required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and State and Territory Health Departments have been undertaking and/or advocating the thorough testing of medical equipment. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers have indicated that they have undertaken thorough Year 2000 compliance reviews underpinned by appropriate testing and remediation programs, and are planning to operate normally throughout the Christmas/New Year period.Local GovernmentLocal government provides services and infrastructure, plays a major role in environmental management, and provides leadership and governance to local communities. The key service supplied by local governments is water supply where, as noted above, good progress is being made.Constitutional responsibility for local government rests with the States and Territories, which has resulted in development of different State and Territory systems for overseeing local government and delivering local government services. State and Territory Governments have the primary role of managing local government within their jurisdictions, legislating for and regulating local government, setting new policy directions and distributing Commonwealth funding to local government.New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania report on the Year 2000 preparedness of local government in their State as part of their government reporting framework. Year 2000 progress is varied—although in all three jurisdictions there are increasing numbers of local governments reporting 100 per cent Year 2000 readiness and high levels of contingency plans complete.COMMUNITY INFORMATION PROGRAMThe Commonwealth Government will distribute information to ensure Australians are kept informed of the progress being made on Year 2000 work. Information material is being developed and disseminated in consultation with State and Territory Governments, which are providing the community with complementary local information.The Commonwealth Government will keep people informed through:. the distribution of a community booklet via telephone hotline numbers and on request;. radio messages about preparations in key service areas;. messages in the print media providing information about Australia's preparedness and contact details for more information;. the distribution of Commonwealth Government Information Bulletins;. a Commonwealth Government Year 2000 website (www.year2000.gov.au ) providing information for the community, business and governments, as well as links to other sources of information. EVENT MANAGEMENTThe Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments are working together in making preparations to monitor and manage any consequences in the unlikely event of a Year 2000 failure over New Year's Eve and the following period.A network of Year 2000 National Coordination Centres (NCCs) is being established in each capital city, including Canberra. NCCs will be responsible for monitoring event management activities within their own jurisdictions, coordinating the provision of assistance and providing high level policy advice to Governments. The Commonwealth NCC will build on existing Emergency Management Australia (EMA) facilities.In addition, NCCs will collect and consolidate key information to provide a State and Territory and national picture for both national and international audiences. Recognising that the community and industry will want to be kept aware of any developments, regular media bulletins will be issued by the NCCs. The Commonwealth NCC will have responsibility for providing a national picture. It will also participate in a UN-sponsored exercise to deliver early advice to other countries on Australia's progress through the date rollover.INTERNATIONALThe Australian Government continues to attach high priority to ensuring that it meets the significant challenges posed by the international dimension of the Year 2000 issue.International cooperationThe Government is working with other governments and with Australian industry on coordinated approaches to these challenges, including through APEC, the United Nations and its International Y2K Cooperation Centre, the Year 2000 National Steering Committee, and other relevant international organisations. Ministers are taking every opportunity to raise Year 2000 issues with their counterparts overseas.Australian industry, often in conjunction with government, has been particularly active in cooperation in international aviation, telecommunications and banking and finance. Australia hosted the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Asia Pacific Telecommunications Year 2000 conference in March this year. Government and industry worked very closely on this conference, which was attended by 154 delegates from 45 countries. Another example was the APEC Y2K Symposium in Singapore, which focused on cross-border impacts of the Year 2000 issue on critical economic infrastructure and on contingency planning. Australia fielded an expert delegation to this symposium, including speakers on banking and finance and electricity. Through the aid program, Australia is providing substantial technical assistance to Papua New Guinea and other South Pacific countries to help them prepare for the year 2000 transition. Australia has also provided some assistance in Asia in key areas such as aviation and telecommunications.International preparednessAustralia is widely regarded as one of the best-prepared countries to meet the challenges posed by the Year 2000 issue. Australia, along with the United Kingdom, North American and Scandinavian countries is recognised as leading the world in its Year 2000 preparations.The Government has been monitoring Year 2000 preparations overseas very closely, particularly over the last year, including in discussion with overseas governments, local service providers, the Australian telecommunications, aviation and power sectors, relevant United Nations specialised agencies and other international Year 2000 experts. We have also been working closely with other governments on information sharing and broadly coordinated approaches to public information and risk reduction, including contingency planning.A roundtable meeting was held this month with a group of Australian manufacturing and services exporters and importers representing a range of industries to share information on their experiences in preparing for the Year 2000. The roundtable provided the Government with valuable, additional perspectives concerning the nature of any international Year 2000 effects on business and the implications for Australia.The Government has an ongoing duty of care to inform the travelling public where the potential exists for Australians to experience difficulties—particularly where personal safely, health considerations or other restrictions are of concern. The Australian Government takes this responsibility very seriously.From early 1999 the Government has been providing information to the Australian community on the international dimensions of the Year 2000 issue, particularly through the Foreign Affairs and Trade website on international perspectives and through regular consular travel advices. The advice is reviewed regularly and is carried on the Department's website (http://www.dfat.gov.au/year2000/ ) or by calling 02 6261 3305 or 1300 555 135.Several countries have recently released consular advice on Year 2000 preparedness in a wide range of other countries. Australia is also making a serious effort to identify and select the most credible information available on Year 2000 preparedness in essential service sectors overseas. Australia has discussed assessments of overseas Year 2000 preparedness with authorities in those countries and territories where Australia has diplomatic missions.The Government proposes to continue to closely monitor international Year 2000 preparations throughout 1999 and into 2000 and to make any necessary amendments to public advice.Documents869786978697UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Pursuant to standing order 166, and in accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I table the following report of the Auditor-General which was presented to the Deputy President on 21 September 1999. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the report was authorised:Report no. 11 of 1999-2000—Auditor-General Performance Audit—Financial aspects of the conversion to digital broadcasting: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service Corporation.Bills8697r8858697Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.869717:06:008697Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The bill amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 to give effect to initiatives announced in the 1999-2000 Budget. These initiatives will provide: . $36.3 million in 2000 to increase funding under the Literacy and Numeracy Program to help schools measurably improve the literacy and numeracy skills of students in the early and middle years of schooling. This funding will support two initiatives: . Support for the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan, and . Strategies to improve literacy and numeracy in the middle years of schooling; and. $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy in 2000.The bill also contains provisions which:. provide an additional $10.1 million for each of the program years 2000 up to, and including, 2003 for the non-government component of the Capital Grants Program to maintain funding at the same real level as for the period 1997 to 1999;. provide an additional $1.9 million for Short Term Emergency Assistance (STEA) in 2000 to allow schools experiencing severe financial hardship or facing problems of viability to apply for STEA during the transitional period to the new SES funding model for non-government schools; and. make a minor technical amendment to the headings in the act to change the name of the Literacy Program to the Literacy and Numeracy Program.The government's continuing support for improvements in school students' literacy and numeracy skills is a key aspect of the government's overall strategy to improve literacy and numeracy skills of young Australians.The Commonwealth makes a very significant financial contribution to support the work of schools and teachers in improving the literacy and numeracy skills of young Australians. The 1999-2000 Budget provides an additional $131 million under the Literacy and Numeracy Program for disadvantaged school students, making a total of almost $869 million for literacy and numeracy in the next four years to 2002-03.Research has shown that, for young Australians, the consequences of poor literacy and numeracy achievement at school include an increased likelihood of leaving school early, poor access to further education and training and a much higher risk of unemployment. If students receive support in acquiring literacy and numeracy skills at school, it will reduce their risk of unemployment by increasing their ability to participate in education and improving their ability to successfully participate in the workforce. The Commonwealth is working with States and Territories to ensure that all children achieve an acceptable standard of literacy and numeracy skills.The additional funding will help schools measurably improve the literacy and numeracy skills of students in the early and middle years of schooling. Funding will be provided under the Literacy and Numeracy Program and will commence on 1 January 2000.The National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy is a cooperative initiative between Commonwealth, State and Territory governments.The Strategy assists government and non-government schools to improve participation and proficiency levels in language learning in four targeted Asian languages—Japanese, Chinese (Mandarin), Indonesian and Korean—and to introduce or increase Asian studies content across the curriculum.The Commonwealth initially agreed to fund the program for four years, with further funding subject to an evaluation of the program. The evaluation informed the discussions which resulted in the continuation of the Taskforce established by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) to monitor the implementation of the NALSAS Strategy.This bill provides $26.4 million to continue funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy in 2000 to support enhanced and expanded Asian languages and Asian studies provision through all school systems in order to improve Australia's capacity and preparedness to interact internationally, particularly with key Asian economies.This extra funding for the NALSAS strategy will be used to provide continued support to teachers and students.The government's funding policies for schools will assist in ensuring quality educational outcomes for students in government and non-government schools. Total direct Commonwealth schools funding will amount to more than $17 billion over the period 1997 to 2000.This funding affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to schooling in Australia.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned. Bills8698r9058698Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.869817:07:008698Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The objective of this bill is to enhance the protection available to the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee (the organising Committees) against imported goods that seek to ambush their marketing activities. The bill will also enhance the protection available to owners of registered trade marks against imported goods that bear infringing trade marks.In 1996 the Parliament enacted legislation, the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996, to protect the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games (the Games) against ambush marketing. Ambush marketing is the unauthorised association of businesses with the marketing of an event, such as the Sydney Olympics, without paying for the marketing rights.The Olympic and Paralympic Games next year are events of great national significance. These events provide unique opportunities to demonstrate to the world this country's skills, talents, environment and achievements. One of the critical factors in making the Games an outstanding success is the ability of the organising Committees to raise the funds necessary to host the Games. It is a massive task. It is also very expensive.The cost of staging the Games is estimated to be over $2 billion. The costs are being shared between the organising Committees, the Government of New South Wales and, to a minor extent, the Commonwealth Government. In its 1998 Annual Report, the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games estimated that it needs to raise in the vicinity of $800 million from official sponsor ships and licensing fees to meet its budget for the Games.The ability of the organising Committees to attract sponsors depends to a large extent on the exclusivity of the licensed indicia and images. If the Parliament had not enacted the Sydney 2000 Games Act to protect the organising Committees against ambush marketing, the official sponsorship revenue for the Games may have been at risk. The Sydney 2000 Games Act vests the rights in the indicia and images specified in the act with the organising Committees. The act enables the organising Committees to use and to license others to use the indicia and images identified in the act for commercial purposes.To constitute use for commercial purposes, Games indicia or images must generally be used in a manner that falsely suggests a person is a sponsor (or supporter) of the Games. The Sydney 2000 Games Act, however, does not place an absolute fetter on the use of protected Games indicia and images. For example, the act does not effect the community's fundamental right to freedom of expression. This is particularly the case in relation to words that have passed into common usage. It must therefore be emphasised that restrictions on the use of Games indicia and images apply only to unlicensed commercial use of the protected indicia and images.The Sydney 2000 Games Act provides various remedies to the organising Committees and licensed users to enforce their rights in relation to Games indicia and images. Thus, where an unlicensed user uses Games indicia or images in contravention of the act, an organising Committee (or a relevant licensed user) may bring an action against the unlicensed user. The remedies available include injunctions, damages and corrective advertising. I have been informed that, to date, the organising Committees have not yet needed to take any action to enforce their rights under the Sydney 2000 Games Act through the Courts.The Sydney 2000 Games Act also includes appropriate Customs measures to limit the possibility of the importation of goods that seek to ambush the Games marketing. These border interception provisions enable the Australian Customs Service to seize imported goods that seek to ambush the Games marketing. Once goods have been seized, Customs is required to advise the relevant organising Committee or licensed user and the designated owner of the goods of the seizure. The organising Committee or licensed user has then 10 days following seizure of the goods to commence infringement proceedings. If proceedings are not commenced within that time, the goods are returned to the owner. However, the designated owner of the goods may forfeit the goods to the Commonwealth at any time before proceedings commence. Customs has seized a significant number of consignments under the border interception provisions of the Sydney 2000 Games Act and it is likely to encounter an increasing number of these consignments during the lead-up to the Games. In many cases, after Customs has seized goods, the designated owner of the seized goods has forfeited the goods to the Commonwealth thus eliminating, quickly and cheaply, potential threats to the organising Committees' revenue. In the majority of the other cases, the designated owner of the goods has complied with the organising Committees written demands.It is these border interception provisions in the Sydney 2000 Games Act that this bill is intended to modify. The amendment proposed by this bill to the Sydney 2000 Games Act addresses a discrepancy between the seizure powers of Customs and its obligation to notify the designated owner of the seized goods under the border interception provisions of that act. The seizure power of the Sydney 2000 Games Act is in broad terms; it applies to all infringing goods. However, as I have mentioned, Customs is also obliged to notify the designated owner that the goods have been seized.Presently, the Sydney 2000 Games Act defines the designated owner as the person identified as the owner of the goods on the `entry' made in relation to the goods under section 68 of the Customs Act 1901. However, section 68 of that act excludes several types of goods from the general requirement to be entered. For example, goods consigned by post worth less than $1000 or goods worth less than $250 consigned by other means do not have to be entered. Therefore, goods that are not entered do not have a designated owner. As a result, Customs cannot seize goods that are not entered because there is no designated owner to notify. As considerable numbers of such consignments can occur, this discrepancy undermines the intent of the border interception provisions of the Sydney 2000 Games Act.The amendments proposed by this bill will improve the effectiveness of the Sydney 2000 Games Act by enabling Customs to seize all goods that seek to ambush the Games marketing, whether or not the goods require entry under the Customs Act.As the border interception provisions of the Sydney 2000 Games Act were largely based on the border interception provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1995, both acts share a common definition of designated owner. Therefore, this bill proposes also to make a similar amendment to the Trade Marks Act.The amendments made by this bill are not intended to apply to all goods imported into Australia and especially not to goods imported for personal use. As I mentioned previously, goods will only infringe the Sydney 2000 Games Act if the goods are used for commercial purposes and that term has a particular meaning under that act. Similarly, goods will only infringe a registered trade mark if the goods bear the trade mark, or are used in connection with the trade mark, in the course of trade.I commend this bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the summer sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Miscellaneous870017:07:008700Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move:That Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 8), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 132 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.That string of numbers relates to a regulation which has extended the operation of the $1,000 post-decision fee which applies to unsuccessful applicants to the Refugee Review Tribunal. It is a matter that has been raised in this chamber a number of times. It was initially put into operation a couple of years ago. In 1997 in fact, before I came into this place, it was subject to an unsuccessful disallowance motion moved, at that time, by Senator Margetts.At that time a two-year sunset clause was put on the $1,000 fee, and a number of other measures were introduced which were not subject to a sunset clause and which are still in place. The $1,000 fee for Refugee Review Tribunal applicants did have a sunset clause put in place, which meant that it ran out at 30 June this year. This regulation extends that sunset clause for another three years. The operation and impact of the $1,000 fee was subject to an inquiry by the joint parliamentary migration committee, of which I am a member, and the report from the government members of that committee recommended maintaining the $1,000 fee.I and the three Labor members—Dr Theophanous, Mr Ripoll and Mrs Irwin, all from the lower house—recommended that regulation 4.31B cease to operate after 1 July. And that is basically what this disallowance motion aims to do: it is to give effect to that recommendation. I note that Senator McKiernan, who is the other Labor member on that committee and who will be speaking on this motion, did not share the view of his colleagues in that regard, and I am sure he will be outlining his rationale for that shortly.I would say, as I do try to acknowledge with this area of law, that immigration law—refugee law, in particular—is not an easy area and that there are a lot of competing issues that need to be addressed. I do recognise that it is appropriate for the government to try to ensure that the operation of the refugee program, the onshore humanitarian program in particular, is not abused and misused by people for inappropriate purposes. My view is that the extent of that misuse has been somewhat exaggerated by the government and the department, but I certainly would not pretend to suggest that no misuse occurs.It is for that reason that many of the original measures were brought in in 1997, including limiting the right for people seeking protection visas to be able to work whilst they are in Australia. I think that those measures are more likely to have had an impact in stemming misuse than has this particular fee. Either way, in an issue like this, whilst