1999-09-233914SENATE874701999-09-23The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Sue West) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.874710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:874721LI4Patterson Sen KayTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned students, staff and friends of the University of Ballarat requests the Senate to call on the Australian Government to withdraw its draconian Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill (HEL) which will if passed only serve to reduce student services and facilities and seriously erode the efficient representative structure which has been established over many years.Senator PattersonLI4Senator Patterson(from 21 citizens)Petition received.Notices8747874709:31:008747Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, I shall move that the following delegated legislation, a list of which I shall hand to the Clerk, be disallowed:1. Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999 made under regulation 7 of the Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations 1999.2. Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations 1999, as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.159 and made under the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990 .3. Determination No.1/1999—Determination of Education and Courses made under subsections 3(1) and 5D(1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973 .4. Exemption No. CASA 25/1999 made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 19885. Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.130 and made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 . 6. Health Insurance Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.157 and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973 .7. Hearing Services Amendment Rules of Conduct 1999 (No.1) made under subsection 17(1) of the Hearing Services Administration Act 1997 .8. Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999, as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.151 and made under the Native Title Act 1993 .[Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provisions apply: must be resolved within 15 sitting days after today or the Determinations, Exemption, Orders, Regulations and Rules will be deemed to have been disallowed.]I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999The Orders establish the administrative framework for the collection and sampling of drug tests performed on competitors in sport.Compliance Section 8 of the Orders provides that substantial, rather than strict, compliance with the provisions of these Orders will generally be sufficient but does not indicate who is to decide what constitutes substantial compliance.Collection of SamplesSubsection 10(2) of the Orders obliges a competitor to comply with `any instructions given by a chaperone during the sample collection process' but does not limit those instructions to such as may be reasonably required in the circumstances.Section 11 of the Orders gives to the drug control officer in charge of the collection of a urine sample a discretion as to the information which he or she may record on the drug testing form. No reason is given for this discretion or why the officer is not required to record certain information, and no other.Subsection 28(2) to (6) of the Orders list a number of matters which a competitor and a drug control officer must carry out, but then, in subsection 28(7), the drug control officer is given the discretion as to the instructions which may be given to the competitor.Subsections 29(3) and 43(3) provide that the respective subsections (4) apply if, for example, the pH of a sample is lower than 5 or higher than 7. But the relevant subsections (4) then require the drug control officer to deny the evidence that he or she has received, and treat the sample as if the pH were not lower than 5 or higher than 7.Subsection 49(2) of the Orders deems `a courier in the normal course of business' to be a secure means of transporting a sample to an accredited laboratory. However, neither the Act, the Regulations, nor the Orders provide a definition of such a courier. Also, if a drug control officer decides not to use such a courier, he or she is required to see to the transport of samples `by means which will ensure [their] safe arrival'. The section, however, does not provide for the means by which the officer is to fulfil this requirement.Subsection 51(2) of the Orders obliges a drug control officer to store samples overnight in `a secure place', but neither the Act, the Regulations nor the Orders apparently defines such a place.Testing of SamplesSection 57 of the Orders deals with the testing of part B of a sample, if the result of testing part A of the sample is positive. The section does not indicate what an accredited laboratory is to do with part B of a sample if, either the test of part A is negative, or the Agency does not instruct the laboratory to test part B.Scheme A RegisterSubsection 60(2) of the Orders requires the Agency to remove details of a person's name, etc from the Scheme A register if it turns out that the person was not a competitor. It might be thought that the Agency should satisfy itself before carrying out the testing program on a person whether they were a competitor or not.The Committee is concerned that the discretions about what is being recorded in the Register may infringe on the privacy of the athletes.Prohibited Drugs and Doping MethodsSubsection 61(1) of the Orders appears to incorporate into the Orders various lists of prohibited drugs and doping methods kept by sporting administration bodies `as in force from time to time'. This provision may be contrary to subsection 49A(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations 1999 Statutory Rules 1999 No.159These Statutory Rules create a single drug testing scheme for competitors in sport.Drug control officials and chaperonesRegulations 8 and 9 allow for the appointment of, respectively, `drug control officials' and `chaperones'. Since, by virtue of subregulation 9(2), a drug control official is also a chaperone, and since neither need have any special qualifications or attributes, as they need only be a `person', it is difficult to see the reason for the two types of officials.Personal interestSubregulations 12(1) and 13(2) seek to ensure that a person taking a sample from a competitor will report to the Australian Sports Drug Agency any personal interest in the collection of the sample. Subregulations 12(2) and 13(3) nevertheless permit the Agency to allow the person taking the sample to continue with that task.Conditions of service—persons appointed by a sporting administrative bodySubregulation 13(2) requires the Agency to make sure that the conditions of service of persons appointed by a sporting administrative body contain particular terms. However, it is suggested that this provision may not fulfil its apparent purpose. There is no requirement, for instance, that the conditions of service must be immutable, and it is difficult to see how the Agency could monitor the conditions of service, at any particular time, of those appointed by other, outside, bodies.Discretion to use an interpreterSubregulations 18(2) and (3) give the Agency a discretion as to whether to communicate with a competitor through an interpreter. It might be thought that if a competitor is `unable to receive or understand [a] request' (see subregulation 18(2)), or is `unable to understand English' (see subregulation 18(3)), the Agency should be required to make all reasonable efforts to ensure, by whatever means, that its request is understood.Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory CommitteeBy virtue of paragraph 65(2)(b) read with subregulation 65(3), the Chairman of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee must convene a meeting of the Committee if he or she receives, among other things, an oral request therefor from the Agency. The Committee suggests that it would conduce to better administration if such requests were required to be in writing.Delegation of powersRegulation 80 permits the Agency to delegate `all or any of its powers except [this] power to delegate' to, among others, a drug control official or a chaperone, and regulation 82 gives a drug control official a similar power to delegate to a chaperone. However, it is apparent that, by virtue of the definitions of drug control official and chaperone in regulation 3, there is no limit by reason of office or attribute on the persons who may be appointed to the position of drug control official or chaperone. The Committee suggests that these powers of delegation are too wide, and that delegations should, for instance, be limited to employees of the Agency.Consultation with Privacy CommissionerThe Explanatory Statement to the Regulations stated that the `Privacy Commissioner has been consulted [about the Regulations] but notes that compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 will depend upon the way Drug Testing Scheme A is implemented'. The Orders appear to implement Scheme A, but the Explanatory Statement to these Orders states that the `Privacy Commissioner has been consulted on the [Orders] but notes that compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 will depend upon the way the Orders are implemented'.Explanatory StatementsThe Explanatory Statements for both the Regulations and the Orders give a broad picture only. These statements are deficient, in that there is no detailed explanation of each individual regulation. There is also no indication whether these Regulations and Orders are consistent with standard testing orders used throughout the international community and whether international and domestic sporting bodies were consulted about the testing scheme.Determination No.1/1999—Determination of Education and Courses made under subsections 3(1) and 5D(1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973This Determination specifies those education institutions and the courses offered therein which are approved for the purposes of the Act. Despite having been made on 22 June 1999, the Determination is deemed to have commenced on 1 July 1998. Unfortunately, the Explanatory Statement does not provide any indication of whether this retrospectivity may adversely affect any person other than the Commonwealth. The Explanatory Statement also does not advise whether the Determination which is revoked by this instrument, and which was apparently defective, operated to the disadvantage of any person.Exemption No. CASA 25/1999 made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988CASA 25/1999 exempts Brumby pilotless aircraft from compliance with most of the Civil Aviation Regulations while a member of the aeronautical engineering department of the University of Sydney flies them for developmental testing purposes. Clause 5 of the Conditions, subject to which this Exemption has been granted, requires a flight tester who is flying a Brumby pilotless aircraft to `ensure that persons operating ultralight aircraft at Medway are notified not less than 24 hours before flights begin under this exemption'. This provision may be unreasonable as it may not be possible for a flight tester to know every person who planned to fly an ultralight aircraft on the following day.Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3) Statutory Rules 1999 No.130These Statutory Rules amend the Principal Regulations in relation to the Christmas Island Fishery, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Fishery and the Macquarie Island Fishery. One purpose of these Statutory Rules is to set an application fee for entry to the Macquarie Island Fishery. That fee, of $5350, is described in the Explanatory Statement as being `significantly higher than the usual fee' for such an application. The explanation given for this higher fee is merely `the process involved', but the higher fee is also justified on the basis of the costs that the AFMA will incur in that process. There is, however, no indication, in the Explanatory Statement, of the degree to which this fee is higher than others, nor is there any indication of the nature of the process involved in considering applications.Health Insurance Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3) Statutory Rules 1999 No.157These Statutory Rules clarify provisions of the Principal Regulations. Items 1 to 5 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations make machinery amendments to ensure that the references to items in the Health Insurance Regulations correctly refer to items in the General Medical Services Table and the Diagnostic Imaging Services Table. The Explanatory Statement advises that this is to `reflect recent changes to the tables where new items have been added and superfluous items have been removed from the tables'. The Statement does not, however, advise whether the incorrect referencing between the item numbers, which appeared in the Regulations and those appearing in the Tables, resulted in any disadvantage to members of the public.Hearing Services Amendment Rules of Conduct 1999 (No.1) made under subsection 17(1) of the Hearing Services Administration Act 1997These Rules prescribe fees for the maintenance and replacement of hearing devices that have been supplied to voucher-holders free of charge. Sched ule 1 to the Rules provides for a fee of $30 for the maintenance and replacement of batteries in a device that has been provided free of charge to a voucher-holder who is a participant in the voucher system. Prior to the making of this instrument, a person who was a voucher-holder, and a dependant of a participant in the voucher system, paid a reduced amount for the maintenance and replacement of batteries in a hearing device that had been provided free of charge to the voucher-holder (Hearing Services Rules of Conduct 1997, subparagraph 20(2)(c)(ii), as in force up to 30 June 1999). One effect of the amendment made by these Rules is to remove the reference to this category of person from the Rules of Conduct.Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 Statutory Rules 1999 No.151These Statutory Rules provide the necessary administrative framework for the operation of aspects of the Native Title Act 1993 .Subregulation 8(3) provides that a `prescribed body corporate must ensure that the common law holders [of native title] understand the purpose and nature of a proposed native title decision'. This provision appears to be unworkable.Paragraph 9(3)(a) allows a document to be good evidence of consultation with and consent by the common law holders of native title if it is signed by `at least 5 members of the prescribed body corporate'. However, neither the regulation, nor the Explanatory Statement, indicates why five members of such a body are regarded as sufficiently representative of the group.Paragraph 10(3)(a) provides that a person is entitled to a copy of a document if the person `has a substantial interest in the decision to which the document relates'. However, r.10 does not indicate who is to determine that question, nor by what means the determination is to be made.Business87508750Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 16— Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999No. 4— War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999No. 5— Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 No. 6— Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999No. 7— Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999No. 8— Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999No. 9— States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999No. 10— Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 19998750Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business notice of motion No. 313 standing in the name of Senator Carr relating to the quality of services in Victoria; and(2) Consideration of government documents.Notices87508750Items of business were postponed as follows: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 27 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 27 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 27 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 27 September 1999.Miscellaneous875009:33:008750Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Deputy President, I would like to make a short statement concern ing business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—It was my intention to debate this later. The government have asked me if I would be willing to incorporate my notes and take it as a formal motion on the voices now. That request was made to me just a few minutes ago. I would be willing to do so, but of course I cannot speak for other members of the Senate. If there was not leave, I would then debate it later.Leave not granted.Bills8751s2278751Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for other purposes.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.875109:35:008751Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill provides for the extension of the current statutory self-regulation framework of the migration advice industry until March 2003 and includes several measures to enhance its effectiveness.In 1997 the Government decided to move the migration advice industry to self-regulation through a period of statutory self-regulation.The Government agreed to consider a further move to voluntary self-regulation at the end of two years. Statutory self-regulation is subject to a sunset clause and ceases to operate on 21 March 2000. The Government was therefore committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the operation of statutory self-regulation before that date.The Government has now reviewed the operation of the current arrangements to decide on the most appropriate regulatory model for the migration advice industry beyond March 2000.The Government has found that the industry is not yet ready to move to voluntary self-regulation in view of continuing significant consumer protection concerns, national interest issues and the special nature of the migration advice industry.In particular, the Government has significant concerns about the vulnerability of the client group to exploitation, and the ethics and conduct of a small group in the industry.Given the vulnerability of clients and the potential for malpractice in the industry, it is clear that voluntary regulation of the industry would not be desirable or viable at this stage and that statutory self-regulation should continue.The review confirmed the appropriateness of the Government's decision to introduce the existing statutory self-regulation framework.The review found that the MIA—that is, the Migration Institute of Australia—acting as the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the MARA) has demonstrated its commitment to the objectives of consumer protection and its capacity to undertake industry regulation.The MIA, acting as the MARA , has already established sound disciplinary and mediation processes that should continue to increase consumer protection, competence and ethical standards in the industry.The review of statutory self-regulation was undertaken by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and steered by an independent Reference group.A number of members of the Reference group had assisted the Government in the 1997 review of the industry.As in 1997, the most recent Reference group was chaired by Mr Ian Spicer, former President of the Confederation of Australian Industry.The Reference group included individuals with a broad understanding of the industry.In particular:one member was nominated by the MIA;another member had considerable knowledge of community concerns; anda further member was formerly a Minister for Immigration, that is, the Hon John Hodges. The review gave careful consideration to the performance of the existing arrangements and sought input from over 40 stakeholders.Particular consideration was given to the views expressed by the industry body.In its role as the MARA, the MIA has indicated its strong support for the measures included in this bill.In extending statutory self-regulation, the Government has recognised the achievements of the MARA in establishing the self-regulation framework.All stakeholders have expressed support for the continuation of the existing statutory self-regulation framework at this stage of industry development.In deciding that it is not yet time to move to voluntary self-regulation, the Government has taken account of the fact that the industry is at an early stage of maturity and there is only limited experience with the current arrangements.Statutory self-regulation has been in place for fewer than 18 months. Some major elements, such as the continuing professional development requirements, have been in place for fewer than 6 months.While the MIA's coverage of the industry has expanded substantially since statutory self-regulation was introduced, there are still only 25 per cent of registered agents who are members of the MIA.This would not be sufficient to support a move to voluntary self-regulation when current arrangements expire in March 2000.There will be another review of the industry in two to three years to re-examine the state of the industry and gauge its progress.I would expect that at that time it will be possible to assess how far the industry can develop and how well it can sustain voluntary self regulation.The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will be setting milestones in conjunction with the MARA to monitor the development of the industry in relation to:improvements in competence and ethical standards;the extent of MIA industry coverage and its performance in the industry regulation role; andchanges to consumer awareness that would support a less regulated environment.The extension of statutory self-regulation until March 2003 will provide an opportunity for some of the important industry values being promoted by the MIA and the MARA to be more firmly entrenched in industry practice.Many industry stakeholders have confirmed, to the review, the need for continued improvements in the ethical standards and competence in the industry and protection available to consumers.This bill includes two new measures to this end. Other measures will be addressed through amendments which require more complex drafting, which I expect to introduce next year, and through regulation amendments.The bill includes amendments to make publication requirements relating to decisions by the MARA to cancel or suspend an agent's registration more cost-effective.Currently the MARA is required to publish full details of any decisions to cancel or suspend an agent's registration in the Saturday edition of a national daily publication, including the evidence for its decisions and its findings on any material details of fact.Although the intentions behind this requirement are to protect existing and potential clients and to promote agent and community understanding of appropriate ethical standards in the industry, in practice, the requirement has resulted in costly advertisements swamped by excessive detail, with little visual impact and little communicative value.The amendments in this bill maintain the basic requirements that the MARA should publish its decisions to suspend or cancel an agent's registration and the grounds for its decisions in prescribed publications.However, the MARA will no longer be required to publish full details of the evidence and its findings on material facts relevant to the decision, saving money for the industry body and thus ultimately agents and consumers.The amendments will also give the MARA the discretionary power to publish some or all of this detailed information about cancellation or suspension decisions in an expanded variety of formats and methods of publications relevant to its target audiences, including on the Internet and in specialist newspapers.The amendments will also give protection to other persons publishing in good faith a copy or fair summary of MARA's decisions.Together, these amendments will mean that the MARA will be able to use appropriate channels to communicate more effectively—to clients, agents and the general community—its decisions to suspend or cancel an agent's registration.This bill also provides the MARA with powers to ensure that clients of inactive and deceased agents are not unduly disadvantaged by the agent becoming inactive or as a result of the death of the agent.Therefore, the MARA will be able to require certain agents—for example, those whose registration has been suspended or cancelled—to provide copies of relevant client documents to the MARA for forwarding to clients.This will enable clients to continue their cases with another agent or to manage their cases themselves, ensuring that critical deadlines in relation to a client's visa applications or reviews of applications are not ignored.The MARA's ability to do this will be discretionary. There may be cases such as multi-agent practices in which the MARA does not need to intervene.However, the relevance of this power was highlighted by the recent closure of the largest migration advice firm in Australia.Fortunately, this company voluntarily made files available to the MARA.However, if such a situation occurs after the commencement of the bill, and if the firm or agent does not make files available to the MARA voluntarily, the powers in this bill will provide a basis for the MARA to require that relevant documents be copied, and that those copies be given to clients.The closure of this particular migration agency is being closely evaluated by my Department and the MARA to identify any further issues which may need to be addressed within the industry regulation arrangements.In conclusion, this bill extends the protection that is available to consumers under the current arrangements and will continue the progress that has been achieved in the last 18 months towards enhancing competence and ethical standards in the industry.I commend this bill to the Chamber.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.Business875387538753Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I ask that government business notice of motion No. 2 be taken as formal.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—In relation to this matter, rather than object to it being taken as formal, can I request that it be postponed to a later hour this day because I have not had some final instruction on the matter.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It will come up later anyway if you do not give it formality.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I am happy to do either. I am trying not to block the proceedings. If it goes, it will go formally.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It will come up after the disallowance motion.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I will object to formality for the purpose that I have outlined.Miscellaneous8753Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to: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.Committees875387538753Motion (by Senator O'Brien, on behalf of Senator Hogg) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous8753Motion (by Senator Calvert) proposed: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.09:37:008754Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—by leave—I think this motion is going to be supported today in a bipartisan fashion. It has been a great tragedy for the people of Taiwan to have suffered such a mammoth earthquake, and the fact that it occurred right in the middle of the island and then spread to each end of the island has been quite sad and tragic for so many people. To have so many people now killed and so many missing and injured is just dreadful, and it is so much more tangible to those of us who visited Taiwan recently and know what a kind, gentle and intelligent race the Taiwanese are and how much they are suffering. Therefore, I commend this motion of Senator Calvert's to the Senate to make sure that we do express our thoughts and good wishes to the people of Taiwan.09:38:008754McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—by leave—I join with Senator Knowles and, indeed, with all the senators and members of the Australian parliament in expressing commiserations to the people of Taiwan on the terrible tragedy that they have suffered in the past few days, a tragedy which was compounded by second and third major earthquakes yesterday. There are now over 2,000 people dead and over some 100,000 people homeless. It is much suffering and many individual people are hurt.But out of destruction and misery comes something good. One of the very first offers of assistance received by the people of Taiwan was from mainland China. Senators would know that the relationship between Taiwan and China has been strained in recent months but, when this tragedy struck, that bad relationship was put to one side with offers of assistance. Offers have come from other nations of the world, and we would hope that the misery that the people of Taiwan are currently suffering will be short lived.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous875409:40:008754Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I seek leave to table a document.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What is it?8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—The document was circulated to the whips last night.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—I table the document.Documents8754875409:40:008754O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Denman, and in accordance with the Senate resolution of 17 March 1994 about the declaration of senators' interests, I present a copy of the latest Register of Senators' Interests, incorporating current declarations of interests, including new declarations of interests and notifications of alterations of interests, lodged between 25 June 1999 and 17 September 1999.Miscellaneous875409:41:008754Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1:That the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 163 and made under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980, be disallowed.The petroleum retailing industry is currently regulated by the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980, known as the franchise act, and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980, commonly known as the sites act. The franchise act governs the contractual relationship between the oil majors and site operators. It largely applies to franchised sites and has no real impact on sites which are operated on a commission agency basis—that is, where the site operator receives a set amount per litre of fuel sold. I would describe that typically as a factory outlet.The sites act regulates the number of retail sites that each of the four major oil companies are permitted to directly operate. It was introduced in 1981 with a view to ensuring that the major oil companies did not control all retail outlets. The number of sites that each company can own is as follows: BP, 102; Shell, 114; Caltex, 136; and Mobil, 87. I understand that those figures now equate to approximately five per cent of the total number of retail sites. BP's original quota of sites was 87, but they obtained a temporary increase of 15 additional sites earlier this year. It should be noted that sites which are operated on a commission agency basis for fuel and a franchise operation for the shop are regarded as being directly operated under the sites act. This is becoming the oil companies' preferred method of operation, as I understand it.The amending regulation which is the subject of this disallowance—Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2)—temporarily increases BP's quota of sites from 102 to 212 for the period 1 June 1999 to 30 September 1999, almost a doubling. This temporary increase was presumably negotiated with the minister with the expectation that the sites act would be repealed in view of government policy or at least dealt with by 30 September 1999.The government's policy is that the franchise act and the sites act will be repealed and replaced by the Oilcode. The Oilcode is a code of conduct setting out a number of matters which will regulate the relationship between site operators and oil companies. It is much more comprehensive than the franchise act and will be given the force of law under part IVB of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Subsequent to the repeal of the sites act, there was to be no limitation on the number of sites that the oil companies could directly operate.My understanding as to why it is suggested that this regulation is necessary is as follows. The usual term of a franchise agreement between an oil company and a site operator is nine years, which may or may not be comprised of a three-year initial term and two three-year options. The franchise act commenced in 1981. The consequence is that a number of BP's franchised sites are coming up for renewal now at the end of the second nine-year period—that is, the first agreement would have run from 1981 to 1989 and the second agreement from 1989 to 1998. I understand that many of the franchise agreements expired before the end of 1998. BP has held off re-franchising its franchise sites because it wishes to convert almost all of its 300 company owned sites to commission agency sites on fuel and franchise sites on shop arrangements but cannot do so until the sites act is repealed.I have moved this disallowance motion today for two reasons. The first relates to the substantive issues of deregulation and competition and how that can be best achieved in this industry. The second relates broadly to the method of implementation of government policy and the right of the parliament—in this case the Senate—to deal with government policy as it is presented in legislation and for the decisions of the Senate not to be pre-empted by executive government action. The Democrats' views as to competition in the petroleum industry are set out in our minority report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. That committee was held to review the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 . I would also draw the attention of the Senate to our supplementary report to the joint select committee inquiry into the retailing sector which is relevant to the extent that it identifies the approach we take on competition issues.The Australian Democrats are concerned about vertical integration in the petroleum industry—that is, the manner in which the majors control everything from extraction to refining to wholesaling and retailing. The potential for these companies to further vertically integrate their operations by giving them a greater ability to directly control the pump price is contrary, in our view, to the promotion of competition at the retail level. We would like to see an increase in the level of independent wholesale and retail activity and wholesale and retail competition. We do not believe this is achieved if oil companies are increasingly controlling retailing directly to more and more consumers. In our view, competition is promoted by separating rather than integrating the manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing sectors of the industry.This amending regulation, which allows BP to increase the number of sites over which it has price control, is in direct conflict with our belief as to the direction in which the industry should be heading. It appears that our views are, to a greater or lesser extent, in accord with the views of government members of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The conclusion which my colleague Senator Woodley reached as a member of that committee was that the Oilcode could be implemented at the same time as the franchise act is repealed, and that is two of the legs of the government's policy.But the third leg is that the committee felt that the sites act should remain in place for another two years while a wholesale access regime is implemented. The sites act should only then be repealed if it appeared to a Senate inquiry that that access regime is giving rise to healthy competition at the wholesale and retail levels. This conclusion and recommendation was in very similar terms to the recommendation of the government members of the committee, who also recommended retention of the sites act for two years. Those members did not recommend immediate repeal of the sites act, nor did they recommend any type of suspension of the operation of that act.I understand that the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for small business, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, has introduced a bill into the House of Representatives that will allow franchisees to buy up to 50 per cent of their fuel requirements from sources other than their franchisor. The Australian Democrats support the basis of that type of reform. I understand that that bill has as its basis a desire to promote competition at the wholesale level, which has to be a commendable objective. The more service stations purchasing fuel at the terminal gate, the greater competition will be in that market. We support any measures that will improve competition at the wholesale level. We support any measures that will improve competition at the retail level. This regulation has the opposite effect because it allows oil companies to directly control the retail fuel price and allows them to do so before the proposed reforms have been put in place.The other basis for this motion is a belief that this amending regulation pre-empts a decision by the Senate on the government's policy to repeal the sites act. The government announced this policy some time ago and the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 is currently awaiting debate in the Senate. The Australian Democrats have not sought to delay the bringing on of that legislation. I must at this juncture recognise that both the Labor Party and the government have been in productive talks with us