there are competing policy aspects that have to be considered, I and the Democrats believe that priority has to be given to the human rights aspects of this issue and to ensuring that genuine asylum seekers—and that does not necessarily mean successful asylum seekers—are not disadvantaged.I think the onus has to be on the government and the department to prove that there is no disadvantage being caused to those people. I believe that they certainly failed to prove that during the course of the joint committee inquiry. The government would and did argue that it has not been proven categorically that genuine applicants have been disadvantaged and have suffered as a result of this fee. I would suggest that there is some degree of evidence to the committee that that was the case, from a number of organisations that work in this area and also work with people involved in this area at community level on the ground.My view is that there was some evidence presented that indicated that it was a potential problem, but my view—despite or in addition to that—is that it really is, in an area like this, up to the department to categorically prove that no disadvantage occurs. I do not think the onus of proof should operate in the other direction in that community organisations and refugee applicants should have to prove categorically that there has been disadvantage.The inquiry heard from a number of organisations, as I mentioned, who were involved on a daily basis with onshore humanitarian refugee issues. Some were well-known ones, such as Amnesty International, the Refugee Council of Australia and the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia. There were also a number of other organisations that are not so well known but that are also very heavily involved in this area: the Refugee and Immigration Legal Service Centre, the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre, the Campbelltown Legal Centre and other more community based centres. The very strong view from those associations and organisations was that the $1,000 fee is not appropriate and does provide a potential disincentive and potential hardship for genuine refugee applicants.It is important to emphasise and clarify in this area again that, to apply for a protection visa in Australia, people—if they are not successful at departmental level—can appeal to, and have the right of appeal to, the Refugee Review Tribunal, and that is something that the Democrats certainly support. The $1,000 fee applies if they are unsuccessful; yet it has to be emphasised that many people who do not fit the definition of `refugee' apply for a protection visa and appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal.But the definition of refugee is a very narrow one. I think it is a lot narrower than many people realise, and many quite genuine humanitarian cases nonetheless do not fit the technical legal definition of a refugee and are then able to seek the operation of ministerial discretion—that is, apply to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs asking him to exercise discretion to grant them a protection visa on humanitarian grounds. That is successful in a number of cases. I cannot think of the number off the top of my head, but certainly it is more common that people are successful in that regard than they have been previously.But, to get to that stage, even people that know they are not technically refugees but still believe they have a genuine humanitarian case have to go through the Refugee Review Tribunal anyway. Then, not surprisingly, they fail and have to seek ministerial discretion. If they get ministerial discretion, the $1,000 fee does not apply but, whilst a number of people do get support from the minister and the exercise of ministerial discretion, a number of them do not—a majority of them do not. That ministerial discretion is not compellable; it is not appealable. Regardless of how genuine their claim is and how genuine they feel it is, they have no way of knowing for sure whether or not they are going to be successful, because it is very arbitrary in the technical sense—it is a very arbitrary power—and it is difficult for people to be certain that they will be successful in appealing to the minister.But if they are not, regardless of how genuine their claim is, they are then subject to this $1,000 fee. I believe, and the Democrats believe, that that is completely inappropriate. I am not suggesting that the government explicitly says this, although I think sometimes it is implied somewhat. But certainly there is the suggestion out in the community from time to time that anybody who applies for a protection visa and is unsuccessful has therefore been trying to rort the system: they are either accepted and successful or they are unsuccessful—and that means they are trying to rort the system. I think that is a misconception that we need to completely deny, because it is clearly not the case. Obviously, some people do try to misuse the system but, in my view, the vast majority of people who are unsuccessful in applying for protection visas are nonetheless genuine in their belief about the genuineness of their case and genuine in their attempts to exercise what they believe is their legal entitlement to a protection visa.So I believe it is important, in terms of our approach to this debate within the community, to make sure that we do not allow that myth to take hold as a community perception. In my view, this $1,000 fee does reinforce that perception. It is clearly a penalty or a fee which people are required to pay. If people are charged a fee for something when they are unsuccessful there is a symbolic inference that they have not been genuine in the application.There are many other issues in relation to the operation of refugee policy which I will not go into, because I will try to confine this debate specifically to the fee. As the Senate would know, there is a committee inquiry at the moment, with the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee examining the wider operation of our refugee and humanitarian program. That committee inquiry is proving quite constructive and all parties are contributing in a cooperative way. Whilst I am not sure that I am going to be getting support from other parties for this allowance motion—although I certainly hope I do, because of the evidence that has been provided—I do again recognise that this is a difficult area of policy.As I mentioned before, Senator McKiernan disagreed with his Labor colleagues on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration about the best approach with this fee. Obviously I disagreed with him on the conclusion, but I do recognise his very comprehensive understanding of the issues involved in this area and his commitment to them. But I do believe that on this particular issue it is important to come down on the side of emphasising justice and humanitarian assistance.As I stated in a number of forums in the last couple of weeks, it is my view and the Democrats' view that a humanitarian and compassionate approach has been devalued somewhat in recent years in immigration and refugee policy. I am not in any way suggesting that our approach should be an unthinking, bleeding heart—`Let everybody who wants to come in come in, just because we feel sorry for them'—type of approach. I recognise that we have to put particular restrictions in place, but I do believe that the balance has got out of kilter in recent times and that this fee is one example of that. The focus has been so much on preventing rorting and on keeping so-called non-genuine people out that it may be achieving that goal to an extent but it is also penalising innocent people in the process. I believe that when you get to that circumstance it clearly needs some readjustment.In my view, disallowing this fee will not generate a huge budgetary problem and, inasmuch as it does, I do not believe it is appropriate for measures such as this to be driven by budgetary implications. The rationale for putting it in place was not cost related or for it to be a budgetary assistance measure; it was meant to be a disincentive for misuse. I do not believe it has been proven by the department—in fact, I am certain it has not been proven—that it has operated in that way, that it has had that effect. But I do believe it has had an effect. Many of the organisations that work with asylum seekers in Australia believe it has had a negative effect on those people.The majority of people that are subject to the $1,000 fee—it is worth emphasising and I am sure other speakers will do so—do not pay it. They tend to leave the country and not pay the fee. That was an argument the department used to say that there was not much hardship being generated, because people choose not to pay it and just leave the country. Obviously the aim of the policy is to have non-genuine applicants or non-legal residents removed from the country.The downside is that, until that $1,000 fee is paid, they are not able to return in any way or under any form of visa at all. That presents problems for genuine applicants who have gone through the process in good faith and then have that particular avenue closed off to them unless they pay that extra fee. The costs and hurdles in relation to people trying to enter Australia and trying to settle here are already fairly substantial, in the Democrats' view, and adding an extra hurdle in this regard is, in our view, inappropriate.In conclusion, the clear evidence provided by a vast number of organisations who work very closely and heavily in this area was that this fee was not proven to be operating in a way that clearly prevented misuse of the protection visa stream, but they were almost unanimously of the view that it clearly provided a disincentive for genuine refugee applicants and seekers of protection visas on humanitarian grounds. In the face of that evidence—the fact that it is not appropriate for it to operate as a budgetary measure—I think it is almost impossible to see how it could not impact on some genuine asylum seekers in a negative way.The Democrats believe that it is appropriate that this disallowance motion be supported. Otherwise, we will be stuck with this for at least another three years. In that case, we certainly believe that the inappropriateness of the measure would become even more clear over that period of time. There are plenty of other measures in place that already make it difficult for people seeking humanitarian visas or protection visas in Australia. I do not believe this extra one is an appropriate one. I do urge the Senate to support the Democrats' move to disallow it.17:24:008703McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—As the previous speaker, Senator Bartlett, said, regulation 4.31 has been in existence now for some two years and just under three months—less than 27 months. It was, when it was first introduced, made subject to a two-year sunset clause. Part of the condition of opposition support for the regulation at that time two years ago was that the regulation be subjected to a review by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration prior to the expiration of the sunset clause.I was a member of that committee which reviewed the regulation and the impact of the regulation. As Senator Bartlett said, I supported the majority decision of the committee which recommended at 3.35 on page 43 of the committee's report that regulation 4.31B be retained and that, to allow for a more thorough assessment of its effectiveness, it be subjected to a three-year sunset clause commencing on 1 July 1999. It is my understanding that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has agreed with that recommendation and has gone even further to make it a two-year sunset clause, which is when it will be reviewed again. That is a welcomed action by the minister. It will enable, I would think, intelligence to be gathered about the proper impact of the fee.It was the general conclusion of the committee that two years was a very short time for it to be in existence to get a proper and thorough analysis of its impact and effect. When one takes into account the fact that the fee came into being on 1 July 1997 and that it did not have an impact on many of the people who were already in the pipeline at that time and that the committee was reviewing it in the first half of this year, effectively we were looking at 12 months worth of figures. So we were not really in a position to look at all of the impact of the fee. With a further two-year sunset clause, it will enable a body—and I hope it would be the joint standing committee—to undertake the review again. It will enable them to review the impact of the fee in a proper atmosphere.Like Senator Bartlett, the Democrats and many others in this chamber, I too have a great concern about the impact of this fee on genuine refugees and genuine asylum seekers in this country. I was at pains during the inquiry to question the witnesses about the impact. As I said in my additional comment which I included with the report, I was comforted by the fact that nobody was able to point out to me or to the committee that the fee was having a negative impact or was stopping genuine asylum seekers from putting in their application to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a reassessment of their claims for protection in this country.A person who I hold in very high regard, a person who from time to time can be a great thorn in the side of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and indeed officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, is Ms Carolyn Graydon from the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre. In Melbourne she told the committee:From my own personal knowledge, I am not aware of any cases where I thought a person had very strong prospects of success but had been deterred by applying due to the $1,000 penalty fee. Some people are driven by such strong subjective fear that I do consider it to be unlikely that someone who faces persecution, or has a well-founded fear of persecution, in their home country would be deterred.Carolyn Graydon cannot be said to be a friend of the department in any shape or form. She is an excellent individual who has moved on to other things other than the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre. But Carolyn Graydon was not the only person who was questioned on this matter by me and other members of the committee. At the end of our inquiry we were not able to get the hard evidence to say that this $1,000 fee had inhibited or prevented a person who would have likely been granted refugee status in this country or protection in this country from being deterred in continuing their application to the Refugee Review Tribunal.I wish to draw attention to the status of the people who made submissions to the committee as well as those who appeared before us. We had representatives from the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council of Australia, the Adelaide Justice Coalition, the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, the Refugee Council of Australia and the Australian Section of the International Commission on Jurists. Those who appeared before the committee were quite a representative group of well skilled advocates for refugees and asylum seekers in this country.There were many others who were invited to appear and give evidence to the committee. Some of those included: the Thai Welfare Association, the Tribal Refugee Welfare of Western Australia, the Kingsford Legal Centre, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Amnesty International Australia, the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Campbelltown Legal Centre, the Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists, the Network for International Protection of Refugees, the Australia Family Party, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils and the Adelaide Justice Coalition. The community was invited to give the committee evidence on this issue. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the weight of evidence did not support the proposition that this fee was preventing or inhibiting genuine asylum seekers from continuing with their applications for protection.Ms Biok from the International Commission for Jurists gave the committee an example of how she convinced a family from Sri Lanka to continue with their refugee application when they became concerned about their liability to pay a fee in the event of a failed application. Ms Biok said that she encouraged these people to continue with their application despite their worries. The family was granted protection in Australia. When granted protection they are not liable to pay the fee.Mr Bitel from the International Commission of Jurists gave the committee an example of the inconvenience caused to an applicant from the Philippines. The asylum seeker failed in his application and returned to his homeland. He was later able to return to Australia after the fee had been paid. The interesting point is that this individual was returned to his homeland and was then allowed to leave his homeland again and make an application for refugee status in this country.Another example of inconvenience was given to the committee by Ms Jennifer Burn from the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre. She provided a case study of the inconvenience caused for a failed asylum seeker who later returned to Australia under a different visa class. The committee did not have the opportunity to examine all of the details of the particular example given, but we do know that the individual returned on a spouse visa. Would it not be better to make the application under a spouse visa in the first instance rather than trying to engage Australia's protective mechanisms? That is part of the difficulty we have in this area.It was admitted by a number of witnesses, including the Adelaide Justice Coalition, that there is a great measure of abuse occurring in the refugee application system in this country. That is a fact. This $1,000 fee is supposed to, in some way, curtail that problem. It has probably had some effect. I do not believe the committee was in a position, given the short time the $1,000 fee was in operation, to reach the conclusion that it was having the effect the government hoped it would have. The fact that, at the time the committee was inquiring, some $370,000 was collected from the fee is an indication that it was having some impact. I understand that figure is now closer to half a million dollars. I do not believe that half a million dollars in the immigration portfolio is seen to be a revenue measure as such. Nonetheless, it would look very nice on the bottom line. As I understand it, it goes into consolidated revenue rather than back into the immigration portfolio budget.Things were happening far too quickly in the process. Eighteen months was too short a period under which to conduct a proper review of the impact of the regulation. As I said in an earlier part of my speech, I was comforted by the fact that the genuine refugee, the genuine asylum seeker, was still able to continue with his or her application through the review mechanism.The Joint Standing Committee on Migration had a specific brief which was to look at the impact of the regulation. The committee did not have a brief to look at the operation of the exercise of the ministerial discretion to issue a humanitarian visa as such. We were inhibited in looking at that. I accept what you said, Mr Acting Deputy President Bartlett, in your contribution to the debate that there are people who have to go through the refugee application process in order to reach the minister to get humanitarian consideration. That is not something that the committee made recommendations on because we did not have a brief on that. I think there is a general view in the community that this procedure is somewhat convoluted and messy and does leave the refugee application system open to a form of abuse by some. It is something that has to be addressed and addressed properly by perhaps another parliamentary committee. I will not go into that matter any further at the moment.I want to conclude my remarks by welcoming the minister's response to the report and the fact that there will be another review within two years. If that review occurs in the first half of 2001, the $1,000 regulation will have then been in existence for some three years plus. I think that would be quite a useful time period to properly analyse its impact and effect. I hope that, during that period, no genuine asylum seeker is removed from this country or is refouled under the terms of the various international conventions that Australia has agreed to be part of and has signed up to.I am comforted, as I said in my additional comment in the report, by the fact that the minister still has a discretion and that people who are applying through the system for protection in Australia and who are going to the primary stage and the review stage know about the ministerial discretion and are making application to the minister. I am also comforted by the fact that the minister is responding and issuing humanitarian visas after consideration. Whether he is getting each and every one of them right is a matter for conjecture, but the evidence was not given to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. When we are dealing with matters such as we are dealing with at the moment, we do have to rely on hard evidence. If that hard evidence were there, I am sure the Refugee Council of Australia, the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre, the International Commission of Jurists and other bodies like that would be in the forefront of presenting that evidence to a parliamentary committee such as the Joint Standing Committee on Migration.I have devoted my remarks to merely a personal sense because of my involvement in the joint standing committee that reviewed the regulation and presented the report to the parliament earlier this year. The matter, however, has been discussed by my party in our caucus, and in that caucus meeting we have determined to oppose the disallowance of the regulation. Whilst I have spoken personally, I am representing the position of the Australian Labor Party in this debate.17:39:008705Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise to support your disallowance motion—for the record, it should be noted that the mover of the disallowance motion, Senator Bartlett, is now in the chair as the Acting Deputy President—and I do so for the very reasons you have advanced. I will not speak long because it is obvious that, if you call that the ayes have it from that exalted position, you might get a call for a division. Senator McKiernan has advised the Senate that the opposition will be voting with the government to defeat the disallowance motion, so there is not much point in my pursuing it further.With respect—and I say that deliberately because those who have preceded me, Senator McKiernan and Senator Bartlett, know far more about this matter than I do—I might take up a point Senator McKiernan raised. Senator McKiernan was emphasising the point that this $1,000 fee was not a deterrent. I think he has a point, frankly; it is not a deterrent as such. But it may be for some who have a really genuine belief that they will be persecuted if returned to their country of origin.If they have that genuine belief, then it may deter them, bearing in mind they may have been advised by their solicitors that, if the appeal were made to the Refugee Review Tribunal, that tribunal may on balance consider that their genuine belief was not a well-founded fear. They may have that genuine fear, they may believe sincerely, they themselves might feel that is the case, but on balance the Refugee Review Tribunal may say, `No, that is not well-founded fear of persecution on convention grounds'—that is, the refugee convention grounds. But there again, those individuals may have a well-founded fear on grounds other than the convention grounds. We have been through this in the recent discussions of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee which is chaired by Senator McKiernan.I will go to another point. It may not be a deterrent, but it may be a penalty for persons who are very concerned and are genuine applicants. The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in its submission, stated:Migration regulation 4.31B—that is the regulation which we are seeking to disallow—is much too blunt an instrument and will deny to many genuine claimants their entitlement to an effective procedure and to non-refoulment. If the government is concerned—this is a very important observation—that some applicants to the Refugee Review Tribunal are unmeritorious or abusing the system, the appropriate response is not to penalise all unsuccessful applicants, as the present regulation does, but to give the tribunal discretion to impose a fee where it finds that an application is vexatious or an abuse of process.I have not heard any arguments rejecting that view of the Human Rights and Equal Oppor tunity Commission. The parliamentary secretary may direct our attention to any view of the government with respect to that statement by the commission. But I think that is quite a reasonable approach to take. Why not? Why penalise the genuine people? As I say, they are genuine, because Australia, unlike most countries, just does not have an onshore humanitarian visa. That really is a problem when it comes to questions as to whether refoulement might take place, because of the genuine fear of persecution on grounds other than the refugee convention grounds; so, for example, under the convention on torture and on the ICCPR.Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask the minister: what is wrong with taking up the suggestion that was made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission? Why not allow this regulation to be disallowed, vote for the disallowance, then bring in further regulations which will enable the Refugee Review Tribunal discretion to impose a fee where it finds that an application is vexatious or there is an abuse of process? I will leave it at that. I will be interested to hear the response of the minister. But I think that would surely be the fair way of going about it. As it is, it is more costly to get to the Refugee Review Tribunal, if you are talking as though this $1,000 fee were a sinker, than it is to get to the High Court.17:48:008706Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions. The government opposes the motion by Senator Bartlett to disallow schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 8) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 132. I remind senators that only applicants whose review is unsuccessful are liable to pay the fee. What I am saying may be a little disjointed, as I am responding; usually one gives a speech and does not respond, but I asked to speak last so that I could have the opportunity of responding. In response to what Senator Harradine just said, I point out that it is actually not a penalty; it is a fee. If you take the view that it is a penalty, then of course you might look at what Senator Harradine was suggesting.We also have to remember that the people who are in this situation have been through a first process. When Senator Harradine indicates that they may have a fear, it is a well-founded fear. It has been indicated that around 90 per cent of review applicants are unsuccessful at the Refugee Review Tribunal, because they have already been through a first process. There has been one decision made already. If the applicant has strong claims outside the UNHCR convention, then this can be picked up in the minister's public interest powers following the Refugee Review Tribunal. So if the person is reviewed and the review is unfavourable and the minister then intervenes, the fee is no longer liable to be paid or, if it is already paid, it is refunded to the applicant. If the person is a genuine applicant, they have already been through one process, then they go into the Refugee Review Tribunal, and they all then have the chance of the minister intervening.If a person has a well-founded fear, and they are genuine, they ought to believe that through that process they will be accepted and therefore not liable for the fee. Also the fee can be waived in certain circumstances. It was introduced to minimise abuse of the protection visa system by non-genuine applicants seeking to delay their departure and to access various benefits in Australia. At the time of the introduction, it was agreed that there be a two-year sunset clause ending on 30 June with a review by the joint standing committee to be completed on that date. The majority of the committee concluded that a significant amount of abuse was occurring. I think that is something that needs to be taken into consideration. There was a significant amount of abuse occurring. The fee has not deterred genuine refugees from applying for review. It was not in breach of Australia's international obligations to refugees. The extension of the sunset clause by two years to 1 July 2001, together with a review within that period, is consistent with the majority recommendation of the joint committee.Supporting the motion that Senator Bartlett has proposed would mean that abuse of the refugee system of review would continue and non-refugees would no longer have a debt recorded against their name if they did not pay the fee. They could reapply to obtain a visa to re-enter Australia, without making any contribution to the costs incurred by the Australian taxpayer in their misuse of the protection visa system.In response to some of the things that Senator Bartlett said, not one case was identified in the course of the inquiry into the sunset clause where a person who was a refugee or who had good claims was deterred from going to the RRT. As I said before, it is not a penalty; it is a fee. There is no need for presumptions about motives of the individuals. It acts as a general disincentive for those who are not genuine in their motives. Those who depart instead of paying can always be given time to pay off the fee if they want a visa to return, and Senator McKiernan gave an example of that.I have to say that the more experience I have in this portfolio—and I acknowledge Senator McKiernan's long interest in this portfolio, and I think Senator Harradine said that Senator McKiernan knows more about it than he does, and I am sure he knows a lot more about it than I do; I have been on a steep learning curve—my great concern is that every person who comes here, who somehow manipulates their way through the system and who is not a genuine refugee takes the place of someone else, many of them languishing in camps with no place to go. I believe it is our responsibility to ensure as far as we humanly can that people apply appropriately—and Senator McKiernan gave the example of the fellow who was able to reapply for a spouse visa. Every single one of those people who can come to Australia as a skilled migrant or on a spouse visa but chooses to apply in the refugee category and is not a genuine refugee takes the place of a person who has no homeland to go to or who is at risk of persecution or death on return to their homeland. That is the real balance.I think any minister for immigration needs to have the wisdom of Solomon—chop the baby into 140 pieces instead of into two. In this process, where an administrative decision is made, they can appeal that administrative decision through the refugee tribunal, and if they are successful there is no fee incurred. They can then appeal to the minister. If the minister intervenes and gives them a favourable outcome, again they pay the money in return or incur no fee.I would have to concur with Senator McKiernan that we should leave this in place to see its effect, and I am sure we will be told in no uncertain terms by the people in the industry if they believe that people who are genuine refugees are being disadvantaged or there is a disincentive for them to continue in the review process. I believe we will be told very clearly.I have just been advised by one of the officers that a recent investigation undertaken by the principal migration officer in Manila highlights the extent of the problem. Of 1,500 applicants for spouse visas submitted since January 1998, about 300 had applied for protection while on visits to Australia. The majority had also sought review by the refugee tribunal of primary decisions and requested ministerial intervention. Ninety-seven per cent of the group admitted to making frivolous protection claims solely for the purpose of obtaining permission to work. I repeat: 97 per cent of the group admitted to making frivolous protection claims solely for the purpose of obtaining permission to work.When I visited Hong Kong a couple of years ago, I was taken by a friend to the central square on Sunday where I saw the ayahs from the Philippines. I do not know whether Senator Harradine has been there on a Sunday. I saw maybe 8,000 to 10,000 Filipino women who were working in Hong Kong having their lunch, chatting, talking and meeting because they cannot invite anybody back to their very small room, maybe off the laundry in the facilities. When I sat on a bus with a woman who was working as an ayah at the Chinese University in Hong Kong, she said to me, `I have been here for 10 years as an ayah. I have a 14-year-old child and a 12-year-old child back in the Philippines and my husband and my parents look after them.' I realised then why some of them may want to come here and have the ability to work: some of them could earn a salary that would take years and years to earn as an ayah in Hong Kong. It is a tragedy that they are in that situation.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—What has that got to do with it?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—That may explain why some people will make every attempt possible to be here and will make frivolous claims. Senator Harradine asks me what is the point. Well, there are lots of points. Ninety-seven per cent of this group admitted to making frivolous protection claims solely for the purpose of obtaining permission to work. The reason they want to work is that they cannot get employment in their own countries and, if they go to other countries like Hong Kong, they earn so little, but they are prepared to leave their families, their young children, to go to work to send money back to the Philippines. The motivating factors to make a frivolous claim are so strong. I understand that. I feel terrible about it, but that is one of the reasons why. Manila is now receiving about five new cases a week under the spouse category with the same profile: people who admit that they are making frivolous claims.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—What has that got to do with this debate?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I am not going to have a debate with Senator Harradine here. It is more appropriate that we have a debate outside. He has had his chance to speak. I am trying to respond to him reasonably and he is interjecting.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—No. You have not answered the question: why not give the power to the tribunal? That is what I am saying and you have not answered that question.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! Senator Patterson has the call.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—As I was saying, I agree with Senator McKiernan. I commend our point of view to the chamber, that the change in the regulation deserves the support of the Senate, and I ask that all senators vote against the motion.17:59:008709Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In reply, I thank senators for their contribution and acknowledge, up to a point, the validity of the approach of each of the contributors, but I do disagree with some of the conclusions they have reached. A few points need to be re-emphasised. Suggesting that this $1,000 fee is not a penalty but a fee is perhaps the case in some very narrow legal sense but, like other arguments we have had in this place about the difference between a surcharge and a tax, the impact is still the same. I am not sure that it serves the debate much to try to deny that it has a penalising effect on people who are subject to the $1,000 fee. It is a bit of a spurious distinction that is being made.I have been surrounded by commentary from the parliamentary secretary about abuse of the system—widespread rorting and non-genuine claims, et cetera. This highlights the point that I want to make initially: clearly, there is an implication that a black-and-white approach is adopted to people who are not successful through the RRT. They are successful and they wear the white hats, or they are unsuccessful and they wear the black hats—and there is no problem with such people having a $1,000 penalty, or a $1,000 fee, put upon them.Clearly, there are people misusing the system; nobody denies that. But, equally clearly, it would be helpful if the government acknowledged just as categorically that there are many genuine people making genuine applications who are unsuccessful. This point was highlighted most clearly by the Refugee Council of Australia in their submission. I will quote from it because it puts the point particularly well and it is worth emphasising. They state:Official statements about this abuse tend to be very black and white—either a person is a Convention refugee or they are abusing the system. RCOA would argue that the reality is more complex and there are many reasons and motivations behind applications for refugee status. These include:. people with a well founded fear of returning to their country of origin on grounds consistent with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; . people with well founded fears of returning to their country for non-Convention reasons, such as the fact that their country is in a state of civil war and they fear generalised violence;. people with compelling family or medical (eg a condition for example, a condition for which treatment does not exist in their country) reasons to remain in Australia which properly ought to be brought to the Minister's attention;. people who have no reason not to return other than a desire to extend their stay and who have sought advice from agents who have promised them a `work visa'. . . Commonly in such cases the applicant had no notion that this hinged on an application for a protection visa or that their conduct was in fact abusive—and evidence has been provided to parliamentary committees about that practice—. people wishing to extend their stay in Australia (for economic or lifestyle reasons) and who apply for a protection visa knowing full well that it is not applicable to them.Out of all those categories, clearly only the first group has a legitimate so-called refugee based reason to apply. But it is equally legitimate that only the last group is knowingly abusing the system. People in those interim groups are people who believe they have quite genuine humanitarian reasons, as Senator Harradine outlined. They may even be aware that they are not strictly eligible for refugee status and may go through this process to request the minister to give humanitarian consideration to their case. It is also important to emphasise the evidence provided by people in the community about people who have been poorly or improperly advised by migration agents—not even necessarily migration agents but people who are not qualified to give advice but who provide them with that advice—and who act upon that in good faith. That clearly occurs in some circumstances. Evidence was given of people turning up to the refugee tribunal not even being aware until they had got there that what they had applied for was a protection visa. They thought that they had applied for a work visa, because that was what they had been advised. Those sorts of instances need to be acknowledged, and innocent people should not be penalised because of that situation.It is worth emphasising again that this $1,000 fee was just one of a number of measures designed to stop abuse. I believe a number of those, and particularly the one in relation to people seeking to apply for a protection visa solely so they can work, were addressed by some of the regulations that were brought into place at the same time as this one. Whilst I have concerns about that as well in terms of it impacting on genuine asylum seekers, that would be far more effective in providing a disincentive for people who are deliberately abusing the system.The fundamental point here is that it seems to me a bit incongruous for such a strong argument to be put forward by the government that this fee is providing a clear disincentive for non-genuine applicants and yet that it is somehow not providing a disincentive for genuine applicants, particularly those who may know they are not necessarily refugees in the strict sense of the word but are going through the channels they have to go through to access the minister's humanitarian consideration, something that has to be a bit of a lottery—and that is not meant to impugn the minister's motives at all.It is hard enough to be sure about your chances when you are going through a normal legal process and you have people looking at the legislation and giving you legal opinions. When you have something that is a non-compellable, non-reviewable discretionary power of the minister based on humanitarian considerations—and I know there are guidelines in relation to those—your chances of predicting your success are much lower than in any normal legal process. Yet people have to go through this channel and have to put themselves at the risk of being subjected to this $1,000 fee to get humanitarian consideration. That, to me, seems to be a significant flaw. To suggest that somehow the risk of a $1,000 fee is a clear disincentive for non-genuine people yet is no disincentive at all for genuine applicants who have no way of knowing whether they going to be successful is a pretty hard argument to follow.I emphasise again that the Democrats and I believe that when you have issues that have to be weighed up—such as the issue of abuse of the system versus ensuring that genuine applicants do not get disadvantaged—you have to put a very strong emphasis on the human rights obligations of ensuring that disadvantaged people are not further disadvantaged and are not subject to more disincentives or hardship. When you are looking at balancing those arguments, from the Democrats' point of view you have to come down on the side of human rights. I believe you have to come down on ensuring that the department has to prove that there is no hardship rather than the community or others having to prove the contrary. That is a crucial point in terms of how we should approach these issues.Unfortunately, the disallowance motion is not going to be successful. Despite what I believe are my very telling points, I suspect I am not going to sway the Senate at this late stage, so I will not continue. Another sunset clause will now operate with this regulation. There will be a review, and I will certainly be watching that closely. We may even be revisiting this debate in a couple of years time. One hopes that it is conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, a committee that I find operates very constructively with difficult issues and works hard to get a consensus approach. I hope some of the arguments that I put forward today get greater acceptance in the committee next time we are reviewing this matter. Question put: That the motion (Senator Bartlett's ) be agreed to.18:13:00The Senate divided. (The Deputy President—Senator S. M. West)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Lees, M. H. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Woodley, J.38Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Heffernan, W.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Schacht, C. C.Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Bills8711r8428711Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.18:16:008711Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 , which seeks to make a number of amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997. The most significant of these is the inclusion of accommodation charges in the act. We all remember the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, appearing on A Current Affair to announce the backdown on the government's aged care policy, but we are only now seeing the legislation to implement that backdown.Until now the accommodation charges he announced have been implemented through subordinate legislation, without the proper scrutiny of parliament. We are now also told that, because of his ad hoc arrangements, residents paying the charge have been denied basic protections. Labor opposed the introduction of the accommodation charge. We had very serious concerns about the equity of requiring pensioners to pay thousands of dollars a year for nursing home care. Those concerns remain. However, as those charges have been implemented, we support any move to introduce better protection measures for residents paying the $12 a day fee. We do have serious concerns that the protections introduced in this bill do not go far enough, and we will be moving amendments to increase residents' rights in relation to accommodation, bonds and charges. The government abrogated its responsibility two years ago by introducing the charges without those protections. The bill makes a number of technical amendments to address problems with the act, which include providing for the refund of accommodation charges to residents who were in homes prior to October 1997—honoured only after Labor pressured the government to fulfil its commitments to those residents—ensuring that people were not liable for fees and charges before they have even agreed to move into a facility, clarifying the situation where a person admitted to a facility has a mental impairment, formalising reduced qualifying periods for co-residents, and broadening the definition of `family'. Labor supports all of these amendments. They are a belated attempt to fix up some of the problems with the Aged Care Act—problems that the government has been aware of for more than 18 months now.Unfortunately for older Australians, while the bill does fix up some of the many technical problems associated with the government's Aged Care Act, many significant problems with the act are not addressed by this bill and will remain. These problems include: difficulties with the government's income tested fee, which has caused significant distress to older Australians and their families and is forcing providers to divert resources away from the care of residents; problems over the use of capital funding in the sector; an inability to appropriately deal with poor providers, including the closure of poor providers and provisions for the investigation of residents' complaints; significant difficulties being experienced by providers with the government's new resident classification scale; difficulties in accessing aged care, as the ratio of places to people aged 70 and over has declined over the last three years and waiting times have increased; a blow-out in the budget for aged care, which has occurred alongside the reduced access because of the government's misdirection of taxpayers' dollars; the continued implementation of the government's coalescence policy, which has been described by the Productivity Commission as inappropriate and inequitable; and providers in some states facing very serious problems arising from workers compensation premium increases without any support from the government, which is resulting in a reduction in the quality of care to residents.These and a number of other problems have emerged as a result of the failure of the government's aged care reforms. The hasty changes introduced in fright in 1997 are now falling apart. They have reduced access to residential aged care, and they have forced providers to compromise on the quality of care delivered to residents. They are failed reforms. These problems are causing distress to older Australians and their families and, in some cases, are forcing providers to reduce the quality of care delivered to residents. What is inexcusable is that the government has known about these problems for some time, yet it has done nothing to address them.The two peak provider organisations in the sector have raised serious concerns about the minister's inaction in relation to the issues confronting the industry. A recent journal included a headline article from the chief executive officer of one of those organisations, entitled `Government inactivity', that indicated that `issues currently affecting the operation of the aged care facilities are reaching crisis point.' Uniting Community Services has also stated that the minister's inaction in relation to the comprehensive Productivity Commission report into the nursing home sector is a time bomb and that older Australians deserve better.This bill provided the government with the perfect opportunity to respond to the concerns of residents and their families and to providers and employees in the aged care sector, yet it has merely sought to recycle an 18-month-old bill that does nothing to fix the many problems that have emerged over the last 18 months. Because of the government's inaction, Labor will move amendments to the bill to attempt to address some of the issues facing this sector as a result of the failure of the aged care reforms.The only reason we are debating this bill today is that Labor put pressure on the government to meet its commitment to residents in nursing homes before 1 October 1997. These residents were promised by the Prime Minister that they would not have to pay the $12 a day accommodation charge, but nothing was done to implement that promise. It was only after pressure from the Labor opposition and questions in the parliament in April that Senator Herron finally committed the government to meeting those commitments to those residents in the 1999-2000 budget.One and a half years after the government introduced its aged care reforms, the government finally undertook to honour its commitments to them. Unfortunately, many of those residents have since passed away. Because of the government's reluctance to implement its commitments, not one of them has received any refund of the potential millions of dollars they have paid in total in accommodation charges—charges that they should never have paid.Almost two years after the reforms were introduced, these residents are still required to pay the $12 a day charge. They are still facing financial pressure—pressure to sell their homes and somehow come up with the $12 a day charge when the government has promised they would not have to pay the charge. This is a tragic situation caused by the government's reluctance to act. These residents rightly feel cheated by the government, and the government failed to respond by introducing this bill until June 1999. This, of course, is consistent with its reluctance to debate aged care. The government seems desperate to keep aged care off the political agenda, given the history of losing two ministers in trying to implement these reforms.I have raised the government's inaction in relation to aged care on a number of occasions in the past. The history of this government's failure in aged care was discussed broadly in the house when this bill was debated in June, and I will not seek to repeat some of that debate today. But the earlier bill that the government introduced was then withdrawn by it. Knowing the problems being experienced by residents and providers, the government chose to drop the bill that sought to fix some of the problems. Facing an election, the government put its own political interests ahead of the interests of aged care residents. Eighteen months later, under pressure from Labor, the government finally sought to introduce legislation when it took the opportunity to recycle the 1998 bill.The provisions to provide for the refund of accommodation charges to pre-October 1997 residents, inserted at our insistence, are the only major changes to the bill tabled in March last year. Given the history of inaction, it is not surprising that the minister has failed to address a number of significant problems within the Aged Care Act that have become apparent over the last 18 months. In the context of this bill, I will be highlighting just three of the problems now facing the aged care sector: the income tested fee, capital funding and how we deal with poor providers.In terms of the income tested fee, there have been numerous reports in the media recently about the problems with the government's income tested fee. We have heard that aged care residents are receiving a series of letters from the department, sometimes within a matter of days, each indicating a different level of fee. In one case the department sent three letters to a resident in two days, advising of three different levels of fee. Understandably, residents are confused and upset by this inconsistent advice. Residents, many of whom are pensioners, are rightly distressed when they are then hit with bills for thousands of dollars as a result of the department's confusion.At the same time, providers are complaining about the complexity of the fee which is requiring more and more staff resources to administer. This means more staff filling in forms and less time caring for residents. These problems flow from the government's bungled implementation of the fee, which was criticised in the recent Audit Office report. That report identifies significant problems with the fee's implementation and ongoing complexity in its administration.In the face of all these problems, it is not surprising that we have also been getting reports that the department is advising people to divorce to avoid the income tested fee. You know a system has failed when the department's officers advise people to divorce to avoid it. These problems were raised by the sector with the government over a year ago, yet the minister has done nothing to relieve the distress of residents and their relatives. She did not take the opportunity provided by this bill to address those problems. It is just not good enough. Residents continue to receive confusing advice and continue to be upset by large bills for backdated fees that they did not even know they had to pay. Labor calls on the government to urgently introduce legislation to resolve the many problems with the income tested fee and thereby relieve the distress of residents and their families.I turn to the question of capital funding. A few weeks ago I mentioned an example which graphically demonstrates the failure of the government's arrangements to fund capital improvements in the residential aged care sector. A Victorian nursing home provider closed his facility after it appeared he did little or nothing to improve the infrastructure of the facility. Residents at the nursing home had been paying the government's $12 a day accommodation charge. The Commonwealth had been paying on behalf of other residents the equivalent through the concessional resident supplement.In total up to $200,000 could have been paid to the provider to fix up the nursing home, yet he was under no obligation to spend any of that money on capital works, and it appeared that he did not do so. Instead he chose to leave the industry and pocket the funds. The minister cannot guarantee residents or taxpayers that one dollar of the $200,000 was actually spent on improving the nursing home.Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. In Victoria, in particular, there have been a number of recent instances where aged care facilities have closed their doors. In all these recent cases, the provider has been under no obligation to spend the funds collected from residents through an accommodation bond or charge on capital improvements. In all cases, the provider has been under no obligation to spend taxpayers' money collected through the concessional resident supplement on capital improvements. In all cases, the provider can simply pocket the money and walk away with hundreds of thousands of dollars. This bill does nothing to prevent that circumstance recurring.While the providers who close down their facilities in these circumstances are few and represent the small minority of irresponsible providers in the system, there are other providers who are using the funds raised through the accommodation bonds and charges to cover ongoing costs. Under the current system, they are perfectly entitled to do so. These providers have the interests of residents at heart and are compensating for a lack of recurrent funding by dipping into their capital funding stream. Unfortunately for the provider, this has long-term consequences as these providers will have little or no means of refurbishing their facilities in five or 10 years time.The current system is disguising the crisis in ongoing funding that many providers are facing—a crisis that the Productivity Commission identified in its recent report into nursing home funding. Some providers are sacrificing future capital reserves to meet current costs. Accommodation charges were introduced to fund capital improvements. We do the residents, the providers or the taxpayers no favours by refusing to quarantine those funds. I think this highlights a significant failing of the current Aged Care Act.The funds collected from residents are not quarantined specifically for capital improvements. Attempts were made by both Labor and the Democrats at the time the act was passed to tighten accountability for the use of these funds. However, they were resisted by the government and the current arrangements have proved to be ineffective. At the time Labor raised the very possibility of the situa tion that has unfolded with providers simply incorporating the capital funds into their daily budgets. The minister has proudly produced graphs showing the amounts the new user-pays fees raise and claims that this will meet the capital needs of the sector, but she cannot guarantee that one dollar of that money is actually spent on capital improvements.Nursing home residents have been told they must find $12 a day to fund the capital development of the aged care sector when many of them simply cannot afford it, and the government has not put any accountability arrangements in place to ensure that the money is directed to improving their accommodation. It must be remembered that accommodation bonds and charges are only half the picture. We know that 47 per cent of residents are not paying any accommodation bond or charge. In this case the Commonwealth pays the provider $12.34 a day through the concessional resident supplement. There is no provision in the current Aged Care Act that defines what that money should be used for. Providers are able to simply pocket that money. This year the Commonwealth will spend $142 million on the concessional supplement, next year it will be $169 million and the year after that $181 million, yet we have put no conditions on how that money should be used. Given that the concessional resident supplement is paid when the resident cannot afford an accommodation bond or charge, the clear intention is that the supplement be used for capital improvement. The Aged Care Act does not reflect that intention. We will move amendments to try to ensure that funds raised from residents through their accommodation bonds and charges are used for capital improvements and that taxpayers' dollars spent on the concessional resident supplement are similarly used for that purpose.Where a provider closes a facility, forcing residents to relocate to other facilities, the provider will have to ensure that the money is used for those purposes or refund it to taxpayers and residents if it has not been used on capital improvements. A provider should not be allowed to accumulate these funds, knowing that they will close down, do no capital improvements and simply walk away with the money. That is a very real issue as accreditation approaches. The current arrangements encourage providers in this situation to do no capital improvement. Our amendments will require providers to refund any moneys collected through the accommodation bonds or charges or the concessional resident supplement when that money has not been or will not be spent on capital improvements. If a resident pays $12 a day to the provider for that purpose and the provider chooses not to spend that money on improving the facility, the resident is entitled to a refund of the money.The recent cases in Victoria also highlight another significant problem in the government's Aged Care Act—how to deal with poor providers. The department have indicated to me that there are a small number of providers that they would like to close down but cannot because of difficulties with the act. As a result, the government is now proposing an amendment that will allow for the gradual wind-down of a facility when it wants to revoke a provider's approval to operate. While I can understand the rationale for this amendment, it raises significant issues over the care of residents in a facility that is being wound down and poses real risks to their health. These residents will potentially be left for an extended period in a facility that has been assessed as not providing an adequate level of care. Given the shortage of alternative places in some areas, the resident may have to wait for months as the facility is gradually wound down. In this situation, there is a clear need to ensure that these residents are being appropriately cared for. We should not set up a situation where we leave residents in a facility under the control of a provider who is known to have acted irresponsibly in failing to provide appropriate care to residents.The problem will only get worse as the January 2001 accreditation deadline approaches and some providers make a decision to leave the industry and make as much money as they can in the process. They will be looking to cut staff hours and reduce the level of care provided to residents. They will be looking to cut back on the quality of food and generally looking to save costs. It has to be remembered that residents are potentially in a very vulnerable position. Some of them may have no relatives within the area to regularly visit them, some may be suffering dementia, all of them are physically frail. I find it appalling that the government is now proposing an amendment to allow a known poor provider to continue to operate for six or 12 months, while the facility is gradually wound down, without providing extensive additional protections for the residents. The provider knows they are being closed down and therefore has every reason to try to extract the most money they can from the facility in the time remaining, which means reducing the quality of care to an intolerable minimum. I have serious concerns about the provisions in the act in relation to the investigation of complaints. Many people have noted the current provisions do not ensure that complaints are promptly and thoroughly investigated. To rely on these provisions in the case where a known poor provider is allowed to continue to operate a facility is inviting disaster. The Labor opposition will move amendments to ensure that the care of residents in this situation is monitored by a departmental officer who will report directly to the minister.We will also move amendments that seek to protect the interests of employees when a nursing home is closing down. We know of a number of instances where staff have been left owed large amounts of money—termination and leave pay—by providers exiting the industry without meeting their obligations. The department has the ability to prevent the sale of the licence if those debts are not met, and we think it is an important reform to provide for those employees. The government has accepted the need to protect employees in these situations in other industries, and we think it should accept its responsibilities in the nursing home industry as well.I look forward to contributing in the committee stage of the debate to this important legislation. We have tried to highlight that we do not think this legislation goes far enough as a legislative response to the problems confronting aged care. Many of the problems have not been addressed. We think the government should have a much more comprehensive response to the issues confronting the industry. We will attempt at the committee stage to deal with some of those, but we really do require a more comprehensive legislative response, and we require a government commitment to address the issues in the industry rather than delay, defer and hope that somehow they will go away. There are real problems that need to be addressed, and I urge the government to start being accountable and to start addressing those concerns of the industry.18:36:008716Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 , which we are considering today, introduces a number of amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Consequential Provisions) Act 1997 to finetune the aged care structural reforms which were introduced in October 1997. In addition, it addresses some administrative and procedural issues which have become evident since that time. It also introduces a number of protection measures for older Australians living in residential aged care facilities, which the Democrats particularly welcome. We are happy to support this bill today.Since the government first announced its sweeping reforms of the funding and operation of residential aged care facilities in 1996, the Democrats have worked very hard to improve the government's policy reform package. Our goal has always been to ensure that the final package was one which would ensure that the needs of those requiring residential aged care both now and in the future would be met. What we have always wanted is a system which is sustainable while offering high quality care to all Australians, regardless of their capacity to pay.In determining our position in the aged care debate since 1996 we have carefully weighed up each proposal against its likely impact on the ability of elderly Australians to access high quality residential care and the long-term financial viability of the residential aged care sector. The Democrats gave qualified support to the government's initial aged care reform package, because we understood the urgent need to inject funding for capital maintenance and improvements into residential aged care facilities. We negotiated a number of improvements to the original proposal, including an additional $40 million in subsidies for concessional residents. We wanted to ensure that all Australians could continue to access high quality residential aged care, regardless of their ability to pay for it.Recently, the Democrats also played a crucial role in paving the way for the introduction of an accreditation system for residential aged care facilities, which was proposed as part of the government's 1996 aged care reform package, with funding for all non-accredited aged care facilities to cease from 1 January 2001. While the majority of aged care providers supported an accreditation process, the details of the legislation were not agreed to until the Democrats brokered a roundtable discussion between providers and the minister. As a result of this meeting, the minister has agreed to address the major concerns of the aged care sector, including making a commitment that residential aged care facilities with up to 19 beds will pay no fee for accreditation, and those with 20 to 25 beds will pay only a tapered fee on an ongoing basis.The Democrats are proud to have been able to play a central role in resolving the impasse between the government and the aged care providers over the accreditation process for aged care facilities. I believe the introduction of accreditation will be a big step forward for those needing residential aged care. It should lead to continuous improvements in the industry and ultimately a higher standard of care and facilities for older Australians.On reading the House of Representatives Hansard, I notice that the opposition have used the debate surrounding this bill as yet another excuse to beat up the government on aged care. No doubt, they will turn their attack on the Democrats in the Senate as well. Before the senators in the ALP start with the kind of tiresome rhetoric and half-truths we have heard time and time again, let me just take the opportunity today to remind them that the ALP had 13 years in government to address the problems in aged care, and they did not.The ALP did virtually nothing, despite the findings of the Gregory report, which was commissioned by the Keating government. The ALP did nothing, despite the fact that its own independent report estimated that approximately $1 billion in today's figures was needed just to get the existing nursing home stock up to scratch. Let us not forget that, when it comes to aged care, the opposition has a very poor record indeed. In fact, it has failed dismally.Let us also not forget that, going into the last election, the only promise the ALP could come up with in relation to aged care was to abolish all nursing home fees and replace them with $500 million of public money to be paid to the sector over three years. I invite ALP senators here tonight to explain to us exactly how this $500 million was going to meet the current and ongoing funding needs of the aged care sector. In fact, I challenge the opposition to change their approach when it comes to aged care. Perhaps just for this bill, rather than resorting to rhetoric and half-truths to bag everything and everyone on what they have tried to do, why not try something different? Why not use this as an opportunity to tell the rest of us what the ALP aged care policies would be if they were in government?Before the government gets too complacent from all of this criticism of the opposition's approach to aged care, let me take a few minutes to draw attention to one particular shortfall of the government, and