about that legislation. We are happy to deal with that legislation as soon as it is brought on. In fact, we have been happy to deal with that legislation since the tabling of the Senate committee report into that bill in June, some three months ago.The introduction of the government's petroleum deregulation policy has been delayed for a number of reasons, one of which has been the slow process on gaining agreement to the new Oilcode. That delay is unfortunate, but no person, as I understand it, has deliberately delayed the implementation of the policy so as to adversely affect BP. If BP is adversely affected by that delay, then it is as a result of the structure of BP's operations and as a result of their own executive decisions. It is not a result of any special or disadvantageous treatment. All major oil companies are subject to the same industry regulation and the same acts. I emphasise that if BP is somehow shut out of the reform process it will not be as a result of special adverse regulatory treatment; it will be as a result of the way in which BP has structured its decisions.I understand that both Caltex and Mobil faced a similar situation to BP—that is, a large number of their franchise agreements were expiring last year. However, Caltex and Mobil simply pursued the normal course and proceeded to re-franchise those sites. They did not hold off entering into new franchise agreements in anticipation of the change in the regulatory regime. To that extent, if we do not disallow this regulation BP will be given a special advantage, at least relative to Caltex and Mobil. The Australian Democrats are not looking to focus on BP; we are forced to do so by the fact that this regulation is before us. In fact, we wish to publicly record that we commend BP Australia as a company on its progress in producing cleaner fuels and on other industry decisions it has taken to be a productive member of the corporate community.We are looking to ensure that all the major oil companies are, however, bound by the same rules. The problem here is that the Senate has not agreed to the deregulation of the industry and the repeal of the sites act. It might well do so. But until that legislation is before us, we cannot make that judgment. Unfortunately, BP is pursuing a strategy on the basis of an assumption that the government's policy is law and will become law. That is not the case, and early indications, in the form of the Senate committee's report, are that the sites act will not be repealed.The government seem to be saying that because the Senate has not yet had a chance to debate this legislation in the interim they will just pass a regulation to allow BP to restructure its operations in anticipation of the passage of the repeal legislation. That is not good government. It is not good policy. If a piece of legislation has a high priority for the government or for industry, then the government have an obligation to bring it to the Senate so a decision can be made on it. I will repeat to the minister publicly what I have said privately: the Australian Democrats are happy to consider that legislation next week if the government so desire.I would like to raise one further point. This regulation expires on 30 September 1999. If we were to agree to it and I were to withdraw this disallowance motion or if the motion were defeated, what would happen then? There is almost no chance that the sites act will be repealed by 30 September 1999 or even that an acceptable reform package will be agreed to. I am advised that the industry is still in disagreement as to the recommendations of the Senate committee and as to the further discussions had between members of the political parties and the industry. That presumably means that another regulation which continues to permit BP to maintain more than its original quota of sites will need to be gazetted from 1 October to whenever. And how long would we have to continue to do that? So, once again, the purpose of denying the regulation would be to put pressure on both the industry and the government to bring that legislation before us so that the parliament can make its decision on a government policy and on the Senate committee recommendations.09:54:008757Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition, particularly my colleague the shadow minister for small business, Joel Fitzgibbon, to indicate our support for this motion to disallow the amendments to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 163 and made under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980. We support the motion to disallow. The reasons given by Senator Murray, who has moved the motion on behalf of the Democrats, we believe are sound and compelling. We will strongly support this motion of disallowance.I will make some general remarks about the policy of the petroleum industry on the marketing and retail side in Australia. Over the last three years the opposition has been very patient and given the government plenty of time to negotiate an outcome between the manufacturers, the petroleum companies, the franchisees and the retailers over a new Oilcode that, as Senator Murray said, would be mandated under the Trade Practices Act and enforceable, to reach an agreement with both sides as to how the industry should operate to the advantage of the petroleum companies, the retailers and, of course, the Australian consumers.I, as a former small business minister, know how difficult it is to negotiate such an outcome with the interest groups that I have just mentioned. During the period of 1993 to 1996, when I was a minister, I had endless discussions, bilaterally, trilaterally and individually, with those groups to try to reach an agreement on a new Oilcode. We left office before that had been reached but, because we understood the difficulty of trying to reach an agreement, the opposition has been very cautious in criticising the government over its reaching an agreement. We have encouraged the government. We have supported the government at the various Senate committees and, in particular, the committee that dealt with the legislation chaired by Senator Crane. I think we worked on all sides very cooperatively in a bipartisan and tripartisan way to reach an outcome on the legislation that this Senate could support and that the industry could live with so that we can get on with it. I thought Senator Crane bent over backwards to be cooperative, and I am sure he would acknowledge the cooperation from our side as well in that we saw this as being in the national interest rather than an as opportunity to engage in political point scoring.At one stage, I think earlier this year, the minister announced with great flamboyance in response to a question time dorothy dixer that he was tabling the new Oilcode. The only thing he failed to mention was that what he tabled from his department was not an Oilcode that had been agreed to by the parties; it was a draft Oilcode that the department thought was a pretty good basis and probably had 90 per cent plus agreement but it had not been signed off on. We made the point at the time that, no matter what the government tables, unless the parties agree to it, it is really no better than confetti left over after a wedding. That has been the case. The parties had not agreed.Our patience has now basically started to run out on this government's policy. This regulation that the minister has put up really shows the failure of government policy. In a desperate move to overcome not reaching a conclusion or not being able to encourage the parties to reach a conclusion, we are now given by the government a proposition: if you do not accept these amendments to the regulation, BP will be in contravention of the act and therefore penalties may apply and action can be taken. `And we don't want that to happen,' says the government.If the government could have seen this coming, if they had been in proper discussions with BP during 1998, they would have known, as Senator Murray pointed out, that the second nine-year term on the franchising agreements for the BP franchisees had run out during 1998 and that they would have to be negotiated. As Senator Murray quite rightly pointed out, at the end of the nine-year period other companies did negotiate extensions with their franchisees. BP took a punt and said, `We believe the sites act will be repealed.' It has not been repealed; the parliament has not agreed to it. And now they want retrospectively to be given a special deal.How can you give BP a special deal when the other major oil companies like Caltex and Mobil—I think Shell is a bit different because it has moved into multisite franchising in a big way—complied with the law? I would have thought, in the Senate in particular, we have always argued for transparency and fairness and argued that no-one should be given individual or specific preference over a competitor in the industry. There is no doubt that this regulation, if carried, gives an advantage to BP that Caltex and Mobil have not got because they complied with the law. I find that very bad policy making, and it should always be avoided at all costs.It is a policy failure on behalf of the government not to have seen this coming and, in their discussions with BP last year, warned them that they cannot automatically accept that the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act is going to be repealed until it has actually passed the parliament. Anybody in BP or any people interested in the industry would have seen that, in the Senate hearings into this bill to repeal the sites act, during the last six or seven months, there was no agreement reached and the majority of the Senate—I think I can speak on behalf of the Democrats on this as well as for the opposition—said that we would not repeal the sites act until there was an agreement on Oilcode. That was clear. The opposition had made that clear for two or three years, and I am sure the Democrats had made that clear. I think it is unfair for BP to now say, `We want retrospectively to have our breach of the sites act fixed by this regulation.' It is unfair to the other companies that have complied with the law.I say to the minister that every effort has to be made by the government to encourage the parties to reach agreement on Oilcode and to make it enforceable under the Trade Practices Act. Until you get that, you will not convince the opposition to repeal the sites act. As Senator Murray and other people have said, the issue at stake here is about proper, reasonable competition and about giving retailers in the industry a chance to be competitive and run their businesses properly without being dictated to by the manufacturers.Other people in the community have often made strong complaints about competition policy. I think the National Party have made statements elsewhere in Australia that they want competition policy abandoned. Competition policy should be upheld in this area. The problem we have is that, if you do not have a sites act or an Oilcode agreed to by the retailers, you do not have proper competition. It will be an oligopolistic industry vertically integrated from the refining end right through to the retailing end and the sale to the consumer.In my own state and in other states, I have seen in electricity prices and electricity structures that government owned electricity companies are being privatised and broken up on the basis that you have to provide competition. The consumer has the right to be able to buy electricity from different companies that are privatised, yet the government has not yet taken head-on the issue of the vertically integrated nature of the petroleum industry. The only thing that is stopping it being totally integrated at the moment is the sites act. If you are going to remove the sites act, you have to get the Oilcode up so that retailers have some protection in the way they run their businesses. I think the remarks of Senator Murray are similar to the opposition's on this. We have been arguing this for a long time.The opposition knows that this is always a difficult industry to deal with. The shadow minister put to the government yesterday a compromise, a proposition that we would agree not to support this disallowance if the government would agree to bring back a regulation to increase the number of sites available to petroleum companies, to allow the sites act to continue to operate for at least another two years and to have a proper review during that period by the ACCC. We believe that would have given enough flexibility to all companies. It would not just have given BP the advantage; it would also have given Caltex, Shell and Mobil access to having increased numbers of sites. Therefore, we treat the industry the same. We also guarantee that the sites act continue for another two years until the ACCC has a further review.When the ACCC was the Trade Practices Commission, it looked at this industry on a number of occasions. Its comments are always about its concern on the vertically integrated nature of this industry. We think that its comments are pretty reasonable. That is what gives us warning that you should not start repealing the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act without having something in their place. It is clear the government has promised the petroleum companies, `We'll get rid of the sites act for you, and hopefully we might get an Oilcode.' That would be the bottom line of some elements of the government. I do not think it is the bottom line of Senator Crane.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Oh yes!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—No, it is not your bottom line, Senator Crane. But I think it is the bottom line of some elements of cabinet. I certainly agree that it is not the view of people like Senator Crane and probably my colleague Senator Boswell from the National Party who have been dealing with representatives at the retail end of the industry because they know how difficult it is and what damage would be done to a lot of small businesses in Australia if the sites act were unilaterally repealed. I have no doubt there are elements in cabinet—representing the big end of town, as we call it—who would be quite happy to repeal the sites act irrespective of whether there is an Oilcode in place. So my colleague Mr Joel Fitzgibbon made that offer on behalf of the opposition to the government yesterday, and the government rejected it. As a result, we said, `If you are rejecting what we think is a fair offer, we will support the disallowance motion.' I understand from what Senator Murray told me privately, and I do not think he will object to my saying this, that he was in discussions with the government along similar lines.Why did the government reject outright negotiation on getting a settlement along the lines that I have outlined? I think Senator Murray may well have had discussions with the government along similar lines. We in the opposition—and I think the Democrats are the same—are not unbending on this. We understand there are complexities in this industry and, if you take a very black-and-white attitude to it, you will end up drowning yourself in quicksand. The complexities of this industry are well known to us all. But the government's attitude is: first, fix up one company's problems when it did not follow the law as it knew it operated; and, second, one way or the other ignore the fact that we have to get an outcome on the Oilcode.We believe this has shown a very bad episode of government failure in policy. I mentioned before that we have given the benefit of the doubt to the government on this issue for a long time because we know how difficult it is. But they have now started to fail. I make the offer to the government on behalf of Mr Fitzgibbon that we will always be willing to have negotiations with the government on getting an outcome in the petroleum industry, but it must be an outcome in which the industry is not just handed over to the full and unfettered market power of the petroleum companies. That is something we are not going to be in.In the end, the government has to recognise that, if we want a competitive industry, it will have to pass legislation that gives the franchisees, the retailers, a chance at a future. We recognise that economic changes mean we cannot guarantee that everyone who is a present franchisee is going to survive. We do not expect that, but we do expect there to be some goodwill in the industry so that these franchises have an opportunity. That is why Mr Fitzgibbon has moved a private member's bill, which I notice Senator Murray com mented favourably on, to allow franchisees to have an opportunity to purchase up to 50 per cent of their petrol at a wholesale price from suppliers other than their franchisor. We believe that is starting to open up the industry and to give proper, effective competition to the franchisee so that they are not absolutely beholden to an arrangement imposed on them by the power of the major oil companies.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Who is going to buy out the contracts? Who is going to compensate them—the taxpayer?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator Crane knows as well as I do that no-one is talking about breaking existing contracts but, when new contracts become available, that is when new arrangements start to take effect. You do not override existing contracts.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Go and read his bill. It is obvious.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—If you indicate that you are opposed to giving franchisees, retailers, that opportunity, then that is a position I am interested to hear the government state. I do not think there is a lot of people in the Liberal or National parties who would agree with your view on that, Senator Crane, if that is your policy view.This is an attempt by the opposition to recognise that small business in the petroleum industry has the right to have an effective future. We would be more than happy to have discussions with the government about that private member's bill. If the government wants to make suggestions and improvements to that bill, then my colleague Mr Fitzgibbon would be more than happy to have those discussions, as I am sure other members in the Senate would be.It seems to us that this government really does not have a long-term plan for this industry other than to repeal the sites act and the franchise act and then let unfettered market forces take place. That will mean that in the end all the major petroleum retail outlets will be run on an agency basis, effectively directly owned and managed by the oil companies. Therefore, we will end up with a totally vertically integrated industry of three or four majors running the refining, distribution, marketing and retailing of petroleum in this country. I do not think that is good competition policy for those who tell us all the time that competition policy is what we should be about. That is not good competition policy.Finally, I have noticed that some of the oil companies have said that, unless they get the sites act repealed, they will not reinvest in upgrading refineries in Australia. I know the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources would quite rightly take note, as we do, of some of those comments. But, again, I do not think you can write the policy on the petroleum industry based on the threat that some refineries in Australia may not be revamped, upgraded or redeveloped as they run through their normal life cycle. If that becomes the only basis of deciding petroleum policy in this country, I think we will end up with a very bad outcome. Irrespective of the sites act, I unfortunately believe that some of the existing refineries in Australia will close. As Senator Minchin would know, I suspect the one in Adelaide run by Mobil may be one of those that in the long term Mobil would say may not have a future. I hope that is not correct, but I do know that that may occur irrespective of whether the sites act is repealed.The opposition strongly support this disallowance motion. We regret the fact that the government refused the offer which even the Democrats may have been willing to go along with—an offer to have a different regulation brought forward that would have dealt with all the companies equally. This offer would have guaranteed the sites act for another two years and a proper, independent inquiry by the ACCC to protect the industry until the industry can get—led by good leadership, we hope, by the government—a positive Oilcode in place under the auspices of the Trade Practices Act. (Time expired)10:14:008761Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I rise on behalf of the government to indicate our opposition to this motion of disallowance relating to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2). I will not prolong the debate; I will just make a few points.I utterly reject the fatuous remarks from the opposition about government policy. Government policy on this issue has been fundamentally clear, well thought through and comprehensive, and includes a reform agenda that involves the repeal of the franchise act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act and their replacement by the insertion in the Trade Practices Act of an Oilcode. That has been our clear policy for some time. That policy has been augmented by a commitment we made at the last election that we would not proceed to repeal these acts unless there was agreement by all parties to the full package—that is, that the franchise act and the sites act would go and be replaced by the Oilcode in the Trade Practices Act. That is why the position espoused by Senator Schacht is so nonsensical. He obviously does not understand our policy when he says that all we are on about is repeal of the two acts and then it is unfettered law of the jungle. That is not the case. We believe this should operate like every other industry in Australia—under the auspices of the Trade Practices Act, with a special provision in that act regulating this industry in particular through the Oilcode. So it is a comprehensive package. We made that fundamental commitment to all parties at the time of the last election—that we would not proceed unless there was agreement among all parties to this package.At this stage we do have agreement on the Oilcode. I think we do have agreement that the franchise act should go. But we do not, as yet, have agreement on the question of the sites act. The position is, frankly, that the companies cannot support the package if it does not include repeal of the sites act, but there are other parties who cannot support the package if it includes repeal of the sites act. That is the current impasse. But in the meantime the companies have had to plan for the future on the basis of the government having enunciated a clear policy and an intention to proceed with that. They have got to take that as a clear statement of government policy, knowing that it still has to run the gauntlet of this Senate and that agreement still needs to be reached.But in the meantime BP in particular were reaching a point where they had to make a decision. A whole lot of their sites were coming up for renegotiation, so they had to make a commercial decision. They sought from us a temporary increase in their quota under the sites act, pending the outcome of the discussions and negotiations through which we are endeavouring to reach agreement on the full package. It seems to me to be ridiculous, and quite unfair to BP, to force them, while these negotiations are continuing, to have to refranchise all their sites for nine years and then be disadvantaged. I am happy to quote what BP said to me. They said:This motion, if carried, will effectively put us out of the game as far as regulatory reform is concerned. We will be required to refranchise all of the sites under the old system for nine years and we will be disadvantaged vis-a-vis the other players. It also means a significant lessening of the relevance of the package if one of the four companies is excluded on the eve of some resolution.I think they are dead right: it is ridiculous.You talked about not wanting to disadvantage anybody. It would clearly disadvantage them if, on the eve of a potential resolution of this issue, the Senate forced BP to refranchise all those sites for nine years. That is bad public policy. That is where, frankly, the opposition and the Democrats are responsible for very bad public policy, to the distinct disadvantage of BP. If the whole thing does come unstuck, this is only a temporary increase in site quotas and BP would then have to make that commercial decision whether to refranchise or change its operation in some other way on the basis of existing law. That would be a commercial decision they would have to make. But, pending the outcome of our discussions to try to resolve this issue, it really is ludicrous to force BP, as a result of this motion being successful—as it clearly will be—to have to refranchise all those sites with the possibility that there may still be some resolution of this matter that would allow the companies to restructure their operations in ways which are efficient and better.Reform of the petrol industry is a long saga. I have tried to act as gracefully as I can. I accept what Senator Schacht said—that attempts were made in their reign to try to reform this industry, without success. It is not easy. The parties are so far apart. We have done an enormous amount of work to try to bring the parties together. We are very close, but we are not there yet. In the meantime, it seems to me to be eminently appropriate, sensible and reasonable that this temporary increase in the quota be granted to BP, pending the outcome of those discussions, knowing that if there is no resolution they will have to refranchise those sites when the temporary increase ceases to take effect.10:19:008762Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I rise in support of the disallowance motion in relation to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2).The Australian Democrats are concerned about wholesale and retail competition in the petroleum industry so as to ensure that both the business owners and the consumers are given a fair go. It is the belief of the Australian Democrats that the Australian petroleum market is not yet at a point where it is mature enough in its diversity of ownership to sustain a significant level of vertical integration by a small number of large companies. I make specific reference to the independent network that exists and continues to grow.The issue of vertical integration is a very pertinent issue in regard to today's disallowance motion. As I see it, major oil companies are no longer able to derive significant income from their refining operations. As a consequence of this they are looking to play a more significant role in the wholesale and retail sector of this market. One cannot deny the fact that there are those who believe that a greater level of vertical ownership will bring about some economies of scale. However, with such economies there are also two very important consequences that need to be considered before removing the veil and opening up the opportunity for such operations. These are, in effect: inefficiencies emerging from complacency, and temptations to become the price maker instead of the price taker. These two issues alone raise a significant enough question in my mind to raise the rung of caution that one peg higher. Part of the reason that my colleague Senator Andrew Murray has moved this disallowance motion is this overshadowing issue of vertical integration and its possible negative consequences, particularly over the longer term.I have to say that, in my experience, healthy competition in the retail marketplace of any industry ensures the best outcome for all stakeholders. In the petroleum market, a large component of this healthy competition has come as a result of the influx of independent operators over recent times. Let me be clear about this. Whatever we do with the current reform process, we must ensure that there is provision for the independents to continue to be effective participants in the retail petroleum market.Today, however, we are dealing with BP. BP have not just been a few retail sites over the number that they are legally allowed to operate; they are operating over double their legally allowable quota. How this came about is a question that only the senators to my left can answer. I will come back to this issue in a moment.First, I think it would be wrong of me to espouse that the petroleum industry is an industry that is without problems. In fact, there are serious problems in a whole range of facets of this industry. This is in part why the process of reform has taken as long as it has. From reading the various reports on this matter over the past 20 years, it is almost as if we are continuing a circle of parties standing desperately at odds with each other, wanting to increase their share with no regard for the other stakeholders in the market.The current process of reform has taken a serious amount of time to get to the position that we are in today. I am not sure that it is all that far advanced from where we were 20 years ago. What I do know is that the franchise act and the sites act have played an important role in shaping the direction of this industry. It is also true that we are on the road to some positive change, and I say this with my mind's eye viewing the benefits that will be gained from the Oilcode if it is introduced. However, the Oilcode is not something that can stand alone without support to ensure that vertical integration does not occur to a greater extent than is already occurring in this industry. Taking this into consideration, I therefore think it is wise for us to take a few moments to look at some of the specific issues that are at play here. These issues relate to the structure of the petroleum industry itself. I want to talk very briefly about the commission agency sites arrangement. The operation of petrol stations under a commission agency agreement is something that some operators in the retail segment wish to have, but at the same time there are quite a number of operators who wish not to have this. A commission agent arrangement under the existing sites act means that the number of sites that are owned by the oil company remains limited to five per cent of the total number of sites. Maybe tolerance of this practice should be shown and this figure could be slightly increased. But even if this were to occur, it would need to be done as part of the whole reform process, not at the demand of one industry operator—the manner BP has used.Second, I want to quickly talk about the franchise agreement sites. This is a situation where the retail petrol sites are set into a franchise agreement under the franchising act of 1980. The current structure of the market has these agreements in a situation of three sets of three years, giving a franchise time frame of nine years. Considering the level of investment, particularly in this instance from the franchisee, looking at lease times significantly less than this would mean greater changes to contractual arrangements under which the agreement is reached. This, however, does not mean that this form of operation should be disregarded. Franchising remains an effective and preferred means of operation for many retailers.On the issue of terminal gate access, ultimately effective terminal gate access is the means by which competition at a wholesale level can be guaranteed. Unfortunately, with lagging margins in the refining process, oil companies have very much shied away from making terminal gate access effective. If it is to be what it really needs to be, then there ought to be freedom for retail operators under franchise agreements or otherwise to procure some significant proportion of their fuel from the lowest bidder. Interestingly, I think very few operators would actually exercise this right to buy fuel from other suppliers, but it would put oil companies on notice that they are not the only stakeholders in this industry. This brings me back to BP's conduct of late.Since 21 September of last year BP have been failing to renew a significant number of their franchises, and hence this has placed the operators of these sites in limbo as to what the future will hold. This practice has meant that the site numbers that BP control have increased without regulatory concession—essentially, it was done illegally. I find it interesting that other oil companies appear to have been refranchising their sites, as they are required to do under the act—that was until BP's actions became clear. Those actions second-guess the reform process and seek to obtain commercial benefit from this anticipation of change without regard to the current laws.I doubt that there will be agreement in the next few days on what the structure of the market will be, but the structure of the market is a side issue. A company operating outside of a parliamentary act and then expecting the parliament to overlook this operation by giving special regulatory concession is the issue. Having said that, I am not oblivious to the need for commercial businesses to maximise their opportunities in their respective markets. Yet I think that it is quite clear that BP would have to have refranchised these sites in any case as a result of there being no foreseeable agreement. Hence BP's commercial disadvantage argument holds no real weight in my mind. What does hold weight is the fact that the parliament sets in place laws and these laws must be adhered to.The Australian Democrats have made their position quite clear in the minority report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee into the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 . We will not support moves in markets that foster greater levels of vertical integration. As I said earlier, this situation simply does not inspire a healthy, competitive environment for all of the stakeholders concerned.Not being privy to the conversations that happened between the minister and BP repre sentatives, I do not know what has been promised or what deals have been done. What I am sure of is that, whatever deal was made, it was one that was inappropriate for the government to have made. If BP see themselves in a position of commercial disadvantage, then they need to look to the government and specifically to the minister as a place to vent their anger and frustration. The minister had no right to put this issue on the table for the Senate and then expect the Senate to swallow it without question.The Australian Democrats' views are well known to all stakeholders that have taken the time to listen to what we have said. The government knew what our views were and it is very arrogant of them to have made the assumption that we should have simply accepted their regulation. So the message for the government from the Australian Democrats is quite clear: the laws are in place and they are there to be followed until such time as they are repealed.If BP want to operate outside of these rules so as to obtain a commercial advantage, then they will suffer the consequences of such actions. I am yet to be convinced that BP should be offered special consideration against other oil companies. I feel that, if we are to give concessions to BP, then they must also be given to all of the oil companies. If we do this, then we ignore standards that are set in the sites act. In my view that is not appropriate, particularly given that the Senate is still deciding what the future of the sites act will be. In closing, I make my support clear for the disallowance of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2).10:30:008764Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to support the Democrats' disallowance motion. Deregulation in the petroleum industry, particularly with the ability of the large companies to have vertical integration, is having a very savage impact on the small percentage of privately owned service stations, as well as on the company agents and the franchise sites. I do not believe it is in the public interest for the industry to be deregulated in such a way that the larger fuel companies can, by specific marketing policies, disadvantage this small percentage of freehold service station owners.In Brisbane it is not uncommon to go through a series of service stations and find a fuel price there in the range of 62.5c. Just a few months ago, while in Brisbane, I called in and refuelled a vehicle in the morning at a service station at Browns Plains. I spent the day driving around and came back that afternoon to refuel at the same service station, only to find that the price then was in excess of 69c—quite a substantial change from the morning price of 62.9c. I inquired of the manager of the service station as to why this was the case. He was instructed to travel around his area of a morning, find out what the lowest price was in the area and report back to the oil company. They then informed him as to what price to put on his pumps.Although the disallowance motion is directed primarily at BP, I believe that there are actions within this industry that go beyond what we are also discussing here today. An independent owner who purchases his fuel, if the oil company does not afford him a rebate, is forced to sell his fuel at a margin at which he can survive. So we have a situation where we have one part of the industry that has the ability, through being either an oil company franchise or an oil company site, to fluctuate their price on a daily basis to be able to maximise their market while we have somebody in the same industry who does not have the ability to do that. I believe that the sites act should be retained, but there definitely needs to be an in-depth study, in continuance of the Senate one that has been identified by Senator Murray, that will focus on the actual day-to-day operations of the service stations.An analogy would be to look at the present situation in the retail grocery market. We have predatory pricing in that industry in an attempt to remove the independent operators. I believe that there are similarities there with the petroleum industry. As I said earlier, I do not believe that it is in the public interest to have the deregulation of these industries based on the fact that deregulation will provide to the consumer a better price. I do not believe this has been the case in the petroleum industry. It certainly has not been the case in the grocery retail market. Therefore, I indicate the support of Pauline Hanson's One Nation for the disallowance motion.10:35:008765Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In concluding the debate, I want to thank the participants. What has come through very clearly here is a statement again by speakers as to just how appallingly uncompetitive and restrictive many of the practices in the oil industry are and how much we need some real and proper reform here to reintroduce true competition and true protection on a fair basis for independent wholesalers and retailers in the industry.