that is the government's lack of response to the findings of the Productivity Commission's report into nursing home subsidies. Despite receiving in January of this year the Productivity Commission's findings that the government's funding index in relation to nursing home subsidies is wrong, the government has failed to give any indication as to when it will respond. We find that unacceptable.Here, yet again, we have an example of a government setting up its own objective independent body to look into what is to be done in the area of aged care, only to ignore its findings. The whole point of this inquiry was to determine whether the proposed coalescence of nursing home subsidies should proceed or be replaced by another funding methodology. The Productivity Commission did not endorse the government's coalescence proposal. Despite this, in setting nursing home subsidy rates from 1 July this year, the government went ahead with its proposal anyway.The Democrats call on the government to end the current angst in the aged care sector in relation to this matter today by making it very clear exactly when and how the findings of this report will be responded to. It is worth noting that the findings and recommendations of this Productivity Commission inquiry have wide industry support. The Democrats will continue to work with all of those involved in the aged care sector—both providers and those who represent the consumers of aged care—to achieve an improved level of care for the residents of aged care facilities. As the measures contained in this bill today are supported by all of those involved in the industry, we are happy to support them today too.The ALP have a series of amendments to this legislation. While the Democrats have some sympathy with the sentiment which obviously lies behind some of those changes, we will not be able to support them, because neither we nor the industry saw them until just a short time ago. As a result, there has been inadequate time for meaningful consultation. Indeed, those whom I have spoken with in the industry have said that they have not had a chance to look at them or consider them in any depth. In fact, they urged us to reject the amendments and not delay the bill.We will be seeking clarification from the government on some of the issues raised by the ALP's amendments. However, I say to the opposition that they do themselves absolutely no favours when they hand complicated amendments to us—and to the industry—at the last minute. It leaves the Democrats with no choice but to vote against them, because it would be completely irresponsible for us to support changes which may bring with them negative unintended consequences which nobody has had time to consider.18:44:008718Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . I wonder if the government have heard of the International Federation of Ageing and their Declaration on the Rights and Responsibilities of Older Persons. As Ageing International reveals on, page 15 of their fall edition, these include:12. To obtain health care in order to maintain or regain the optimum level of physical, mental and emotional well being and to prevent or delay the onset of illness.13. To access social and legal services to enhance capacity for autonomy and provide protection and care.14. To utilise appropriate levels of institutional care which provide protection, rehabilitation and social and mental stimulation in a humane and secure environment.15. To exercise human rights and fundamental freedoms when residing in any shelter, care and treatment facility, including full respect for their dignity, beliefs, needs and privacy and for the right to make decisions about their care and quality of life.One could rightly assume that the government are not listening to the voices of elderly Tasmanians or to the International Federation of Ageing, as a lack of funding in public health and legal aid means that preventable health and legal representation on civil matters are achievable only by the wealthy. Or are they punishing the elderly in Tasmania for the last election result? Nothing else could explain the callous indifference the government is showing to the elderly in need of residential care in my state.This bill represents inertia on the government's behalf as, after 18 months of representations made, reports given and letters written, it seems that little is getting through. I know numerous letters have been written by Aged Care Tasmania Incorporated outlining the undue pressure any cuts in funding would mean to the Tasmanian aged care industry and, importantly, to those they serve so well.Reducing the funding to the elderly that need care is not like targeting those on unemployment benefits or other easy targets that make up the daily feeding frenzy on talkback radio. They cannot be labelled as unworthy of assistance or as somehow undeserving. Yet, apart from the minor cosmetic changes, this bill delivers little and, in the case of elderly Tasmanians, does nothing to address the problems raised over the last 1½ years.This bill had a quasi launch on 5 March 1998, when it was tabled as the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998. The Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 that is now being discussed is the old bill with a couple of crisis measures thrown in—and that is about it. What caused the crisis measures, the add-ons, to the original? Was it a result of well set out, planned policy objectives—other than the reduction of $500 million from the sector in 1996-97? The crisis measures were directly related to the government's own `reforms'—a word they use, but I would not—in slash and burn policies that typify this government.Remember when they wanted to take the family home and then quickly gave it back? Some people were badly hurt by that. This bill partly compensates them with ex gratia payments. It also seeks to stop those that had to pay for not being there. Confusing, yes, but as a direct result of these glorious reforms the elderly had to pay fees for a service they had not received. The complete stupidity of this oversight is a common occurrence in the government's policies. We get used to it, but the frail and elderly should never have to.This policy also fixes another huge oversight in previous reforms. Currently the government is unable to act on a fraudulent provider without closing the service. These fraudulent providers are currently still operating as, due to the government's ineptness, shonky operators are still running some of the homes.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Documents8718871818:50:008718O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. I would like to make some comments about the Airservices Australia corporate plan document dated July 1998 to June 2003. I and a number of others, both in this place and in the other place, have been critical of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, and before him Mr Vaile, for their failure to properly deal with a number of important transport matters. There is plenty of evidence to draw on to support that charge.A report of the House of Representatives entitled Planning not patching, by the Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform Standing Committee, was tabled in November 1997. We are, as yet, to get a government response to that report. We have still not received a response from Mr Anderson to the Tracking Australia report from the same committee. It was tabled in August of last year. The Revitalisation rail report of the rail projects task force was released in April this year, but we have heard nothing yet from Mr Anderson. A key report from the shipping reform working group was completed in April of this year and provided to Mr Anderson. It still sits on his desk. The Hawke review on air safety responsibilities was completed in December of last year—on time—but we have heard nothing.We are now told that a final BASI report on the class G airspace trial will not be released until the end of the year. The draft was circulated to interested parties for comment ages ago. These are all very important reports that are of vital interest to key transport sectors in this country, but they have all been simply put to one side, just as the interests of rail, sea and air transport in this country have been put to one side by Mr Anderson.While we on this side of the chamber are expected to argue publicly on behalf of these key sectors of the economy, it is not often that the chair of a public authority openly and stridently criticises his own minister. Things are clearly very bad when that happens. But that is what I discovered when I read the covering letter to the report we are now considering. Firstly, I draw the attention of the Senate to the date of that letter. It was dated 11 February 1999. One could be forgiven for thinking that this report has been sitting somewhere on Minister Anderson's desk waiting for clearance for eight months. Perhaps he could not find it under the other reports.In his letter that commences the report, Mr Forsyth says that the corporate plan was originally submitted in May last year. After all, the plan does cover the period commencing June 1998, and today's date is 22 September 1999. So it seems that Airservices clearly met its deadline. Mr Forsyth advised Mr Anderson that the original plan had to be withdrawn because it could not reflect the Department of Transport's structural review. That review was completed and provided to the former minister in March 1998. The department met its deadline with the Airservices review, and so I assume that that report just sat around in Mr Vaile's office and then Mr Anderson's office.Despite so much time passing, because the report is now more than a year late, Mr Forsyth was forced to tell Mr Anderson that it was still incomplete. Mr Forsyth states:As you are aware, Airservices is in a state of flux because of the government's indecision on some of the planned reforms.I must say that that was an extraordinary statement for a chair to make in a report to his minister, a report that he knows will be tabled in parliament. It is a statement usually saved for the privacy of a ministerial office.The fact that Mr Forsyth has reached such a level of frustration gives an insight into the level of frustration the rest of the transport sector in this country is feeling with this minister and this government. Later in the same letter Mr Forsyth tells the minister:If the government does not deliver on these aspects—and I interpose here that he is referring to the structural reforms—momentum will be lost and the reforms will fail. The financial consequences of such a failure will be significant.It is clear that the desire of the Airservices chairman is for the organisation to be privatised. That would be the view of the government too, if it thought that it could get away with such—10000O'Brien, Sen KerryThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The honourable senator's time has expired.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave not granted.18:56:008720Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I was not intending to speak on this report. The report, to a degree, speaks for itself. But some of the things that the previous speaker has mentioned were so outrageous as to require some comment. Of course, Mr Anderson is one of the most efficient ministers of a very large number of very efficient ministers in the government. The work that he does in all aspects of transport is enormous. It is a very complex portfolio and, of course, Mr Anderson has a range of matters to deal with, particularly now with his role as Deputy Prime Minister. But he can be well proud of the work that he has done in the transport area.Rail reform has gone ahead in leaps and bounds since this government took over. The previous government, the Labor Party government, spoke for 13 years about the things they were intending to do, but of course they never got around to doing anything. Roads, under the Labor regime, went backwards; the disastrous state that many of the roads are in around Australia is the result of something that grew up in the 13 sad years that Labor was in power. In aviation, Mr Anderson has introduced a number of initiatives. He has had a number of very difficult problems to look at, not the least of which being the second Sydney airport, an issue that the Labor Party were never quite able to deal with in the 13 years that they were in government. They kept putting it off and putting it off. Senator O'Brien would well know about those things.Mr Anderson has perhaps not received the credit he should have for the tremendous job that he did to help reduce transport costs to rural and regional Australia. This came about as a result of the tax reform package, which the Labor Party opposed—a package that was going to reduce substantially the cost of transport for those of us who live in the country.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I know that the hour is late and that the minister has felt that he has had to come to the defence of this embattled minister; but the issue here is that we are discussing the Airservices Australia corporate plan for July 1998 to 2003. The minister is now starting to talk about the GST and the tax package and its effect on rural Australia, and I really think that that is a very long way from the document that is supposed to be under discussion.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—If I may speak on the point of order, I am actually responding to the previous speaker who was speaking on this report, and I assume that he must have been speaking along the correct lines.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I rule that the minister is in order.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—The strength of my argument in opposing the point of order was obviously well known to you before I mentioned the words. In response to what Senator O'Brien was saying in suggesting that Mr Anderson was not doing his job—and he went on with a long list of complaints about Mr Anderson—I point out that Mr Anderson is doing a great job in air services as well as in all other areas of the portfolio.One of the reasons I say Mr Anderson is doing such a good job is the tremendous work he did in getting the tax reform package back on track when the Labor Party opposed it. The Labor Party opposed the proposal we put forward to bring cheaper and better transport to rural and regional Australia, whether it be rail, road or air transport. As a result of their opposition, Mr Anderson has had to spend an enormous amount of time getting a new package together which has, in the end, provided a tremendous outcome for the people of rural and regional Australia. In so many ways, Mr Anderson has done a remarkable job as the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The good things happening in aviation now and the good things that will occur in times to come are as a significant result of the work done by Mr Anderson.19:01:008721Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment872110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! Consideration of government documents having now concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.872119:02:008721Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I wish to refer to the operations of the EPAS Fund—that is, the Employees Productive Award Superannuation Fund. The previous Labor government developed a retirement incomes policy to address the problems arising from an ageing population, caused primarily by the baby boom generation moving into the age pension age over the next couple of decades. The superannuation guarantee was central to that policy and the 1992 superannuation guarantee charge legislation has seen all employers contribute the superannuation guarantee to registered superannuation funds on behalf of employees since that time.The charge commenced at three per cent of an employee's pay and has steadily risen to seven per cent today. Award superannuation has also played a significant part in employee savings and, together with the superannuation guarantee, cemented the need for supervision and regulation of the superannuation industry. The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, sometimes referred to as the SI(S) Act, substantially increases the level of prudential protection provided to the superannuation industry and represents a substantial strengthening of the security of superannuation savings and the protection of the rights of superannuation fund members.Since 1 July 1998, APRA—the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority—is the Commonwealth agency which is now responsible for prudential regulation of banks, life insurance companies, general insurance companies and superannuation funds, having taken over the functions from the previous Insurance and Superannuation Commission, ISC, for insurance and superannuation, and from the Reserve Bank of Australia for banks. In the case of superannuation funds, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority aims to ensure that the trustees are aware of their obligations to members and manage the funds in their care prudently in the interests of members. A great responsibility is put on trustees.I am going to outline tonight that in this particular case the trustees have not acted prudently. APRA does not guarantee the performance of financial institutions but has the power to require them to observe prudential standards and to intercede if it believes the interests of depositors, policy holders or members are at risk. They look at approved deeds and the performance of funds. I am afraid they slipped in this particular case.Consumer issues, however, such as the information or advice provided about financial products or the resolution of consumer complaints about financial services or charges, are primarily the responsibility of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC. Where their responsibilities overlap, APRA cooperates particularly closely with ASIC.When trustees of superannuation funds invest members' money there should be at least three major objectives. They are: to achieve above average investment performance with an acceptable level of risk; to gain results which compare more favourably than those available on deposit; and to increase the value of member's contributions by achieving a rate of interest, over the long term, exceeding the rate of inflation.The investment strategy must therefore be based on these objectives. In choosing a range of asset classes, a trustee or trustees should have regard to the advice of professional investment advisers. To keep the fluctuations in any one market to a minimum, the asset classes, for example, could include a mix of cash on deposit, bonds, property and shares. Investing through a range of managers also helps to reduce the risk of fluctuations even further.You can imagine my absolute despair when I was made aware recently of problems with the EPAS Fund—the Employees Productive Award Superannuation Fund—an industry fund used by employers in the accommodation industry. When we go to the 1998 annual return, it declared a negative return of 43 per cent. A statement dated 30 December 1998 was mailed to members stating that a negative crediting rate of 43 per cent had been applied to all their contributions, effectively cutting their earnings or their hard earned savings in half. Naturally, this raised concerns from members.The fund owner, Mr Terry James, had been trustee and chairman until his resignation in October 1998. Investigations reveal that on 1 July 1996 APRA, concerned the fund was too heavily committed in property investment, directed the appointment of Mr Gerald Parker as trustee in order to diversify funds invested. It appears there were at least 20 interrelated companies with directors common to many companies. So the question really does have to be asked: why did APRA approve such an arrangement of 20 interrelated companies? This is just not good enough. This is not good oversight by APRA and it is not good oversight by the trustees in the discharge of their responsibilities to the members.But worse, members' inquiries to EPAS Ltd are answered with the words, `This is commercially privileged information,' and very little useful information is forthcoming. On 29 July 1998 Gerald Parker notified members that EPAS Ltd now had four trustee directors, bringing diverse experience to the board. Too little too late. On the same day in a notice to all members issued by EPAS Ltd as trustee, the question was asked, `Why did the fund have so much invested in property?' The answer was:The history of the EPAS Fund saw the Fund invest in loans. Mostly these loans were secured by mortgages over property. In a move to increase the performance of EPAS for its members, the present Trustee Directors, demanded that the loans be repaid.A fair enough action. It continued:Those borrowers who defaulted on their EPAS loans have been taken over and either sold or retained ready for prudent sale.A major problem was the purchase and refurbishment of O'Hara's Resort Hotel in Launceston, Tasmania. It alone accounts for $7 million of members' moneys. On top of the substantial property asset losses, EPAS also reported a loss of $918,000 in share dealings in 1998. I remind honourable senators this was at a time of strong share growth.Who is responsible for this total mismanagement of the members' funds? Clearly, I point the finger at the trustees, because trustees have greater liabilities than directors of corporate companies. They have their personal assets at stake. I think it is time that delinquent trustees are made an example of by the authorities. Why hasn't APRA taken action against these delinquent or former trustees to show the need for separate and prudent management of super funds? The blame rests principally on the trustees. I believe they are liable and they should be sued. The question on everybody's lips is: why hasn't APRA taken a more punitive action when clearly it has such powers and when clearly the former directors were so delinquent in the discharge of their responsibilities?A central principle of the SIS legislation is that trustees are primarily responsible for the viability and prudent operation of superannuation funds. The SI'S legislation imposes fiduciary duties on trustees to act in the best interest of the members. The EPAS Fund, with 12,000 members, should never have been directly investing in property assets and resorts and had such arrangements with 20 other operations with common directors.The 1998 accounts show an amount of $4,254 directed to `trustees indemnity insurance'. So the trustees have some sort of money they can call upon if they are sued. Why haven't they been sued? Where is APRA in relation to this particular amount? It is doubtful of course that any insurance claim could completely recoup all the money these members have lost, but at least they should be trying. With award superannuation and superannuation guarantee, many people do not think about the amount of money their employers contribute on their behalf to a superannuation fund. If they do, rarely do they wonder if the money is safe. It is up to this Senate and the regulating authorities to ensure that the money is safe. The disaster is horrifying for every member who stands to lose money. Both APRA and ASIC, with the APRA appointed trustee, are working