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business87658765Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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.Bills8765r8428765Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.10:37:008765Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I will continue my remarks from yesterday on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . Fraudulent providers are currently still operating. Due to the Howard government's ineptness, shonky operators are still running some of the homes, which further exacerbates the vulnerability of the elderly. The Tasmanian situation is particularly horrendous, due to the ill-fated coalescence proposal that will represent a cut of over $22 million in seven years. This will rip the heart out of our regional economy, naturally translating into reduced choices and comfort for the generation that carries the scars of defending the nation.The proven therapeutic value of residing in a local community will be further limited, as the possibility of units closing becomes a reality; and the elderly will be moved like cattle as this dollar-driven government continues with its ideological agenda. Thus the option of the elderly being cared for by the children and grandchildren of past and present friends may only exist for the few, and their treasured memories—that are often cued by the sight of familiar surroundings—may disappear more readily than otherwise.We have a family friend, a lady in her late 80s, who has lived in her community all her life. She is a typical example of somebody who has no family close by and no means of transport. If she had to move from that community, she would be devastated. She needs to live where she is able to be visited by friends and friends' children, people she has known all her life. At this stage, fortunately, that is not going to happen; but, if in future it does, I suspect that her lifespan will be much shorter. She is in good health at present, but I know that for her family it is a concern that she may eventually have to move away from that community, because the nursing home there is a very small one.An assessment of nursing homes in Tasmania found that a number of homes fell short of meeting some of the requirements for adequate care of the elderly. This was in most cases due to shortages of funds needed for staff and training or capital works. It therefore seems ironical that the bill contains no real remedies to fix the shortfall in capital funding, as the accommodation charges fall short of the funds needed. Additionally, there is no requirement for providers to spend the money raised by the accommodation charge on capital works. As in any industry, there will be those that simply pocket the money without the upgrades needed being started. This will become specifically relevant as the government's plans for accreditation are exerted.Accreditation is often a useful way of increasing standards and universality of care. However, this can only be achieved if ad equate funding is given to enable the standards to be met. Remember that the cost of accreditation in Tasmania will range from $40,000 to $120,000 per annum. Thus this policy has many obvious flaws that will inevitably translate into increased hardship, reduced security and a real reduction in care received, as sound policy and realistic capital grants are compromised by the government's cynical, penny-pinching agenda. Remember that this is happening in the International Year of Older Persons. Heaven help them when this year is over.The resident classification scale revised on 1 November 1998 will also cause some problems, as in the case of St. Mark's Home in Deloraine. These changes in the criteria essentially rest on whether a patient has to have their tablets placed in their mouth or in their hand, and will result in a loss of subsidies of up to $84,000—according to a fax I received from St Mark's Home. It is important to remember that the quality of life for the elderly in homes directly relates to the experience of life in many institutions—as this short statement eloquently shows:Others are in charge of me now.I have no private place of my own.I do not belong here.I share my bedroom with people I would not have in my own home.There are too many people here in this nursing home. I don't feel comfortable here. I mean, where else would you live where people just come and barge in?This statement is contained in volume 36 of the Lincoln Papers in Gerontology , in an article called The Articulate Resident's Perspective on Nursing Home Life , which paints a picture that is in stark contrast to the happy snaps contained in the department's `Home & Residence Choices for Older People'. After peering into the happy snaps created by the department, one would be excused for signing up straight away and neglecting to think that, for many of the elderly, nursing homes can be places of isolation and shame.There is nothing in the government's policy that will enrich anyone's life; rather, the Tasmanian experience will create a reduction in choice of location and residence and an increasing insecurity in staff—an insecurity that invariably translates into compromised service. The Tasmanian industry does not need greater proportional funding because of greed or ineptness; rather, it is a natural consequence of regional economies of scale and an island status. This is recognised by the Productivity Commission but was rejected by the government, who hid the report and ignored many parts that they did not like.Again I need to repeat the figures which I alluded to previously in the chamber and which clearly illustrate the unique nature of Tasmania's position as a regional industry. The proportion of nursing homes with one to 20 beds in Tasmania is 17 per cent, compared with the national average of 6.4 per cent—a difference of over 10 per cent. This difference means that more homes in Tasmania are vulnerable as, in the economic rationalistic equation of the Howard government, small is not beautiful: small is crushed.The likely non-viability of smaller, more intimate homes flies in the face of a study conducted in Sweden in 1992. The study found that dementia patients living in small units containing no more than eight patients demonstrated slower rates of intellectual deterioration compared with those in larger homes. This bill will do nothing to protect smaller institutions—in fact, it will most likely result in their closure. This testament clearly reveals the inherent flaws of economic ideology without commonsense. The nuances of regional and rural communities do not always fit the needs of still unproven economic theories that are so often removed from the human experience and have scant regard for the higher ideals of compassion and empathy.What of the rights of the elderly, mentioned in my opening remarks? One of the government's first acts on being elected in 1996 was to dramatically reduce the capacity of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This act was a prophetic statement on this government's attitude to all marginalised groups in our society. Thus the problems faced by those who need care in their elderly years should come as no surprise at all.10:46:008767Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I think we almost ought to start here with a moment's silence for what this government has done to aged care and indeed what it attempted to do under the Moylan so-called reforms a few years ago. I speak here today—and I am not going to delay this by taking my full allocation of time—to get a few remarks on the public record about some specific problems. It seems that the government is not only happy roughing up pensioners and roughing up nursing home people; they also want to rough up my home state of South Australia.It would appear that in South Australia there has been a much more zealous application by this government of the residential classification scale. I say that because, when officers go out and review various nursing home patients, nationally there has been a 37 per cent figure for downgrading—that is, 37 per cent of residents have incurred the provisions whereby the nursing home that is providing that care needs to downgrade the facilities which are provided and pay back, as I understand it, six months of fees to the Commonwealth. That is a fairly high figure.But the zealots in South Australia have managed to score a 72 per cent figure. It would appear that nursing homes in South Australia have been singled out for a bit of extra special care. We have had cases where some care providers have had to foot the bill for literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to go back to the Commonwealth. In some instances, we have had facilities so heavily penalised that it has become a really significant problem for them, because anyone who knows much about this industry knows that it is not an enormously profitable industry for individual persons who run nursing homes. It may well be that it will make a lot of money for the Doug Morans of this world if they can get the right government policy up or if they are in business long enough—and I single out that particular individual because I think that, until the Howard government saw how unpopular their changes were the other year, he was really the minister for aged care in this country. I want to say for South Australia on this issue that, whilst this bill makes a number of technical amendments, it is appropriate for us to have a look at where we are going with this. In South Australia we have to be very cognisant of the fact that we have a larger aged profile than many other states in this country. In fact, in South Australia we probably will be facing problems of health and ageing more than most other parts of this country, because South Australia is a place many people go to to retire. Sadly, many young people from South Australia see that they can have a better career in the bigger eastern states, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney. Many of these people come back at the end of their working life.This is not a new phenomenon. There are whole areas of South Australia, particularly down at Victor Harbor and a number of other spots, where people find that they can retire, give up their working life in Sydney, sell their assets there and realise a very much more substantial gain on those assets than they ever would have in South Australia. They would also have had more profitable employment over the years so that, when they come back to South Australia, they are reasonably well set up. But the problem for us as a community is that we then have to make sure that when they go to the next stage—that is, the need for aged care accommodation—they are adequately provided for.I do not want to go on for too long about this today, but I just want to get it on record. I would like some answers as to why the rate in South Australia is double the national average. In fact, if I look at the RCS review statistics for the different states in the first half of this year, I find that in fact for the downgrading in New South Wales it is a figure of 28 per cent and in Victoria it is 57 per cent. Some questions need to be asked as to what the difference is between those two states. I cannot at this stage see what the difference would be, other than the zealousness of some of the officers who are carrying out these reviews. In Queensland it is 25 per cent, in Western Australia 51 per cent and in Tasmania 34 per cent. The national average is 37 per cent, but in South Australia it is 72 per cent.Several questions immediately emerge from this. Why is there such a high figure in South Australia? What has generated this? What is different in South Australia compared with the other states? The second question is why in the three larger states—and that includes Queensland—there is such an enormous discrepancy between Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales. The statistics that I have just elaborated to the Senate should start to ring some alarm bells, particularly within the department. It is quite obvious that there are problems here that really need to be addressed and addressed very quickly.What has been put to me by the providers in South Australia is that this process has been grossly unfair to them. It is threatening their viability and, indeed, it is adversely affecting my state more than anywhere else. The figures that I have just read out seem to support what the providers are saying. Very large and substantial amounts of money are going from providers into Commonwealth coffers in South Australia which is not happening in other states, and the question as to why this is the case seriously has to be asked.10:55:008768Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999. Last night in this chamber Senator Allison delivered an extremely defensive speech. No doubt this was the signal that the Democrats will yet again sell out and vote with the government. They will cave in on this bill just like they caved in on the GST and industrial relations bills. This bill seeks to address the problems that this government, with the willing help of the likes of Senator Allison and her gang of 10, have foisted on the aged care sector. Even the minister could not hide the flaws from parliament. In her own speech she said:This bill also addresses anomalies in the Aged Care Act 1997 . . . I could not agree more with the minister when she said that they deserve better, but, after three years of this government, older Australians deserve a whole lot better.Labor will be moving a number of amendments to this bill to address what we see as further problems in the aged care sector. However, Labor will support the broad concept of this bill, in particular the amendments designed to ensure that people in rural and remote areas who own houses worth less than $23,000 are not denied concessional resident status. As a Queensland senator, I find this of particular importance. As the Senate is aware, Queensland is the most decentralised state in Australia, so this amendment is very important to us.The history of this government's aged care reforms have read like a circus program, backflip after backflip. Indeed, in March 1998, the government introduced the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998, but let it lapse so as to minimise their exposure on the issue as the 1998 election approached. The government had been aware of the serious flaws in the Aged Care Act since at least March last year, and only now do they act to rectify this.This bill also has provisions to ensure that nursing home patients before October 1997 will be refunded any accommodation fees they may have been charged, in contravention of the Prime Minister's promise to the contrary. And where did the Prime Minister announce this backflip? Not in parliament. No. He showed utter contempt for this institution by announcing the change on A Current Affair. Labor can quite proudly claim responsibility for this measure, as the Prime Minister only changed tack after almost 18 months of ALP pressure.Nursing homes and aged care is an issue of particular importance to me and the people of Queensland. In my home of Ipswich and surroundings, we have some of the highest median ages in the country. In the electorate of Moreton, 16.5 per cent of the population is over 65 years old. In Coolangatta the median age is around 60 years. The Gold Coast has the highest median age in the country. My electorate office is constantly fielding questions from worried and scared older Australians and their families about the devastating effects of this government's relentless cuts to the aged care sector. Yet nursing home service in Queensland has been reduced to the worst in the country. We have the highest waiting lists, lowest funding and worst paid nurses in the country. Now we see the further deskilling of enrolled nurses and assistants in nursing. A 12-month report on the impact of aged care reform on nurses in Queensland compiled by the Queensland Nurses Union shows that staffing hours for all nurses have been cut in more than 50 per cent of nursing homes. Almost 30 per cent of providers directly attribute these cuts to the new resident classification scale introduced by this government. This all adds up to a reduction in the quality of care for nursing home residents, and an increase in stress and anxiety for residents and their families.The report details changes occurring in the aged care sector in Queensland. The report says that staff have reported increasing work loads; problems with accessing leave; cuts in hours and accompanying changes to skills mix; inability to take meal breaks; an increase in the performance of unpaid overtime; lack of access to training and professional development; pressure on nurses to perform non-nursing duties; and pressure on non-nursing staff to undertake nursing duties. This can only do one thing to the care given to patients, and that is force it down.The Queensland Nurses Union Secretary, Gay Hawkesworth, said:There is a notion in some sections of the aged care industry that nursing homes are just homes for elderly people and that they don't need proper nursing staff levels. This idea defies reality. Nursing homes should not be confused with retirement villages. While people in nursing homes are usually referred to as residents for reasons of dignity, they are really patients requiring specialised geriatric health services.. . . . . . . . .Most people go into nursing homes as a last resort—when they are too sick to look after themselves or be cared for by relatives. Most go directly from hospital and all require nursing and medical care.Queensland has the second-worst waiting list for nursing homes in the country—behind the Northern Territory. In Queensland in 1998-99, the average waiting period for a nursing home bed was 93 days, compared with 68 days nationally. In the past three years, waiting lists in Queensland have increased by almost 50 per cent, more than double the national increase. Queensland has also seen a nearly 60 per cent increase in waiting periods in remote areas, up to 93 days.Evidence provided to the Queensland Nurses Union shows that, in many of the better nursing homes, waiting lists can be up to 18 months. This is a national disgrace. What a way to celebrate and recognise the International Year of Older Persons—making them wait up to 18 months for a nursing home bed. Rather than reduce waiting lists, this government's incompetence over the last three years has caused a national increase of 21 per cent. If this isn't bad enough, when older Australians do finally get a bed in a nursing home, thanks to this government they do not receive the high quality of medical and nursing care they so desperately need and deserve.A story in the Courier-Mail on 27 July titled `Nursing home terror' claimed:Some Queensland nursing home residents are living in a culture of terror in which they are subjected to gross degradations, including freezing showers on winter mornings [and] verbal and physical abuse, chemical restraint of patients and starvation.This is most certainly not the way we expect our older Australians to be cared for. Senator Harradine's unforgettable line in his GST speech on 14 May 1999—`The true test of a civilised society is how it regards and treats its most vulnerable'—is, I think, very apt in the current debate on aged care. This government has well and truly failed this test.The Aged Care Act removed any detailed regulations as to the ratio of nurses to patients. This has led to the deskilling of nursing staff, as some providers seek to make a quick buck. This has led to a further reduction in the quality of care provided to nursing home patients. This bill does nothing to rectify this situation. Qualified, dedicated and committed nurses will not continue to work under such appalling conditions, where their skills are not adequately recognised and, after five years of being an `aged care worker', they lose their practising licence. These qualified nurses will be replaced with underqualified aged care workers, thus further reducing the standard of care given to our older Australians.In many nursing homes in Queensland, patients receive less than 1.8 hours of nursing care per day, with there often only being one registered nurse to care for between 30 and 60 patients. The Nurses Union says there should be one registered nurse for between 10 and 25 patients—not 60. Under the guise of deregulation, the government has removed the requirement that at nursing homes with more than eight high-care residents there be 24-hour registered nurse coverage. This further reduces the quality of care being provided for older Australians in nursing homes.The last thing this side of the chamber wants is to return to the pre-1985 days, when lack of regulation allowed bad practices and low quality of care to flourish. We cannot let cost minimisation be the be-all and end-all of aged care. Nursing is a job where another person's life is at stake, requiring great training and responsibilities. We do not want second-rate aged carers; we need trained nurses.Aged care reform, with its focus on the reduction of government funding, deregulation and user pays, has resulted in both staff and residents feeling insecure—insecure about whether high standards of care will continue to be maintained in Queensland. This government's only concern is to minimise costs, regardless of the effect on patient care.In other nursing homes, nursing staff are required to do non-nursing domestic duties, like washing dishes and cleaning toilets. Queensland nursing homes have the highest qualified toilet cleaners and the lowest qualified aged care workers in the Western world. Nurses are caught in the dilemma of having to decide between washing the dishes and caring for their patients. This is bizarre, to say the least. Nurses should be doing what they do best—caring for their patients, not washing dishes.Queensland also has the lowest funding for aged care in the country. The standard hourly rate determines the amount the government pays nursing homes. This rate is set at different levels in different states, with the rate paid in Queensland being the lowest of all the states. Why are older Australians in Queensland considered less worthy than nursing home patients in the other states? We know there are plans to rectify this situation. We welcome the government's move to increase nursing home funding in Queensland, but not the coalescence policy of slowly increasing funding. Funding needs to be increased now. The patients need it.Queensland nurses are also the worst paid in the country. It does not take a rocket scientist or even a Liberal minister to work out what this means. Poor remuneration naturally means that highly qualified nurses either leave the sector or move to another state in order to improve their salaries. This is yet another attack on the quality of care in Queensland nursing homes.This government has also removed key accountability measures which ensured that moneys given to nursing homes for wages or capital improvements were in fact spent on wages or capital improvements. The accommodation bond, the daily fee from nursing home residents or the subsidy from the government is supposed to be spent on capital improvement, yet there are no accountability measures to ensure that this money is in fact spent on capital improvement and not simply pocketed by shonky proprietors or spent in other areas.Some disreputable operators are seeking to increase their profits by cutting services and skimming more money off the top, even though patient requirements have not changed. This means that the government will be inadvertently lining some proprietors' pockets to the tune of $142 million in 1999-2000, to the detriment of older Australians. I am sure this is not the intention of the government. It is this significant problem that our amendment seeks to address.It is an issue that does urgently need to be addressed, and I will outline one scenario to prove the point. Queensland nursing home owners Kerry and Malcolm Bishop were recently sentenced to four years and three years imprisonment respectively for defrauding the Commonwealth government of over $130,000. The couple pleaded guilty to one count each of being knowingly concerned with the defrauding of the Commonwealth between 1987 and 1994. This involved claim ing that domestic staff were performing nursing duties.In another instance, they claimed that clerical staff in Melbourne were performing nursing duties in Queensland and that gardeners performed occupational therapy. This case was picked up under our CAM and OCRE systems, which require proper auditing and accounting. But, under this government's system, there are no accountability mechanisms, no way of finding out if this sort of thing is going on all the time. Even the judge criticised the new system, stating:. . . the Commonwealth had developed programs which depended very greatly on the honesty of nursing home proprietors.Evidence provided to the Queensland Nurses Union shows that this is not an infrequent occurrence.We all know that not all nursing home owners or proprietors are dishonest—and I am sure the main bulk of them are not—but you always get the few who will take advantage and will do the damage. I urge the government to support the ALP's amendment to stop this systematic rorting and fraud by a very small number of providers to ensure that money designed for capital improvement is spent on exactly that.In conclusion, this government has presided over some of the worst reforms of the aged care sector in Australia's history. I am glad to see that it has recognised some of its errors, and this bill is a good first step in improving the aged care area. But there is still a long way to go. We should not and cannot accept waiting lists of up to 18 months for some nursing homes, putting the lives of older Australians at risk.We should not and cannot accept the replacement of highly qualified and trained nurses with underqualified aged care workers. Nor should we accept the lack of accountability in this sector. We must ensure that money destined for capital works actually gets there. Queenslanders will not accept the fact that Queensland nursing homes are the worst funded and Queensland nurses are the worst paid in the country. Most importantly, the citizens of this country should not and cannot accept the government's slash and burn approach to aged care.11:12:008772Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The specific details of the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 and the opposition's response to it have been already covered in some detail by my colleague Senator Evans and other speakers for the opposition. So I will not take up the time of the Senate by going into those matters again, but I will make a few comments in relation to the broad issue of aged care and this legislation particularly. I do so because I recall that one of my first duties as a parliamentary secretary for the opposition was to put forward our amendments to the original aged care legislation that was introduced by the government back in 1997.I will come back to that in a moment, but I cannot let go without some comment the rather outrageous assertions by Senator Allison last night on behalf of the Democrats when she attacked the opposition over our record on aged care. I actually found it interesting that Senator Allison predicted that the opposition would have a go at the Democrats in this debate. I thought, `Why would she predict that?' Of course, when you are guilty and you know you are guilty, you can actually stand up and acknowledge that some criticism will be forthcoming; and Senator Allison knew that. Nevertheless, in relation to when the aged care legislation first came before the parliament and was finally passed, Senator Allison yesterday said:The Democrats gave qualified support to the government's initial aged care reform package . . . That is not quite as I remember it. What I remember was a Senate inquiry which looked in some detail at the issues and at the government's proposals, the key point of which at that time was the introduction of accommodation bonds for nursing home residents. There was extensive debate in this chamber over a number of days. Senator Woodley, who was then the spokesman for the Democrats, expressed his very serious concern and, I believe, genuine concern, knowing his long interest and involvement in this issue, at the government's proposals.But what happened? As has now become quite a common occurrence, the Democrats rolled over at the eleventh hour and caved in on the issue of accommodation bonds. They did so because the government, forced into backtracking on its original proposals, agreed to some additional payments for concessional residents—something that we and the Democrats had been urging the government to do. But, because the government was forced to cave in on that issue, the Democrats caved in and agreed to accommodation bonds. They were not even prepared to accept our fall-back propositions that the introduction of accommodation bonds be delayed for some time to allow further examination of it. No, it came in from 1 October 1997.Well, what happened? Within about a month—within probably about a week, from my recollection—the screams and the howls could be heard right around the country. This was an absolutely disastrous policy development and it put the aged care industry in chaos. The government's own protestations by the then minister, Mrs Moylan—who, I note, is no longer on the front bench; she was relieved of her duties because of her incompetence on this issue—and the Prime Minister were simply untrue. They were saying, `No-one will have to sell their house to find the money to put up an accommodation bond to get a spot in a nursing home.' Evidence was brought forward very quickly that people were being pressured into having to dispose of their assets and properties to get a bed in a nursing home.What happened? The government was forced to walk away from that proposition, to abandon it. So we then had a new minister appointed, Mr Warwick Smith. Not only is he no longer on the front bench of the government; he is not even in the parliament. The people of the electorate of Bass certainly reflected very quickly their attitude to his handling of this portfolio at the last election. Mr Smith introduced certain proposals and legislation to deal with the changes that they were making in respect of moving from accommodation bonds to the $12 per day accommodation charge and a range of other issues. But subsequently the government—knowing that when the spotlight focused upon that legislation there would be very serious exposure of the problems that their aged care bill had created—withdrew the bill. Throughout all of this, the Democrats—whilst I do not blame them entirely; at the end of the day this was not their legislation—did agree to the original proposal. It is only now in this bill that some of those problems are finally being addressed.Senator Allison has also indicated on behalf of the Democrats—and I hope she really does rethink this position—that they cannot support the opposition's amendments. She said: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.The position is really this: what is contained within the opposition's amendments reflects the views and propositions that the opposition has put forward for some time now—that is, they deal with the situation where the moneys raised from the accommodation charge, paid for by the residents, are not necessarily in all cases being used for their main purpose, which is to rebuild the infrastructure within our nursing homes and to be reinvested as capital into the nursing home sector.We have pointed out time and time again that there are loopholes and unscrupulous operators who can basically end up taking this money and using it for their own retirement package rather than using it for the purposes for which it is intended. That is what our amendments go to. The fact that the Democrats may have received them, I understand, a couple of days ago does not detract from the fact that they and the government have been aware of what our position has been on these issues all along.I have to go further and say this: it really is crocodile tears from the Democrats to be saying, `Oh, we can't support the opposition's amendments because we haven't had enough time to see them.' I would think that that is a reasonable point to make if it was put forward as a genuine argument, but it is not. This has been put forward by the party, the Democrats, that did a deal with the government on the GST with hundreds of amendments and then guillotined it through this chamber in the last weeks of sitting before we rose at the end of June. They gave the opposition virtually no time at all to consider the implications of those amendments. And that was for one of the most fundamental legislative changes for many years, virtually reconstructing the taxation system in this country.We were given virtually no opportunity to properly consider their amendments, and here we have the Democrats saying, `Oh, well, we haven't had time so we're going to vote against yours.' Having not been content with doing that on the GST, at around the same time they did it on the environment bill. They did a last minute deal again with the government on the environment and biodiversity bill. They brought over 500 amendments into this chamber. The opposition had virtually no time to consider them. They were being presented to us as the debate was going on. Again, by weight of numbers with the government, they pushed them through.Frankly, this is just a nonsense proposition. I noticed at the time that Senator Allison had a smile on her face when she was putting the argument forward because I think even she recognised the ridiculous proposition she was putting. As I understand it, at the end of the second reading stage we are likely to adjourn consideration of this bill and come back to it next week. So there will be further time available for the Democrats to properly consider our amendments.I turn quickly to a couple of aspects of this legislation that I wanted to touch upon. As I said, the government's original legislation introduced the system of accommodation bonds. That proved to be an unmitigated disaster, as we said it would. They then changed to the system which requires residents of nursing homes after 1 October 1997 who meet the criteria to pay an accommodation charge of $12 per day. As we have pointed out—and this has been identified throughout estimates hearings and questions here in the chamber in question time and in other debates, particularly by my colleague Senator Evans—there have been instances where people who were residents before 1 October 1997 have been hit with that charge, quite contrary to the intent of the legislation.There have been situations where the nursing home or sections of a nursing home may have been closed down and the residents transferred to a new facility or another part of the facility and then those unscrupulous operators have treated those people as new entrants or as new residents and levied accommodation charges upon them. There have been a variety of these types of unscrupulous activities. Fortunately, it is not the norm throughout the industry. Nevertheless, even when it happens only once it needs to be highlighted and exposed. This legislation does finally give some legislative weight to the promises that have been made by the Prime Minister and the minister over time—that is, those situations will be corrected and the operators will be forced to return the funds to residents who have been incorrectly charged.The second aspect of the legislation that I point to is that there have been situations where, because of breaches of the requirements of this act and the previous act, the ability to operate should have been revoked. However, because of some technical deficiencies, albeit brought about by the government repealing the previous act and not providing for it in the current act, some operators who may have committed breaches prior to 1 October 1997 are still able to continue operating notwithstanding their past record.I understand that the legislation also deals with a range of other issues, particularly some amelioration in the assets test, and clarifies situations regarding patients or people who enter a nursing home with a mental impairment. We welcome those aspects of the legislation that do correct anomalies and improve the position. We point out, as we have strongly pointed out throughout this entire debate over the last couple of years, that it was necessary for the government to amend its own legislation to fix up problems which it largely is responsible for.The fact of the matter is that since this government came to office its approach to aged care has been one where its eyes have been trained more upon the interests of the operators than the specific