together to review an untenable situation. (Time expired)872319:12:008723Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I rise this evening to comment on the recent local government elections in New South Wales. Whilst I am delighted to be able to report to this chamber that Labor enjoyed electoral success right across New South Wales, I also wish to turn my attention to some of the unscrupulous tactics employed throughout this campaign by various players within the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party—those geniuses whom I have had occasion to disparage in this place on a number of earlier occasions.Whilst there have been some very highly publicised examples of the New South Wales Liberal Party's underhanded approach in these elections—such as the sordid Frank Sartor affair—I wish to concentrate on a few less publicised but equally grubby strategies that were employed in the recent round of local government elections. In particular, I wish to bring to the attention of this chamber a number of duplicitous and deceitful tactics employed in the Penrith City local government elections. I specifically want to raise some questions about the apparent role of the office of the member for Lindsay, the Hon. Jackie Kelly, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, in the running of this very grubby and cynical election campaign.This election was characterised by a particularly high number of micro parties standing for election. This was particularly the case in the city's East Ward, where I happen to live. For reasons that will become a little clearer in a few moments, it is worth pointing out that the Liberal Party's No. 1 candidate was a Mr Steve Simat. It is also worth noting that Mr Simat is currently employed on the member for Lindsay's staff, a point that Mr Simat was at pains to make at every opportunity during the election campaign. It is also significant to note that Mr Simat's running mate at No. 2 on the Liberal ticket was Ms Christine Bourne, also a staff member in the office of the member for Lindsay. But I shall return to Ms Bourne a little later.At the close of nominations, it appeared there seemed to be a number of unusual links between the Liberal Party and those various single-issue micro parties. In the East Ward of the Penrith City Council elections, the ward in which Mr Simat and Ms Bourne were both running, three candidates all listed 15 Avon Place, St Clair, as their home address on their respective nomination forms.Two of these candidates, Mr Paul Matosin and Mr Joe Matosin, were representing the Marijuana Smokers Rights Party. This on its own may not seem all that peculiar. However, it must be pointed out that a Mr Adam Brown, also contesting the election, had listed 15 Avon Place, St Clair, as his address on his application form. Interestingly, Mr Adam Brown was the leading candidate for the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party.All these candidates appear to be guilty of committing electoral fraud, and both these parties—the Marijuana Smokers Rights Party and the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party—appear to be Liberal Party `front parties'. Even though both these single issue parties seem to reflect views that are in direct opposition to the Liberal Party's platform, I will demonstrate that a connection does exist. Let me deal with the issue of electoral fraud first.A brief visit to 15 Avon Place, St Clair, in the week following the lodgement of nomination forms showed no signs that the house was occupied. An absence of furniture seemed to indicate that no-one was currently living at the address. More interestingly, none of these three candidates were listed at 15 Avon Place, St Clair, on the previous month's electoral roll update. However, all three became enrolled at this address in the month immediately prior to the close of nominations. In the previous month, the Matosins were both listed as enrolled at 20 Herley Avenue, Rossmore. Rossmore is not in the Penrith City Council area.It is instructive to consider who owns the property at 15 Avon Place, St Clair. A land titles search revealed that the property was co-owned by Ms Liliana Djuka and Mr Stan Celar. Mr Stan Celar appears to be the same Stan Celar that was running in the No. 2 position on the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party's East Ward ticket. The other co-owner of the Avon Place residence, Liliana Djuka, was the No. 4 candidate on the Liberal Party's ticket in East Ward. Not only was she a Liberal Party candidate but she also shares the same electoral enrolment address as Mr Steve Simat, the No. 1 Liberal candidate in East Ward. It has also been reported in the local papers that, when asked for the reasons why he ran in the election, Mr Stan Celar replied, `Because Steve Simat asked me to.'There was, however, even more to the Liberal Party connection, with what clearly appears to have been a series of front parties designed to funnel preferences back to the Liberals. Both Mr Joe Matosin and Mr Paul Matosin from the Marijuana Smokers Rights Party appear on a print-out dated 11 August 1999 of the Rossmore branch of the Young Liberals, of which Mr Steve Simat was previously a member. Both Matosins are listed as living at 20 Herley Avenue, the Rossmore address at which they were enrolled up to the previous month and which, as I have said previously, is outside the Penrith City Council boundaries.It leaves unanswered the question as to whether Adam Brown from the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party is in fact the same Adam Brown that has previously worked on the election campaigns for the member for Lindsay and is currently a member of the Willoughby Young Liberals. It is also interesting to make the point that both Steve Simat and Adam Brown are part of the same right wing faction within the Young Liberals, even though in different branches. It is also important to note that Steve Simat was elected to the council on the preferences of the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party.Further strengthening the suggestion that the Liberal Party has taken control of, or perhaps even established, the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party, is the fact that Mr Al Mewett, the No. 2 Liberal candidate in Penrith's East Ward, ran as the No Badgerys Creek Airport candidate at the last state election for the seat of Mulgoa only six months ago. It is also worth noting that the registered officer of the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party is Mr John Barker, who, strangely enough, ran as a candidate for the Wilderness Party in the Blue Mountains council election. John Barker's brother, David Barker, however, was the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party candidate in the Blue Mountains and was previously the Liberal candidate in the state seat of Liverpool only six months ago.A further coincidence was that Mr John Barker's Wilderness Party was also contesting the Penrith City Council elections. When doorknocked, the lead candidate for the Wilderness Party, Ms Ana Grguric, in Penrith's East Ward, was in Perth. Ana was not to be seen during the campaign, but her brother John was, as he was a booth captain for the Liberal Party handing out how-to-votes on election day.Other dubious parties contending the East Ward election were the Seniors Party and the Gun Owners and Sporting Shooters/Hunters Rights Party. It is interesting to see that both the Marijuana Smokers Rights Party and the Seniors Party contested elections in two council areas—Penrith and Leichhardt. On the face of it, there does not seem to be any connection. However, it is worth noting that Ms Christine Bourne, a staffer working for the member for Lindsay, was previously a Leichhardt councillor after the 1995 election. Although Ms Bourne was unseated as a result of a dispute over the counting of the ballot which ultimately went to the High Court, I understand that Ms Bourne has recently been served with a notice of bankruptcy.In all of this, it might seem reasonable to say that none of this could have happened without the member for Lindsay's knowledge. This seems unlikely, given the member for Lindsay's keen interest and active involvement in the campaign. After becoming the president of the local government conference, the member for Lindsay used her influence to roll the incumbent councillor, and a good councillor, Robin Wiles, in favour of her two staff members. In a letter sent out to the Liberal Party members on her parliamentary letterhead, the member for Lindsay wrote to branch members illustrating the importance of the elections, indicating that the campaign would become the focus of her activities over the four-week campaign period.The most disturbing aspect of all of this is the opportunistic use of the highly emotive issue of the Badgerys Creek airport. The member for Lindsay, who says one thing in Canberra and another thing in Penrith, along with her staff, have sought to engineer a situation where they were to benefit from the community anger and resentment caused by an airport that her government remains committed to building. It is a shame, and it has damaged her credibility on the issue and her credibility as an honest broker who is committed to achieving the best for the people of her electorate. Sadly, this is not the end of it.872519:22:008725Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—I had intended to speak about something else and I do hope that I get to the topic I wanted to speak about tonight. But before I do, I just wanted to say that it is very disappointing when a senator makes an intemperate attack in this house on another member of parliament—it is expressly provided in the rules that it is inappropriate to do so—particularly an attack on our colleague the honourable member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly, who is a minister in the government, and two members of her staff, Steve Simat and Christine Bourne, and a number of other individuals who were apparently candidates at the recent local council elections in New South Wales.A number of very unfortunate imputations bearing on the credibility and integrity of another member of parliament have been made and in fact, by inference, criminal allegations have been suggested, namely, electoral fraud. I am not entirely sure—I will have to read what Senator Hutchins said—whether he is actually accusing the minister of electoral fraud or whether he is suggesting that she aided and abetted it through knowledge. I am not entirely sure exactly how he put it, but he makes a most serious allegation that will require to be dealt with in one way or another.I am not entirely sure that it is not a breach of privilege in this place to have made the allegations in the way he has, to reflect on the character and intentions of another member. In any event, what Senator Hutchins did seem to be suggesting, on the flimsiest of evidence and on a mishmash of conclusions based upon creeping around and looking through open windows of houses to see whether there are signs of occupation, which is a pretty demeaning activity in the first place, proves really absolutely nothing and is a very unfortunate smear tactic that is entirely unworthy of Senator Hutchins. As I said, it may in fact be a misuse of privilege and it is a matter that ought to be looked at.What I did want to say tonight was that election to this place does provide one with excellent opportunities to become involved in issues and organisations that are of great importance and significance in the wider community. The Council for Equal Opportunity in Employment is such an organisation that I have become involved with, being appointed as a director as the nominee of the Prime Minister. I want to make a few comments about this fine organisation.The Council for Equal Opportunity in Employment was actually founded as long ago as 1985 by the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It is a business oriented employer organisation focusing on the elimination of discrimination and harassment, creating workplaces where differences are respected and valued and developing effective business oriented affirmative action strategies. The council provides information, skill development, training and comprehensive consulting and advisory services to member organisations and other clients in both the public and private sectors.In my capacity as a member of the board, it was my pleasure last Wednesday to attend the Australian Financial Review/Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 1999 Corporate Work and Family Awards luncheon. The awards were developed in 1992 in conjunction with the Council for Equal Opportunity in Employment to recognise organisations that have actually taken the initiative in providing a family friendly work environment for their employees. This year the awards were also cosponsored by the Work and Family Unit of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.The Corporate Work and Family Awards recognise certain organisations and small businesses that have made their workplaces more family friendly. As Peter Reith stated in the address he delivered at the awards, `High turnover isn't good for businesses, and family friendly practices such as offering control over working hours in some form or other to low skilled employees is one sure way of helping to keep turnover levels low.'Changes to industrial relations laws in 1996 have delivered employers the tools and the flexibility to actually make these sorts of changes. As Mr Reith stated, there is significant evidence that throughout the agreement making process available under the federal Workplace Relations Act 1996 plenty of workplaces are adopting family friendly practices. For example, a recent study by the Work and Family Unit showed that 67 per cent of certified agreements contained at least one family friendly provision, and that figure rises to 79 per cent for Australian workplace agreements.A recent departmental report titled Work and family state of play reiterates the need for such family friendly provisions in legislation when it found that flexible working arrangements are significant in allowing employees job satisfaction to balance their work and family responsibilities and to have lower levels of stress. However, as the minister stressed, `There is still cultural change that needs to happen at many workplaces . . . employers and employees need to think more creatively about how to give all types of employees more control over working hours.'Those organisations that received awards this year showed great initiative and forethought in establishing a work environment where the family unit was respected. Lawyers Blake Dawson and Waldron showed that flexible working hours are becoming the norm, while at Innovative People Solutions 30 per cent of its Sydney premises are devoted to a creche and employees have the option of an extra two weeks recreation leave a year to spend time with their families.The awards gold medal winner, Mobil, has also effected massive organisational change. A culture of mistrust and excessive working hours has been altered to one of flexible work options where a family friendly culture is now embedded in the company. Restructuring of wage packages have seen decreases in overtime, yet increases in pay; and industrial action has decreased significantly. Writing about this in the Australian Financial Review, Stephen Long said:Initiatives like these show that employers don't necessarily have to spend lots of money to promote work and family balance. Big improvements can come from simple things that many take for granted, such as giving people flexibility to alter start and finish times, or to take time off to attend a family or personal issue and make up time later.These award winners, and the recognition of the changes they have made, show the dramatic nature of workplace changes that have occurred for women in the past decade and, in particular, since the government introduced its workplace relations legislation. Australia's award system was far too restrictive and rigid to provide the necessary conditions for flexible workplace practices. It is fair to say the Labor government missed out on the opportunity to introduce flexible working conditions with the introduction of the Industrial Relations Reform Act in 1993. As Mr Reith confirmed during his address, workplaces dominated by awards are not as likely to have family friendly practices. However, as is shown by the winners of these awards, flexible work sees benefits such as reduced absenteeism, decreased turnover, increased productivity and increases in morale.Recent ABS figures have also shown the great benefits that inure to women from these changes. Women are enjoying a period of lower unemployment and higher employment opportunities. Choice in determining the level of labour force participation has become very important for women. Measures such as the soon to be implemented $24 million Return to Work program and the new tax system, which contains income tax cuts and increased child-care assistance, will assist women who choose paid work to make the most of their opportunities.As the only non-profit business sponsored organisation working nationally in these areas, the Council for Equal Opportunity in Employment is uniquely placed to assist employers in meeting legal guidelines and identifying the likelihood that they might be predisposed to a claim. I take this opportunity to commend the winners of these awards as well as the council and to encourage other organisations across the country to bear in mind the value that a flexible, family friendly work environment can have for both them and their employees.872719:31:008727Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—This nation has an interest in achieving the efficient and effective management of the nation's forest resources. To this end, Queensland has finalised a regional forest agreement for south-east Queensland. I will provide some background on this. An RFA, a regional forest agreement, is an agreement about the long-term management and use of forests in a particular region between the Commonwealth and a state government. Its aim is to provide certainty, reduce duplication and provide a single plan for government decision making. The end result is to provide a durable agreement on the management and use of forests. The regional forest agreements are intended to provide the basis for both future forest management and an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry.Queensland has now completed an exhaustive process of consultation to come up with a regional forest agreement. I would like to congratulate the Queensland Labor Premier, Mr Peter Beattie, and the Deputy Premier, Mr Jim Elder, for the leadership shown throughout the process of negotiating the South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement. Negotiating an agreeable outcome between different interest groups is certainly not an easy task. It is a testament to the Queensland Labor government that this outcome has been achieved. The state government, the timber industry and the conservationists have all signed off on a historic agreement which provides a blueprint for the future management of our forests and the basis for an internationally competitive and environmentally sustainable forest industry.The central elements of the plan are as follows. At least 350 extra jobs and an increase of 425,000 hectares in the amount of native forest protected from logging—and this doubles the size of the existing conservation reserve. By the year 2025, more than one million hectares will not be available for logging. The plan also includes additional funding to manage the increased conservation reserve, 25 years guaranteed resource supply at current levels for all existing mills except for three mills, a $10 million incentive package to encourage new investment into the value adding side of the hardwood sector, 10 million new trees to be planted over the next five years as part of an $18 million softwood and hardwood plantation program and an end to all logging in native forests by the year 2025. These elements will ensure a sensible balance between conservation and the preservation of rural communities.The Queensland government's plan for the South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement had the objectives of providing a comprehensive, adequate and representative environmental reserve system, ensuring the management of forests is on the basis of ecologically sustainable management, and facilitating the development of a competitive and efficient timber industry. The Queensland Labor government has succeeded in ensuring that these objectives were met and, most importantly, that there would be no net loss of jobs.I have been on record a number of times defending the rights of timber workers to keep their jobs, and I would certainly not be supporting this agreement if it impacted adversely on employment within the timber industry. I had the opportunity of marching in Queensland with the timber industry in support of jobs. I had the opportunity of going to regional Queensland and speaking to various councils about the impact on the industry if the timber industry were to be wound down. However, this agreement not only ensures the security of current employees but will have a positive impact on employment, with over 400 new jobs proposed in a number of areas throughout the industry.The Queensland Premier's promise of no net job losses is also a vindication of the Australian Workers Union's vigorous campaign to protect its members. Both the union and the industry have consistently maintained that the timber industry is capable of long-term sustainability, and this arrangement agrees with that assertion. The union's efforts have ensured the security of over 500 jobs and the creation of many more. Unlike the mess that has unfolded in Western Australia, the Queensland Labor government has used commonsense to ensure that all parties to the agreement have been listened to.I call on the Howard government to abandon its confrontational approach to regional forest agreements and support the state Labor government's recommended agreement. Given that the relevant stakeholders in Queensland have overwhelmingly endorsed this agreement, the community rightly expects the government to come through with the money needed to ensure a successful outcome. I would urge this government to focus on the outcome rather than the technicalities of the issue. The agreement is within the spirit of the government's aim—that is, to preserve jobs in timber towns and to preserve forests. The government should recognise the good faith shown by those involved in this process and ensure that the government backs this historic agreement.Senate adjourned at 7.37 p.m.Documents87288728The following government documents were tabled:Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Limited—Report for the period 30 October 1997 to 30 June 1998.Airservices Australia—Corporate plan July 1998-June 2003.National Health and Medical Research Council—Grants for 1999—Corrigenda.Treaties—Review of the treaty-making process—Report, August 1999.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 10 of 1999.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act— Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 1). Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 2). Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Order 1999 (No. 2).Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act—Guidelines for the Classification of Publications 1999.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notice pursuant to section 45(1)(a)—Participation in formation of Partnership Australia Domestic Limited.Health Insurance Act— Declaration—QAA No. 2/1999. Guidelines under section 23EA—IHS 12/1999. Health Insurance Determinations HS/2/1999-HS/4/1999.Life Insurance Act— Prudential Rules No. 47. Variation of Prudential Rules No. 40.National Health Act—Guidelines under section 5B—IHS 13/1999.Telecommunications Act—Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1999).Therapeutic Goods Act— Therapeutic Goods (Manufacturing Principles) Determination No. 1 of 1999—MP1/1999. Instrument of approval under section 23AA, dated 17 September 1999. 8729The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999—Statement of compliance— National Capital Authority.Answers to Questions on Notice8730The following answers to questions were circulated:8730(Question No. 1188)11888730O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:(1) When was the Fish Quarantine Unit established in the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS).(2) What was the budget and staffing establishment for the unit in 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years; and (b) what funding and staff have beenallocated to the unit for the 1999-2000 financial year.(3) How many staff actually worked in the unit in the above years.8730Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Aquatic Section of the Animal Quarantine Policy Branch was established in August 1997.(2) and 3) The following table sets out the budget and staffing levels for the unit:1997-981998-991999-2000Budget $'000Planned staff levelActual staff levelBudget $'000Planned staff levelActual Staff levelBudget $'000Planned staff levelCurrent staff level362331,141661,141778730(Question No. 1189)11898730O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:(1) What short-term risk minimisation arrangements, as recommended in the Report of the National Taskforce on Imported Fish and Fish Products, have been put in place for the following categories of imports; (a) ornamental fish; (b) fresh frozen aquatic animal feeds and baits; (c) processed aquatic animal feeds; (d) shrimp meals; and (e) whole fish for human consumption—prawns, barramundi and molluscs.(2) What is the nature of the arrangements put in place for each of the above groups.(3) (a) When did work commence on the establishment of these short-term risk minimisation arrangements for each group; and (b) when was work completed for each of the above groups.(4) What was the estimated cost of setting up these arrangements for each group.8730Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:In response to the recommendations of the National Taskforce on Imported Fish and Fish Products, AQIS imposed restrictions on the importation of prawns not for human consumption and freshwater crayfish in November 1996. Short-term risk minimisation arrangements were not introduced for other aquatic products but import risk analyses were initiated with high priority.As an interim measure, AQIS prohibited the importation of uncooked prawns, and prawn based products containing uncooked prawns, for purposes other than human consumption with effect from 11 November 1996. This restriction applies to all prawn species including marine, brackish and freshwater. A risk analysis on the importation of green prawns commenced in May 1997. A technical issues paper was released in November 1998. The draft report of the risk analysis will be released in November 1999.Restrictions on freshwater crayfish also took effect on 11 November 1996. Importers of uncooked freshwater crayfish must obtain an import permit from AQIS prior to presenting product for quarantine entry. No permits have been granted since 1996. A risk analysis of freshwater crayfish commenced in September 1996 and a technical issues paper was released in May 1999. The draft report of the risk analysis paper will be released in February 2000.The estimated cost of making arrangements for these two short term risk management measures is $35,000, comprising 0.3 staff (full time equivalent) and administrative costs.With respect to the risk analyses commenced on other categories of imports, the status is as follows:. The import risk analysis on ornamental fish was finalised on 19 July 1999, when AQIS announced its decision to strengthen quarantine controls. Under new policies, all fish must have official health certification and must undergo post-arrival quarantine of up to three weeks and meet new inspection and testing conditions.. The import risk analysis on non-viable marine finfish (including fresh frozen aquatic animal feeds and baits and whole fish for human consumption) was finalised on 19 July 1999, when AQIS announced its decision to introduce requirements that imported marine finfish products (eg herring, cod, halibut, hake, bass, and sea bream) be `head off', eviscerated (gutted) and processed in approved plants or treated in a way that provides an equivalent level of protection. . The import risk analysis on non-viable bivalve molluscs commenced in April 1998. This IRA is presently on hold with resources re-directed to higher priority import risk analyses under WTO deadline.8731(Question No. 1194)11948731O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:(1) When did, or when will, Import Risk Assessments (IRA) commence on the following categories of aquatic imports: (a) ornamental fish; (b) fresh water crayfish products; (c) prawns and prawn products; (d) non-viable bivalve molluscs and (e) non-viable marine finfish.(2) For each category, when will: (a) a register of stakeholders be compiled; (b) stakeholders be advised of the proposal; and (c) a determination be made as to whether each assessment is routine or non-routine.(3) Which of the above categories have been determined to be non-routine.(4) Where an IRA has commenced, in each case, what is the membership of the Risk Assessment Panel (RAP). (5) Have any additional consultants been engaged to advise any of the above RAPs and if so: (a) what is the name of each consultant; (b) on what date was each consultant engaged; and (c) what skills are they bringing to the IRA process.(6) On what date did the Executive Director of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS): (a) confirm the approach to be taken; and (b) appoint the members of the RAP.(7) Where an IRA has commenced, what was the original scheduled completion date in each instance.(8) If the scheduled completion date has varied in relation to any of the above IRAs: (a) when was it varied; (b) what was the reason for the variation; and (c) what is the current scheduled completion date.(9) What were the dates of each meeting for each RAP established to undertaken as IRA in relation to the above categories.(10) Has any RAP undertaking an assessment in relation to the above categories released a technical issues paper, if so: (a) on what date was each paper released; and (b) can a copy of each paper be provided.(11) Was the period allowed for comment on each technical issues paper set at 60 days; if not, what was the period allowed for comment.(12) If the period for comment has lapsed for any of the above assessments, has the relevant RAP received comments from stakeholders and produced a draft IRA paper, if so: (a) when was each draft analysis paper completed; (b) when was it provided to stakeholders; (c) when was it provided to the World Trade Organisation; and (d) can a copy of each paper be provided.(13) In relation to the above RAPs: (a) have stakeholders comments been reviewed and (b) has a risk analysis been finalised.(14) Where an IRA has been finalised: (a) have the IRA recommendations been considered by the Executive Director, AQIS and (b) has a determination been made.(15) Where the Executive Director, AQIS, has made a determination, what is the time limit for any appeal in relation to that determination.(16) To date, have there been any appeals against a determination made by the Executive Director, AQIS, for risk assessments of the above imports.(17) (a) To date, what level of AQIS resources have been applied to the above assessments; and (b) what is the estimated cost for each assessment.8731Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) AQIS commenced the following import risk analyses on the dates shown:Import Risk AnalysisCommencementa) Ornamental finfish26 May 1997b) Fresh water crayfish products13 September 1996c) Prawns and prawn products13 September 1996d) Non-viable bivalve molluscs30 April 1998e) Non-viable marine finfish30 April 1998(2) (a) A register of stakeholders was compiled before issuing advice on the commencement of the import risk analyses. Interested individuals and organisations may register with AQIS and receive all relevant information on the risk analyses.(b) Stakeholders were advised of the proposal to commence the import risk analysis through Animal Quarantine Policy Memoranda (AQPMs) that were issued on the commencement dates (see answers to 1 above).(c) Stakeholders were advised of AQIS's proposed routine or non-routine approach as follows:Import Risk AnalysisDate of Advicea) Ornamental finfish26 May 1997b) Fresh water crayfish products13 September 1996c) Prawns and prawn products13 September 1996d) Non-viable bivalve molluscs30 April 1998e) Non-viable marine finfish30 April 1998(3) All of them.(4) The membership of the Risk Analysis Panels (RAPs) is as follows:Ornamental FinfishDr Peter Beers; Dr Mark Crane; Dr John Humphrey; Dr Stephen Pyecroft; Dr Ramesh Perera;Freshwater CrayfishDr Peter Beers; A/Prof Louis Evans; Dr Grant Rawlin; Dr Brett EdgertonPrawns and Prawn ProductsDr Sarah Kahn; Mr Glenn Hurry; Dr Dick Callinan; Dr Leigh Owens; Dr Brett EdgertonNon-viable Bivalve MolluscsDr Sarah Kahn; Dr John Norton; Dr Judith Handlinger; Ms Paula Shoulder; Dr Brett EdgertonNon-viable Marine FinfishDr Peter Beers; Dr Mark Crane; Dr Chris Hawkins; Dr Wendy Townsend; Dr Ian Peebles(5) AQIS engaged the following consultants to advise the Risk Analysis Panels:(a) consultant(b) date of engagement(c) skills/expertise Dr Donald LightnerSeptember 1998Scientific expertise in prawn production and health (prawn RAP).Dr Leigh OwensAugust 1998Scientific expertise in prawn production and health. Dr Owens became a member of the prawn RAP when Dr Percival withdrew.Dr Stephen PercivalJuly 1998Scientific expertise in fish production and health (prawn RAP).Dr Chris BaldockJune 1998Scientific and environmental expertise in fish production and health (prawn RAP). Mr Ian WhanJune 1998Scientific and economic expertise in fish production and health (prawn RAP).Peter Krogh June 1998Scientific and industry expertise in fish production and health (prawn RAP).Michael WhiteOctober 1998Scientific expertise in ornamental finfish production and health (ornamental RAP).Professor Angela ArthingtonFebruary 1999Scientific expertise in ornamental finfish production and health (ornamental RAP).Dr Steve PyecroftOctober 1998Scientific expertise in ornamental finfish production and health (ornamental RAP).Dr Ruth ReuterMarch 1999Scientific expertise in fish production and health (ornamental RAP).Phillip WalshMarch 1999Scientific and industry expertise in fish production and health (marine finfish RAP).(6) The Executive Director of AQIS confirmed the import risk analysis approach as set out below. Following the close of the appeal period risk analysis panel members were appointed.Import risk analysisConfirmation of approachClose of appealsOrnamental finfish21 November 199719 December 1997Fresh water crayfish products6 November 199825 November 1998Prawns and prawn products21 November 19975 February 1998Non-viable bivalve molluscs24 February 19997 April 1999Non-viable marine finfish21 January 19998 February 1999(7) The scheduled completion date for each import risk analysis is set out below:Import risk analysisOriginal completion date Ornamental finfishSeptember 1998Fresh water crayfish productsMay 1998Prawns and prawn productsMay 1998Non-viable bivalve molluscsFebruary 1999Non-viable marine finfishFebruary 1999(8) Completion dates of the import risk analyses have varied as follows:Import risk analysisWhen variedReason for variationRevised completion dateOrnamental finfish24 November 1997First meeting of Risk Analysis Panel. Consideration of work program including need for consultancies.27 January 1999Consultancies delayed.30 March 1999Decision taken to accelerate the IRA in light of WTO imposed deadline of 6 July 1999.4 July 1999Illness prevented completion by6 July.19 July 1999 Fresh water crayfish products1 July 1998Staff resources not available to progress.3 December 1998First meeting of Risk Analysis Panel. Consideration of work program.1 July 1999Branch resources redirected to higher priority IRAs under WTO deadline.March2000Prawns and prawn products25 November 1997 and 24-25 March 1998Risk Analysis Panel consideration and review of work program.30 April 1999Consultancies delayed. Change in Panel membership.1 July 1999Branch resources redirected to higher priority IRAs under WTO deadline.March 2000Non-viablebivalve molluscs1 July 1998Staff resources not available to progress.7 April 1999Appeal received. RAP yet to meet to determine work program.1 July 1999Branch resources redirected to higher priority IRAs under WTO deadline.June 2000Non viable marine finfish1 July 1998Staff resources not available to progress.3 March 1999First meeting of Risk Analysis Panel. Consideration of work program including need for consultancies.30 March 1999Decision taken to accelerate the IRA in light of WTO imposed deadline of 6 July 1999.4 July 1999Illness prevented completion by 6 July.19 July 1999(9) The Risk Analysis Panels held meetings on the following dates:Ornamental finfish24 November 1997; 7 and 8 April 1998; 27 January 1999.Fresh water crayfish products3 December 1998; 12 February 1999.Prawns and prawn products25 November 1997; 24—25 March 1998; 27—28 August 1998.Non-viable bivalve molluscsPanel is yet to meet.Non-viable marine finfish3 March 1999.(10) (a) Technical Issues Papers were released for ornamental finfish (8 March 1999), freshwater crayfish products (17 May 1999) and prawns and prawn products (14 November 1998).(b) A copy of each of these reports has been provided to Senator O'Brien. (11) Yes.(12) In all cases, stakeholder comments are provided to Risk Analysis Panels. Draft import risk analysis reports are in preparation for risk analyses on freshwater crayfish and prawns and prawn products. Under the accelerated process announced by the Executive Director of AQIS on 23 April 1999, the draft import risk analysis reports on ornamental finfish and non-viable marine finfish were placed on the AQIS website for public comment during June and July 1999 and stakeholder submissions were taken into account in finalising the import risk analyses. Copies of the reports are available from AQIS's website (http://www.aqis.gov.au/import/index.htm). The WTO was notified of AQIS's decision of 19 July 1999 on these import risk analyses.(13) AQIS conducted the import risk analyses for ornamental finfish and non-viable marine finfish using an accelerated process. Stakeholders' comments were reviewed by AQIS and a number of independent scientific experts. AQIS's decision was announced on 19 July 1999.(14) An import risk analysis is not finalised until a determination has been made by the Executive Director of AQIS. The recommendations of the risk analysis panel on ornamental finfish and non-viable marine finfish were considered by AQIS's Executive Director who announced new policies on 19 July 1999 in respect of imports of these aquatic products.(15) A period of 30 days is normally provided for stakeholders to appeal the process followed. There was no provision for stakeholders to appeal the decision on importation of ornamental finfish and non-viable marine finfish because these import risk analyses were conducted under an accelerated process to meet a deadline set by the WTO.(16)No.(17) (a) On average, 2 full time equivalent AQIS specialist staff are engaged on each import risk analysis. (b) The estimated cost for each assessment is $300,000.8735(Question No. 1208)12088735West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 15 July 1999:With reference to the answer to question no. 181 placed on notice at the Community Affair's Legislation Committee estimates hearing on 1 June 1999.(1) What population figures are used to make the specific calculations with regard to aged care provision ratios.(2) (a) How frequently is the demographic data reviewed; and (b) what is the source of the demographic data.(3) What local government areas comprise the Aged Care Planning Region of Central West in New South Wales.(4) What are the actual number of places currently provided in the region on a local government by local government basis.(5) What are the forward projections of the needs of the region: (a) as a whole; and (b) on a local government by local government basis.8735Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The calculation of aged care provision ratios is done using figures on the number of people aged 70 and over in each Aged Care Planning Region. These are derived from Estimated Residential Populations by age by Statistical Local Area provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.(2) (a) Demographic data on the aged population and the provision of services are reviewed annually during preparation of the Regional Distribution Plan that determines where new places are to be advertised.(b) Data on the aged population is obtained from the ABS. Data on Federally funded aged care places is obtained from the computer payments system operated by the Department of Health and Aged Care. Data on services provided by other levels of government is obtained from the appropriate jurisdictions.(3) and (4) The following table shows the Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) in the Aged Care Planning Region of Central West and the current provision of residential and community places.Aged Care Planning Region—CENTRAL WESTCurrent provision of residential and community care placesSLANursing Home placesHostel placesCommunity care packagesTotalBathurst190914285Bland047047Blayney Pt A041041Blayney Pt B012012 Boorowa0000Carbonne Pt A0000Carbonne Pt B0000Carbonne Pt C38684110Cowra75430118Evans Pt A0000Evans Pt B0000Forbes661240190Greater Lithgow4043083Lachlan4240890Oberon011011Orange19619630422Parkes100916125Weddin014014TOTAL747739621548It should be noted that Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) are used for planning purposes. However, in some instances Local Government Areas (LGAs) are used (for example, when all SLA's in an LGA are targeted for new places).(5) (a) and (b) The Department determines the allocation of places in the course of a round in accordance with the ratio set out below. The Department also receives advice from Planning Committees in each State and Territory on priority needs.The region of Central West as a whole is currently over the target ratio of 90 places per 1000 people aged 70+ for residential care places, and under the ratio 10 places per 1000 people aged 70+ for community care places. Community care places were made available in Central West in the recent Aged Care Approvals Round which will bring it closer to the benchmark.The current provision of aged care places indicates that the area is provided with more places on a 70+ population basis than other areas of New South Wales.The former Hawke/Keating governments left the Australian community 10,000 aged care places short. They did not meet their own publicly established benchmarks.The Coalition is fixing this and has substantially increased funding to the residential aged care sector. Since the Howard Government was elected in 1996 funding has increased by 42 per cent to $3.5 billion.8736(Question No. 1216)12168736O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 July 1999:Is Airservices Australia reducing prices for enroute services and changing the enroute pricing framework in the 1999-2000 financial year, if so: (a) by how much will the charges be reduced; (b) what are the changes being made to the enroute pricing framework; and (c) what is the basis for both the price reduction and the changed pricing structure.8736Macdonald, 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:Airservices Australia has reduced its enroute prices for 1999/2000.(a) The price reductions are as follows:1998/991999/00Change>20 tonnes$5.41$5.31-$0.1020 tonnes$1.21$1.18-$0.03The charges are calculated using the following formulae:20 tonnes $5.31 x distance x weight in tonnes 10020 tonnes $1.18 x distance x weight in tonnes 100(b) Airservices advises that at present, no proposals have been developed to change the enroute pricing framework. However, during 1999/2000, Airservices will be developing options for a new enroute pricing framework which dissaggregates services. Airservices will consult with its customers on these options.(c) Airservices advises that the reduction in enroute prices flows from cost reductions across the enroute network and in associated support functions.8737(Question No. 1217)12178737Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 30 July 1999:(1) Can details be provided of the application and approval process undergone for the latest round of funding grants allocated under the Rail Reform Transition Program.(2) Which companies: (a) applied for grants under the program; and (b) were successful.(3) How much did the successful companies receive.(4) Were federal or state members of parliaments involved in any way in the approvals process for the allocation of grants under the program.8737Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) There are no specific rounds calling for projects to be submitted for consideration and possible funding from the Rail Reform Transition Program (RRTP). When the program was first established State Advisory Committees were established in South Australia and Tasmania to assess projects and make recommendations to the Federal Government on which projects should be funded under the RRTP. The responsibility for making decisions on the recommendations of these committees rested with the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Michael Ronaldson MP, until October 1998 and since then with me. In the Northern Territory and Western Australia, regional development bodies provide advice on suitable projects. The last Tasmanian State Advisory Committee meeting was in December 1997, and only single projects in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia have been submitted for my consideration.The remainder of the honourable senator's question is answered in relation to projects recommended by the South Australian State Advisory Committee on 28 May 1999.