needs of the residents. It seems that it still has a view that what matters most is the position of the operators, particularly those who treat this as a commercial business rather than this being a service which is provided by a combination of government and private sector and particularly charitable and religious organisation support.With those remarks, I look forward to the committee stage and hope that the Democrats in particular will take the blinkers off, will pause their current rather long running romance with the government, in which they will do a deal on everything, and will properly consider our amendments.11:28:008774Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—This is an important debate relating to the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 , and a number of comments have been made by the various speakers in the Senate over the past couple of days. Certainly a number of the issues that have been brought to the attention of the government are important to note. However, I also note that to a very large degree the ALP speakers have, in effect, engaged in what I can only describe as sanctimonious hectoring and have indicated that they have put forward amendments which will not be acceptable to the Senate and therefore are not obviously in tune with this very important issue in the community.I think the only speaker who raised substantive questions in his contribution was Senator Quirke. Senator Quirke was making a point with regard to the South Australian resident classification reviews and implied that there was a higher rate of downgrade in his state. I can say only that Senator Quirke is obviously using old data which is out of date. Creditably, Minister Bishop took action to improve consistency in the approach between states. I am happy to report to Senator Quirke—if he has not been able to get his information up to date and to ascertain this—that South Australia is now comparable with the national average and, in the July-August downgrades, appears to be below the national average. I hope that Senator Quirke will acknowledge that and will also acknowledge that the government has responded and was never going to threaten this important viability.The Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 formalises the accommodation charge in principal legislation and introduces a range of resident protection measures. It also addresses anomalies in the act in relation to the revocation of approved provider status and the imposition of sanctions for breaches of approved provider responsibilities under previous aged care legislation. This bill also implements the 1999 budget initiative to exempt from paying an accommodation charge those nursing home residents who were in care at the commencement of the Aged Care Act 1997 and who would otherwise have been liable to pay an accommodation charge on moving to another aged care service. The implementation date for the budget initiative was 1 July 1999.The initiative ensures that those residents who have already moved will be reimbursed for accommodation charges already paid. Some residents have already moved, paid an accommodation charge and rented their homes to pay the charge. In these cases, the exemption of home and rental income from the pension income and assets tests will continue. This will be achieved through amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.Due to Labor's refusal to accord the bill non-controversial status, the bill could not be passed through the Senate in time to implement the budget initiative by the stated date of 1 July 1999. Labor's refusal to pass the legislation is disadvantaging many older Australians who are currently still paying the charge because of the delay. People who were in nursing homes when the Aged Care Act 1997 was introduced can still be asked to pay an accommodation charge on moving to another facility after 1 July 1999. The repayment of charges already paid by qualifying residents is delayed pending passage of the legislation.The government amendment to the bill simply changes the implementation date of the budget initiative from 1 July 1999 to the date of passage of the bill due to Labor's refusal to pass the bill in the last sitting of parliament. The amendment is necessary to ensure that elderly Australians do not suffer as a result of Labor's delays in passing the legislation.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary is deliberately misleading the Senate. The timing of the legislation listed on the paper is a matter for the government. They list it when they are ready. There has been no delay by the Labor opposition. They can bring it on whenever they like. It is clearly misleading for the parliamentary secretary to claim, as he has been trying to, that we have delayed the legislation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Evans, there is no point of order. That is a debating point which you can take up later.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—The government's amendments ensure that people who become charge exempt residents after 1 July 1999 but before the passage of the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 are covered by the provisions exempting the principal home and rental income earned on a principal home to pay for accommodation charges from the pension income and assets tests. The government's amendment fully implements the election commitment to ensure that residents of nursing homes on 1 September 1997 do not pay the accommodation charge on moving to another facility, including those who move after the proposed implementation date of 1 July 1999, as stated in the budget. The amendment is required only as a result of Labor's unnecessary and cynical delays and ensures that elderly residents who qualify as charge exempt residents after 1 July 1999 are not disadvantaged by Labor's intransigence.It is important to note that other important resident protection measures have also been delayed by Labor's refusal to pass the legislation. These include: ensuring that elderly people are not inappropriately charged pre-entry leave fees, extending deadlines for entering agreements where a resident has a mental impairment, formalising in principal legislation the qualifying period of co-residence of a carer from five to two years for the home to be exempted from the assets test, ensuring that residents paying accommodation charges have the same protections as residents paying accommodation bonds and allowing those residents who move from a hostel to a nursing home to negotiate a rollover of bonds. I have seen the opposition amendments, even though they were provided only late last night. It is definitely not a case of better late than never.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Tambling is deliberately misleading the Senate again. The government received the amendments on Tuesday. I wish you would correct the record.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator Evans. You can again take that up as a debating point.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I do acknowledge the point made by Senator Evans with regard to the availability of the amendments, which did come in on Tuesday. I should have corrected that point; I correct that point now. Unlike the government amendments, which have been out in the public arena for months, the opposition amendments have not been subject to consultation. Industry and consumers have had no chance to comment. Patently, the opposition is not interested in their views. Looking at these amendments, it is no wonder. These opposition amendments would condemn aged care residents to inadequate care in substandard facilities. Providers would be hamstrung in their attempts to manage their finances effectively, to transfer their places to better quality services or to attract finance to make necessary improvements. The amendments would encourage older people and their legal representatives to give away their homes to attract additional taxpayer subsidies of around $4,000 a year—subsidies that are intended for genuinely financially disadvantaged older people. However—and this is the nasty twist—older people who did this could be much worse off. They could lose their pensions and face higher fees due to Centrelink and Veterans' Affairs gifting provisions.I note also that Labor provided another amendment this morning—again, no consultation and, again, totally unworkable. In fact, the draft amendment that I saw did not even spell `Labor' properly. I do not know which country the drafter came from in that they cannot recognise the proper spelling of the Labor Party in Australia. This morning's amendment is a complete shambles. The opposition has already delayed this legislation long enough. Every day over 2,000 older people who were in nursing homes before October 1997 are paying an accommodation charge that is totally unnecessary. They are sick of waiting for this legislation to be proclaimed so their money can be refunded. How much longer will they have to wait?Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills8776r8328776Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.11:38:008776Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 implements the major health initiative contained in the 1999 budget. The objective is to bring the premiums for private health insurance more into line with the actuarial costs by charging an additional two per cent for every year after the age of 30 that a person waits before entering a private health insurance scheme.There is no imperative to join private health insurance, as the public system provided by Medicare is a universal system that is available to everyone. However, there is logic in ensuring that those who seek additional benefits through private health insurance should pay in proportion to the likelihood that they will draw on the scheme. House insurance and car insurance are fully risk rated, and there is no dispute over this form of charging.The opposition does not oppose the introduction of lifetime committee rating. However, we believe the scheme that the government has dubbed `lifetime health cover' falls a long way short of being a great reform. It has been hastily designed and poorly executed. The opposition has always said that it supports the private health sector working to complement Medicare. Most other OECD countries have private health insurance available to provide a service to a particular part of the community that wants, and can afford, such a product.Where we part company with the government is on its fixation that membership of private health insurance has to be artificially boosted at public expense. We strongly object to the $1.7 billion government rebate and we will oppose measures that limit access to the public hospital system or anything that results in resources being taken from the public sector to subsidise the private sector. Lifetime health cover is a step away from community rating but its design is confused, and the opposition will be proposing a number of measures to improve the scheme to make it more workable and fairer.The consultant actuaries who designed the original scheme worked on the assumption that the proportion of people covered by private health insurance would increase to 36 per cent. If lifetime health cover succeeds in this goal, it will create two major problems. Firstly, it will result in $200 million being clawed back from public hospitals under the Australian health care agreements without any evidence being necessary that the pressure on public hospitals had been reduced. Secondly, it may worsen the degree of adverse selection within the health funds. The people who are most likely to join in the next 12 months are those between the ages of 50 and 65. Those over 65 have been given an exemption but, if a lot of middle-aged people join, the funds may develop a very skewed age profile. If so, this will give them serious financial problems in a decade when those members start making large claims.This legislation was prepared in haste by a government that prefers to cloak itself in secrecy. The result was that the design of the scheme was flawed and the execution of the politically motivated exemptions failed the test of fairness or consistency. The secret reports prepared for the government by actuaries were forced into the light of day only after the bill had been passed in the House of Representatives. If it were not for the work of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee there would not have been any detailed scrutiny of this bill and the government would have imposed a flawed scheme.The government claimed that it had consulted widely on the detail of the lifetime health cover. It was evident from the submissions that, although there had been consultation on the concept, there had been virtually no consultation on the detail. Substantial changes were made to the design of the scheme as announced in the budget for political motives which, in the view of some witnesses at the inquiry, undermined the intent of the scheme. For example, the rationale for excluding over-65-year-olds without excluding other retirees on pensions was weak. No explanation was given for the decision to drop the recommended discounts for young people.The Senate committee looked carefully at what impact lifetime health cover would have on the viability of private health insurance and the flow-on impact for the public hospital system. The committee did not get a clear picture about the likely effect of lifetime health cover on overall membership. Trowbridge argued that there would not be a very large increase in health fund membership but foresaw a surge during the period of grace.The problems that lifetime health cover is meant to solve may in fact get worse. Health funds warn that adverse selection would be increased by the grace period arrangements. Short-term membership to cover particular treatment requirements—or hit-and-run behaviour—may well increase in the view of econo mists and even Medibank Private. People over 65 and young mothers are apparently the most frequent groups involved in hit-and-run memberships, and both groups were largely insulated from any impact of lifetime health cover. MBF cautioned that medical gaps remained the major source of complaint and dissatisfaction. It did not foresee any improvement in participation until the gap issue was resolved, apart from the short-term impact during the holiday period.A number of industry witnesses who previously had forecast a large increase in participation due to the 30 per cent rebate now were pleased that the rebate had simply stabilised participation. Others, including the AMA, warned that, like the 30 per cent rebate, lifetime health cover would not work as a panacea to the underlying problems of the private health funds. The bottom line is that it is very likely that lifetime health cover would have the effect of inducing a short-term rush into the scheme followed by a virtual freeze-out of many consumers who would face high penalties to later change their minds.Medibank Private expected a significant reduction in recruitment of members over 30, and said its future marketing activities would focus on those under 31 and those already in the industry. Clearly this would reduce future growth prospects substantially. Private health insurance will become a poor option for new migrants to this country when compared with Medicare. The market for selling private health insurance would be substantially reduced with a new focus on those just turning 30 and those currently over 65.I will now turn to the specific concerns raised during the inquiry that will be dealt with by amendments to be moved by the Labor Party. The most important amendment is the removal of the clawback provision under the Australian health care agreements that provides for the states to lose up to $200 million in funding if the participation rate in private health insurance exceeds 36 per cent. The current rate is 30.5 per cent, but this could rise if the government's proposed advertising scares people into joining. Lifetime health cover targets young healthy people and will not produce a significant drop in public hospital usage even if it succeeds in increasing coverage. The clawback provisions were agreed prior to lifetime health cover being proposed, and therefore they would have an unanticipated punitive effect on the states.Particular concern was raised at the hearings by the Institute of Actuaries and HCF that many people would join the fund for a short time in June 2000 to get the benefit of being a member on the critical date. There is nothing to stop a person joining for just one month next June to gain a permanent exemption from the impact of higher premiums. At little cost a person of any age can acquire the nominal age of 30. Wouldn't we all like to be 30 again! This is a potential rort that will be of great interest to accountants looking for novel advice for their clients. HCF describe this as `join and lapse behaviour', and argued it was a major flaw in the design of the scheme and one that would cost the industry heavily in the future. The minister has since acknowledged this problem and foreshadowed his intention to produce an amendment requiring people to hold membership for from three to 12 months.Another potential rort is that there is no deterrent to a person buying a low value policy and upgrading when they need to use a hospital—apart from the normal waiting times. These policies, with large front-end deductibles and exclusions, have become popular as a way to avoid the Medicare surcharge. Several solutions to this problem have been proposed, although most are very complicated, involving using the ratio of the values of premiums in calculation of the penalty to be paid after an upgrade. Perhaps the simplest way to curb misuse would be to limit the extent of the front-end deductible to $500 and ban exclusionary products. The proposed scheme is completely cancelled out by the current reinsurance pool arrangements. The government has been moving slowly on this issue because it is unwilling to act, as it would disturb some of the smaller, less sufficient funds. The opposition proposes to set a deadline to require the minister to adopt new rules for the reinsurance pool by 30 June 2000 that do not discourage efficiency. The Senate committee heard about a range of concerns raised by groups in submissions and during evidence. These suggest that there are several areas where the design of the scheme should be improved and anomalies removed. This would improve the overall fairness of the proposed system.The Trowbridge report makes it clear that the selection of the cut-off at 65 years old was arbitrary. The department has not clearly stated the foundation for choosing 65 as a cut-off point, but it appears to be based on the perception that 65 is the normal retirement age, after which the greater majority of people live on fixed incomes. This is also the view argued by Medibank Private in support of the cut-off at 65 years. The Consumers Health Forum said