(2) and(3) Details of the projects recommended by the South Australian State Advisory Committee at its last meeting are set out in the following table.Project ProponentProject DescriptionProject CostMinisterial ApprovalDistrict Council of Franklin HarbourWidening the boat channel at Cowell$35,000YesEyre EnterprisesConstructing a facility to manufacture solar power water distillation equipment$185,000YesSpencer Gulf AquacultureExpanding the hatchery at Port Augusta$140,000YesMobile ReclaimersConstructing a facility to recycle building products $300,000YesRoyal Zoological SocietyConstruct a new veterinary centre at Adelaide Zoo$80,000Yes(4) No. I am responsible for approving all projects funded by the Rail Reform Transition Program. However, the South Australian State Advisory Committee has representatives from both State and Federal parliaments as well as local government, employers, trade unions and Commonwealth and State public servants.8738(Question No. 1232)12328738Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:With reference to the Mt McCall Road in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, which the Minister decided to keep open contrary to the original management plan:(1) In the 1998-99 financial year, how much was spent on: (a) road maintenance; (b) upgrading the haulage way from the Franklin River; and (c) any other purpose.(2)(a)Which rafting companies used the route to run short trips down the Franklin River during the 1998-99 financial year; (b) how many trips did each company make; and (c) how much did they pay in fees.(3) Which rafting companies are currently offering short trips down the Franklin River.(4) How many vehicles used the road in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(5) What was the cost of administering access.(6) Have wash-down facilities been provided; if so: (a) at what cost; and (b) how many vehicles have used them.8738Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) No monies were spent on the maintenance of the Mt McCall Road in the 1998-99 financial year. $5,000 was spent to repair flood damage on the access road to the Mt McCall and Bird River.(b) No monies were spent on updating the haulage way in the 1998-99 financial year.(c) No monies for other purposes were spent in the 1998-99 financial year apart from routine maintenance inspections of the road and haulage track, prior to and following the annual rafting season, undertaken by Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service ranger staff.(2) (a) The following rafting companies used the route to run short trips during the 1998-99 financial year:. Peregrine Adventures. Tasmanian Wild River Adventures. Rafting Tasmania (b) I have been informed by Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service staff that not all of the returns are in for these trips.(c) See my answer to Question 2(b).(3) The following rafting companies are currently offering short trips on the Franklin River:. Peregrine Adventures. Rafting Tasmania. Tasmanian Wild River Adventures. Headwaters Travel(4) I understand that in 1997-98, 192 private and 22 commercial vehicles used the road and in 1998-99, 98 private and 19 commercial vehicles used the road.(5) Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service staff, who are responsible for administering access to the Mt McCall Road on a day-to-day basis, have estimated that a minimum of half an hour of staff time is required to process each permit. They consider that this is equivalent to a cost of $20 per permit.(6) Washdown of vehicles is undertaken at a high-pressure washdown facility at a service station in Queenstown. The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service had proposed to install a washdown station at their Queenstown office. I understand, however, that following assessment the Parks and Wildlife Service decided the existing installation was just as effective as the proposed new facility. The duplicate installation has therefore not been constructed.8738(Question No. 1233)12338738Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 August 1999:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the secretary of the department, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, between his appointment and 10 August 1999.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose of the dinner or function; (c) who were the attendees at the dinner or function; (d) what was the cost of the dinner or function; (e) how was the dinner or function paid for (for example, invoiced to the department, credit card, reimbursement et cetera); and (f) what was the venue.8738Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that:(1) Twenty. (2) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)22/5/96Discussion on Government privatisation processesMr Peter Young, Executive Vice Chairman, The Algemene Bank Nederland (Amsterdam/ Rotterdam Bank)$112.75InvoicedCommonwealth Club29/5/96Discuss role of women in Commonwealth Government Services and board recruitmentMs SallyAnne Atkinson, Senior Trade Commissioner, Australian Trade Commission, Paris $113.00Credit cardLobby Restaurant18/6/96Discuss future directions of National Crime AuthorityMr Tom Sherman, Chairman, National Crime AuthorityCost included in following accountInvoiced Commonwealth Club20/6/96Meeting with UK intelligence and security officials, and members of Secretaries Committee on National SecurityVice-Admiral R A K Walls, AO RAN, Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Department of Defence; Mr Tony Ayers, AC, Secretary, Department of Defence; Mr Ted Evans, Secretary, Department of the Treasury; Mr Stephen Skehill, Secretary, Attorney- General's Department; Mr David Reese, Deputy Director-General, Office of National Assessments; Sir Roger Carrick, CMG LVO, British High Commissioner; The Rt Hon Tom King, CH MP; The Rt Hon Lord Blaker, KCMG; Mr Michael Mates, MP; Sir Giles Shaw, MP; The Rt Hon Sir Archie Hamilton, MP; The Rt Hon Dr John Gilbert, MP; Mr Barry Jones, MP; Mr Allan Rogers, MP; Mr Jonathan Alden; Ms Emma-Louise Avery$1108.80 (including lunch of 18/6)InvoicedCommonwealth Club21/6/96Management Advisory Board MeetingMr Steve Sedgwick, Secretary, Department of Finance; Dr Peter Shergold, AM, Public Service Commissioner, Public Service and Merit Protection Commission; Dr David Rosalky, Secretary, Department of Industrial Relations; Mr John Mellors, Secretary, Department of Administrative Services; Ms Christine Goode, Spectrum Manager, Spectrum Management Agency; Mr Phil Twyman, Chief Operating Officer, AMP; Mr Russell Higgins, Secretary, Department of Industry, Science and Tourism$73.00InvoicedPM&C (Connoisseur Catering)29/10/96 Interviews for Chief Executive Asset SalesMr Steve Sedgwick, Secretary, Department of Finance; Dr Allan Hawke, Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Development; The Hon Peter Nixon, Company Director; Mr Richard Austen, AO, Chairman, Savage Resource Limited$75.00InvoicedPM&C (Connoisseur Catering)4/12/96 Management Advisory Board MeetingMr Steve Sedgwick, Secretary, Department of Finance; Dr Peter Shergold, AM, Public Service Commissioner, Public Service and Merit Protection Commission; Dr David Rosalky, Secretary, Department of Industrial Relations; Mr John Mellors, Secretary, Department of Administrative Services; Ms Christine Goode, Spectrum Manager, Spectrum Management Agency; Dr Allan Hawke, Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Development.; Mr Richard Humphry, AO, Managing Director, Australian Stock Exchange; Mr Russell Higgins, Secretary, Department of Industry, Science and Tourism$121.50InvoicedPM&C (Connoisseur Catering) 18/12/96Discussion on Commonwealth administrative law reform issues.Mr Tom Sherman, Chairman National Crime Authority; Ms Susanne Tongue, Principal Member, Immigration Review Tribunal$183.15InvoicedCommonwealth Club6/2/97Official visit by UK Head of Secret IntelligenceSir David Spedding, KCMG CVO OBE; Mr Stephen Skehill, Secretary, Attorney-General's Department; Mr Ted Evans, Secretary, Department of the Treasury; Mr Dick Smith, Director-General, Office of National Assessments; Mr Martin Brady, Director, Defence Signals Directorate; Mr Dennis Richardson, Director-General, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; Mr Philip Flood, AO, Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; General John Baker, AC, Chief of the Defence Force, Department of Defence; Mr Tony Ayers, AC, Secretary, Department of Defence; Major-General William Crews, AO, Director, Defence Intelligence Organisation; Mr Rex Stevenson, Director-General, Australian Secret Intelligence Service$707.58InvoicedCommonwealth Club7/3/97Management Advisory Board MeetingDr Peter Boxall, Secretary, Department of Finance; Dr Allan Hawke, Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Development; Dr Peter Shergold, AM, Public Service Commissioner, Public Service and Merit Protection Commission; Dr David Rosalky, Secretary, Department of Industrial Relations; Ms Christine Goode, Spectrum Manager, Spectrum Management Agency; Mr Lionel Woodward, AO, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Customs Service; Mr Richard Humphry, AO, Managing Director, Australian Stock Exchange$120.00InvoicedPM&C (Connoisseur Catering)10/7/97Management Advisory Board Meeting Dr Peter Boxall, Secretary, Department of Finance; Dr Allan Hawke, Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Development; Dr Peter Shergold, AM, Public Service Commissioner, Public Service and Merit Protection Commission; Dr David Rosalky, Secretary, Department of Industrial Relations; Mr John Mellors, Secretary, Department of Administrative Services; Ms Wendy Caird, Joint National Secretary, Community and Public Sector Union; Mr Richard Humphry, AO, Managing Director, Australian Stock Exchange$110.90InvoicedPM&C (Connoisseur Catering)30/9/97Interview for Executive Co-ordinator positionDr Allan Hawke, Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Development; Mr Roger Beale, Secretary, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories$60.00InvoicedManuka Deli 9/10/97Mr Moore-Wilton (host) to visiting UK delegationSir Roger Carrick, CMG LVO, British High Commissioner; Dr David Clark, UK Minister for the Civil Service; Dr Richard Jarvis, Private Secretary to Dr Clark; Mr Norman Reaburn, Acting Secretary, Attorney-General's Department; Dr Peter Shergold, AM, Public Service Commissioner, Public Service and Merit Protection Commission; Dr David Rosalky, Secretary, Workplace Relations and Small Business; Dr Allan Hawke, Secretary, Transport and Regional Development; Mr Paul Barratt, AO, Secretary, Department of Defence; Mr Ted Evans, Secretary, Department of the Treasury; Mr Bill Blick, Executive Co-ordinator, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet$1,000.00Credit cardFringe Benefits Brasserie6/11/97State Heads of Premiers' Departments, eve of COAG meetingMr Roger Wilkins, Director-General, Cabinet Office, NSW; Ms Elizabeth Proust, Secretary, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Victoria; Mr Peter Ellis, Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Queensland; Mr Peter Conran, Director-General, Chief Minister's Department, Northern Territory; Mr Ian Kowalick, Chief Executive Officer, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, South Australia; Mr John Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Minister's Department, Australian Capital Territory; Mr John Pritchard, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Local Government Association$549.50InvoicedCommonwealth Club5/12/97Management Advisory Board MeetingDr Peter Boxall, Secretary, Department of Finance and Administration; Dr Allan Hawke, Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Development; Dr Peter Shergold, AM, Public Service Commissioner, Public Service and Merit Protection Commission; Mr Lionel Woodward, AO, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Customs Service; Ms Christine Goode, Spectrum Manager, Spectrum Management Agency; Mr Richard Humphry, AO, Managing Director, Australian Stock Exchange$112.50InvoicedPM&C (Manuka Deli)4/5/98Farewell to DFAT Secretary before taking up position as High Commissioner, LondonMr Philip Flood, AO, Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Dr Ashton Calvert, Secretary designate, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Mr Paul Barratt, AO, Secretary, Department of Defence; Mr Ted Evans, Secretary, Department of the Treasury; Mr Peter Varghese, FAS International Division, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; Mr Michael Thawley, International Adviser to the Prime Minister; Mr Russell Higgins, Secretary, Department of Industry, Science and Tourism; Mr Dick Smith, Director-General, Office of National Assessments; Mr Charles Jamieson, Managing Director, Australian Trade Commission; Mr Bill Farmer, Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs$588.25InvoicedCommonwealth Club24/6/98Discussion on relationships between the Commonwealth and consulting firms in the ACTMr Russell Parkes (Endeavour Consulting)$178.00Credit cardCharcoal Grill 23/9/98Meeting on discussion about machinery of governmentMr Ted Evans, Secretary, Department of the Treasury$21.00Credit cardPM&C (Manuka Deli)28/1/99Official visit by Chairman, UK Joint Intelligence CommitteeMr Michael Pakenham, Chairman, UK Joint Intelligence Committee; Dr Andrew Pocock, Deputy High Commissioner, British High Commission; Dr Ashton Calvert, Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Mr Tony Blunn, AO, Secretary, Attorney-General's Department; Mr Ted Evans, Secretary, Department of the Treasury; Mr Paul Barratt, AO, Secretary, Department of Defence; Mr Kim Jones, AM, Director-General, Office of National Assessments; Admiral Chris Barrie, AO RAN, Chief of the Defence Force, Department of Defence$444.20InvoicedPM&C (The Lobby Restaurant)26/2/99Official visit by the Director, FBIJudge Louis Freeh, Director of FBI; Mrs Genta Holmes, American Ambassador; Mr Lou Caprino, Legal Attache, US Embassy; Mr Lionel Woodward, AO, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Customs Service; Mr Dennis Richardson, Director-General, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; Commissioner Mick Palmer, AO, Chief Police Officer for the ACT, Australian Federal Police; Admiral Chris Barrie, AO RAN, Chief of the Defence Force, Department of Defence; Mr Allan Taylor, AM, Director-General, Australian Secret Intelligence Service; Mr Tony Blunn, AO, Secretary, Attorney- General's Department;$542.50InvoicedPM&C (The Lobby Restaurant)8742(Question No. 1243)12438742O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) Did the Air Traffic Control Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) Voice Switching Computer System (VSCS) fail at Melbourne Airport on 2 August 1999.(2) Was the VSCS down from 11 pm on 2 August 1999 until 4 am on 3 August 1999.(3) Did this failure result in such phenomena as radio broadcasts from aircraft being routed to the wrong air traffic control consoles and air traffic controllers being unable to coordinate with each other.(4) (a) Does the VSCS have an emergency standby system; and (b) did that emergency system fail because of flat batteries.(5) Between 11 pm on 2 August 1999 and 4 am on 3 August 1999 was air traffic control at Melbourne Airport provided on an emergency basis from the control tower rather than the control centre. (6) On how many occasions, and at which airports, has air traffic control been provided on an emergency basis from the control tower rather than the control centre since Airservices Australia was established.(7) (a) Between 11 pm on 2 August 1999 and 4 am on 3 August 1999 was enroute control unavailable at Melbourne Airport; and (b) if some enroute control was available during this period, what limits were there on that service.8742Macdonald, 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:Airservices has advised:(1) Yes. There was a partial failure of the VSCS system on 2 August, 1999.(2) No. Some elements of the system were not affected and the VSCS was progressively restored to full functionality over this period.(3) No. Some broadcasts were duplicated to other console positions but the responsible controller received correct radio reception and the coordination functions were able to be carried out between controllers in the normal manner. (4) (a) Yes. A handset which bypasses the VSCS, is provided at each console position which allows the air traffic controller direct access to the predesignated radio frequency. However, on 2 August 1999 the VSCS bypass was not effective at a small percentage of console positions due to an interface problem between the VSCS bypass and external radio equipment. This problem has now been corrected.(b) No.(5) As part of normal contingency plans the control tower provided an approach control service in consultation with the control centre.(6) Airservices management advises that it can not recollect any similar occasions when contingency plans have been utilised to provide such services from a tower. A more definitive answer would require a search to be undertaken of tower log records over a four year period at all major air traffic control centres.(7) (a) No.(b) Enroute services were provided to aircraft throughout the evening. Two inbound aircraft were delayed slightly and two aircraft were held on the ground at Melbourne for a few minutes at the onset of the problem with the VSCS.8743(Question No. 1246)12468743O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) Is Mr Peter Beaver, Manager Corporate Security, Airservices Australia, investigating the leaking of details of management salary packages paid to senior Airservices officers; if so: (a) who initiated the investigation; (b) when did the investigation commence; and (c) when is Mr Beaver scheduled to complete his investigation.(2) What is the basis for such information remaining confidential.8743Macdonald, 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) Yes(a) Chief Executive Officer.(b) 12 July 1999(c) It is expected that all the appropriate enquiries will be finalised, and a report compiled, by the end of September 1999. (2) Information on contract manager remuneration in Airservices is covered by the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988.8743(Question No. 1251)12518743McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKiernan1I4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 13 August 1999:What amount of Commonwealth Training Funds, if any, has so far been provided and made available to Fletcher International for training programs which are in place at the Narrakup Abattoir.8743Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Under the former Training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Program—(TAP), the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business signed an agreement with Skill Hire Pty Ltd to employ 95 indigenous apprentices. These apprentices were to be hired out to Fletcher International at the Narrakup Abattoir. Since the commencement of the employment services market on 1 May 1998, payments under TAP to Skill Hire Pty Ltd have totalled $358,481.8743(Question No. 1254)12548743O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 18 August 1999:(1) Has the final amount of compensation for the costs associated with the outbreak of Newcastle Disease in chicken flocks on Mangrove Mountain in New South Wales been determined; if so: (a) did the final level of compensation vary from the initial estimate; and (b) what was the basis of any variation; if not, why has the level of compensation not yet been settled.(2) (a) Who determined the initial estimate of the compensation cost; and(b) who determined the final cost of compensation.(3) (a) What was the amount of compensation paid to each affected party; and(b) when were the compensation payments made to each party.(4) What was the contribution made by each state and the Commonwealth to the cost of compensation paid to affected parties. 8744Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No. While all major amounts have been settled, some incidental amounts remain to be negotiated.(2) (a) and (b) The determination of compensation for livestock or property destroyed for the purpose of eradication or spread of the disease is a matter for the NSW Government. The value of any livestock or property for which compensation is payable is the amount agreed by the claimant and the NSW Minister for Agriculture or his delegate,in accordance with the principles established by the Commonwealth-State Cost-Sharing Agreement (CSA).(3) (a) The amount of compensation paid to individual owners for livestock and property destroyed is confidential.(b) The timing of the compensation payments is a matter for the NSW Government.(4) The contribution made by each State and the Commonwealth to the cost of compensation has not yet been finalised. Contributions for eligible expenditure under CSA, including compensation payments to owners, are made according to an agreed formula. For Newcastle disease the percentage shares are:%Commonwealth50.00New South Wales19.26Victoria11.97Queensland9.00Western Australia4.95South Australia3.62Tasmania0.51Northern Territory0.25Australian Capital Territory0.448744(Question No. 1340)13408744Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) What were the circumstances surrounding the failure of the department to notify the Australian Federal Police (AFP) of the granting of a new Australian passport to Ms Lisa Marie Smith until 6 months after it was issued on 10 September 1996.(2) Did the department contact Interpol or the Government of Thailand following the granting of the new passport; if so, when did they contact Interpol and/or the Government of Thailand; if not, why not.(3) (a) When was the application for a new passport for Ms Smith received by the Australian Embassy in Athens; and (b) When was the new passport granted.(4) When did the department receive the passenger alert for Ms Smith issued by the AFP.(5) What action did the department take upon becoming aware of the passenger alert issued for Ms Smith. (6) When did the department first become aware that the Australian Embassy in Athens had granted a new passport to Ms Smith.(7) What legislative impediments exist that effect the flow of information between government agencies in cases such as that of Ms Smith.8744Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions:(1) The Department is only required to contact or notify those authorities who place alerts on the Department's Passport Issue and Control System when the Australian citizen, who is the subject of an alert, makes application for an Australian passport. There was no alert in place for Ms Smith at the time she applied for and was granted an Australian passport.(2) The Department did not advise Interpol or the Government of Thailand about Ms Smith's passport issue. There is no agreement in force with Thailand to advise on these matters nor is there any formal requirement for the Department to notify the AFP or other agencies of passport issues to Australian citizens. The AFP and other agencies have access to information held on the Department's Passport Issue and Control System. (3) (a) Ms Smith lodged her passport application with the Australian Embassy in Athens on 30 August 1996; and (b) Ms Smith's passport was authorised for issue on 9 September 1996 and issued on 10 September 1996.(4) The Department does not receive passenger alerts issued by the AFP.(5) The Department was not aware of the passenger alert issued by the AFP.(6) The Department first became aware of Ms Smith being issued with a passport when the issue was recorded on the Department's Passport Issue and Control System by the Australian Embassy in Athens on 10 September 1996.(7) Apart from the Privacy Act, there are no legislative impediments to effect the transfer of information between Government agencies in these cases.