its members were concerned the scheme would discriminate against elderly consumers. Other motives mentioned were not to put older people under pressure during the grace period and not to induce a sudden increase in adverse risk by pushing large numbers of older people into private health insurance. The logic of these arguments has just as much force when applied to others who are retired and living on limited incomes, most notably women over 60 receiving the age pension and those on veterans pensions. They are in the same situation as other people over 65 because, in just the same way, the recent emergence of lifetime health cover was unanticipated and they are unable to adjust their plans to accommodate joining earlier than they ought. From an actuarial viewpoint there is also no benefit to the funds if this group is left exposed and is pressured into joining health insurance. Over time its claims will exceed its contributions, weakening the viability of funds, not strengthening it.The National Youth Initiative submitted that the reaction of young people was most likely to be adverse. They argued that most young people who had taken out health insurance did so because their parents had or because they were in the minority who had sufficient disposable income to afford it. They reported strong support for universal health care through Medicare and lack of interest in private health insurance because the cost structure was weighted against young people. They concluded that the bill is `well intentioned but likely to miss its target'.The purpose of lifetime health cover is meant to be to give incentives to young people, but it fails to deliver them. Contrary to the original design, there is no discount for people who join at a young age, even though they are contributing far in excess of their demand on the insurance pool. In the original scheme there were to be discounts for people under the age of 35. In the same way that older people were to be charged a penalty premium for joining late, younger people were to be given a discount of 2.5 per cent. Trowbridge emphasised this would make lifetime health cover attractive relative to the existing system. The long-term strength of the funds depends on young people joining, and it is unrealistic to expect them to do so when insurance offers them such poor value. It would be feasible to retain the original structure recommended by Trowbridge by giving those under 30 a two per cent discount for each year prior to the age of 30 that they joined. The financial cost to the funds would be offset if more young people joined or otherwise by fractionally higher premium increases over the years. Overall it would further reduce the extent to which young people cross-subsidise older groups.I note that, in the week since the opposition announced its intention to modify the scheme, the government has not produced any actuarial evidence that such a move would weaken the scheme. The government's arguments have been based on the earlier scheme that Trowbridge produced, which was based on 2.5 per cent discounts from the age of 35. The opposition's proposal is much more modest and would, averaged across other members, impact less than two per cent on the long-term price of health insurance. The evidence presented to the Senate inquiry demonstrated that young people made very low claims and, even with a discount, would be providing a cross-subsidy to older members.There seems little logic in imposing such a contribution level on young people when they are financially stretched. If the concept is to give an incentive, then there must be some thing tangible to attract people when they are healthy and facing numerous other financial demands at a time of typically lower income. The only counterargument advanced was the claims pattern of young women for obstetrics, which peaks in their early 30s. This suggests that the funds should re-examine the pricing of the products and the benefits for childbirth, rather than denying all young people a product at a reasonable price free of cross-subsidy to older groups.The bill treats harshly those who have been long-term members but have let their membership lapse. For example, a 59-year-old retiree who held membership for a total of 20 years in their working life but did not have it on 1 July 2000 would get a penalty premium of 58 per cent. Under the opposition's amendments, a person with this record would only get penalty premium of 18 per cent. There has been no justification given of why future periods of membership are to be included in the calculation of the penalty premiums but past ones are not. Older people without current coverage feel justifiably aggrieved that their past loyalty counts for nothing under the new arrangements.The current provisions for hardship are limited to approval by the minister under special circumstances notified within two years of commencement of the scheme, determined in accordance with regulations. In Labor's view, this is unduly restrictive. It is likely that the minister will not personally consider hardship cases and the question will be determined bureaucratically in accordance with fixed regulations. This seems a most inappropriate manner to resolve questions of hardship.This is particularly the case given that there is already a Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, who would seem to be equipped to consider such subjective issues as might be raised by the complex personal circumstances of individuals. It is not hard to imagine that there will be unforeseen cases where there is conflict between the rules and an individual's circumstances—for example, where people were out of Australia at key times, when important information was not provided to them, when guardians acted against their long-term interests or when memberships lapsed at a critical point in time.There should be a wider power for the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to make a determination of hardship at any time. The ombudsman should also be able to resolve any disputes that arise about the correct age of a person when documentary evidence of birth is not present or where it is unclear what prior history of membership the person has. Remember that many people will have to demonstrate that they were born prior to 1 July 1934 in countries for which records of that time may not now exist.The design of lifetime health cover gives no special treatment to migrants to Australia. On the basis that they have not made a prior contribution to Australia's health system, they are given the same penalties as those who choose not to join private health insurance, even though they did not have the opportunity to participate earlier. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman argued that the rules applying to migrants as a whole were too harsh and some provision should be made for people who have shown a commitment in their country of origin. He also pointed out that some funds recognise people transferring from overseas funds by dropping the waiting periods.The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman approved of a number of features of the scheme that he believed would retain consumer rights as they presently existed. However, he did recommend, on the basis of his experience with complaints, that it would be important for funds to be required to notify non-contributors when their partner stops making payments. The ombudsman also recommended that the legislation should contain a review mechanism. This is a sensible suggestion, and the opposition will move to ensure that it is a requirement in the legislation.In conclusion, lifetime health cover has been promoted as a complete solution for the ailing private health insurance industry. But the government knows that at best it is just a small step forward for the private health insurance industry. It is time the industry underwent a thorough process of internal reform that tackles three major issues: the inefficiency of the funds, the failure to control costs and the gap payments that are the major disincentive to consumers retaining their health insurance.The opposition will support this bill, but it wants the industry and the government to be under no misapprehension that the industry must sort out its own problems. If lifetime health cover is a failure or, as I previously warned, it increases adverse selection and freezes out new purchasers of insurance, then the industry should not expect to be able to run to the government of the day for yet another handout. I look forward to discussing these issues in more detail as we move to the committee stage and hope that in a positive process we can improve the bill.11:56:008781Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—The Democrats, along with the opposition—and, indeed, most health experts and consumer groups—support the underlying principles of the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 . It is basically aimed at encouraging stability within private health insurance. Lifetime health cover has the support of the private health industry—and I include there doctors, specialists generally, private hospitals and certainly the health funds themselves. It is also supported by such consumer organisations as the Council on the Ageing and the Association of Independent Retirees, representing the group that I guess will have the most in the longer term to gain from these measures.I can certainly say on behalf of the Democrats that this measure to encourage people to stay in, if not join, health funds is a lot better than other government ideas and other government measures. In particular, it is a much better response than the 30 per cent rebate. It is certainly very pleasing to note that this scheme does not involve any government expenditure. It is now going to be, to some extent, over to the funds to advertise and indeed to provide products that meet consumers' needs far better than they do at the moment. So there is no ongoing expenditure on behalf of the government.However, we believe that on its own this is not the magic solution—that it is not going to substantially increase the number of people who are choosing to either purchase private health insurance or stay with an existing provider. This is because it does not address some of the key issues and, in particular, gap payments. This has been a long-term issue. Virtually every time we discuss health or talk about private health insurance in this place we get back to the issue of gaps and how best to deal with them. The Democrats' concern is not just for those people who have private health insurance; it is for all consumers who attend a doctor's surgery or perhaps book themselves in for some procedure only to find at the end of the time that there are a couple of dollars, maybe a couple of hundred dollars or, in some cases, several thousand dollars yet to be paid—money that they were not aware of needing to save or indeed to spend. We have had further discussions with the minister on this issue, and I will look in more detail at that in a moment.As we deal with this particular bill, one of our main concerns is to ensure that no group would be disadvantaged by the introduction of the scheme and, in particular, to ensure that the public health system would not be disadvantaged in any way by the introduction of this scheme. The first task of any government should be to maintain a high quality public health system. We would not support any legislation that had the ability to threaten in any way such a public health system or to undermine its ability to provide very high quality care. So we are very pleased that the government has agreed to two new measures associated with the introduction of this lifetime health cover.The first of these measures addresses our concerns regarding the public health system and gap payments. I note with interest issues raised in committee and issues raised by the Labor Party both in this place a moment ago and by amendment. We do not believe that, with the Medicare agreements signed and sealed, and indeed with the consent of federal parliament, we should now be changing the fine print of those agreements. But obviously it is a problem. When the agreements were signed there was nothing in the pipeline even vaguely resembling this that the government had committed to do.There have been discussions on and some examination of this issue. Indeed the funds themselves were quite interested in it, but it was not considered by the states at the time the Medicare agreement was signed—and nor was the 30 per cent rebate. So we are putting in place measures that do affect that Medicare agreement. I guess it is like building a house and starting to shuffle around the foundations. There is a need for government to recognise that there are potential threats to the public health system.We have a commitment from government that public hospitals will not lose revenue due to the clawback provisions under the Medicare agreement. I will table a letter in a moment saying that the government agrees that, over the life of the current health care agreement 1998-2003, no state or territory will be worse off as a result of the clawback provisions in the health care agreement. As we move into the committee stage of this bill, we will be tabling further information on the process of that.One of my real interests in all of this is that we might actually start getting some figures out of the states. If the states have to show that there is a problem, we might finally start finding out what Mr Kennett has been spending and in which hospitals in Victoria, in particular what is happening in some of the private hospitals. I am very keen to have a look at the whole issue of the states actually having to show what is being spent.The states keep blaming the Commonwealth every time there is a problem in a public hospital. Now they are actually going to have to put the information on the table and prove that they do have a problem. Indeed, the Commonwealth has to show us in detail that there is no difficulty before they take any money back. So it is a significant measure. It will ensure that the public health system, which is where most Australians receive their care, is not going to suffer financially because of any of the changes that we are putting in place here.The second measure is an initiative to advise consumers of their rights regarding gap payments. One of the arguments about legislating for gap is that protection, in effect, already exists under the Trade Practices Act. People will be informed of past decisions by magistrates courts, in particular, where they have found that a person who did not know that they were going to incur a particular expenditure did not have to pay it. Over the years we have received letters from people complaining, and our first step is always to say, `Go back to the doctor and explain that you did not know.' It does appear that unfortunately, in some instances, it is more an ambit claim, particularly from some specialists. It can be waived if a person goes back and says, `I did not know about this. I am not in a position to pay this.'It is also detailed in the letter from the minister that I will table in a moment that these brochures will advise people of what their rights are. Not only is it government policy that people should not get gaps unless they know about them but it is also the policy of the AMA. I congratulate them for that. Undisclosed gaps are causing hardship. Perhaps even more of a problem than that is the potential for a gap. People know of a friend or someone down the road or someone they have heard of who has had a gap payment, in some cases quite large. It deters people from getting involved in private health insurance at all. Knowing this and having these leaflets available in Medicare offices saying that they do not have to pay those gaps unless they were told that there was going to be a gap and what it was going to be will hopefully give people greater confidence in private health insurance products.There are a range of other concerns that have been raised during the committee process. I will go over these only briefly today because a lot of them will be dealt with in far greater detail as we move into the committee stage. First of all and up-front is the need for a review of this. What is the impact of it? Are there problems with it? In particular, consideration should be given to a range of issues, from the impact on migrants to some of the concerns regarding how it will operate. We will be supporting, when we get to the committee stage, the opposition's amendment on this. It will give us a chance to assess the impact of the scheme in terms of what it is supposed to do, which is to encourage stability of private health insurance membership.There is also the issue of spousal records. The Democrats understand the problems that can occur when partnerships break up and the funds do not have records of who was paying. One partner's fund membership, for example, might be obvious but the other's might not. With the introduction of lifetime health cover, the issue of keeping records is important. Obviously we will need a specific amendment rather than any sort of undertaking. Again, we will be supporting what the Labor Party is doing.We raised through committee, and others commented on, the issue of migrants. Here is an issue that, as we get to the committee stage, we will be tabling some further advice on. We will be looking specifically at Australia's health system generally compared to other countries. I do not think there is the big problem that some have outlined. Part of my concern with a general amendment is that today more and more migrants are indeed very well able to look after themselves. They come here as business migrants and as quite wealthy investors. As we said before, the scheme is not going to have additional government money put into it, rather it is going to be holding the funds of all of those people who are contributing, so I do think we need to look at that the fairness and equity issue of simply letting migrants in whenever they arrive.But we do need to have some concern for those migrants who are already in the pipeline, particularly those who are here and who are in the process of that two-year period before they can access Medicare. As we know, until they can access Medicare, they cannot get into normal private health insurance. The government has agreed to address our main concerns here. I have one of the letters here that I will table in a moment in which the government has noted our concerns and is looking at the ability of the minister to deal with those cases where there are problems under the hardship provisions.Very briefly, looking at the reinsurance issue, I do not think this is as big a concern as some have raised. As we get to the committee stage, I think that further information will show that the government has obtained actuarial advice on this issue and that the changes would jeopardise the consultation process that is now going on with the industry to do, basically within the next couple of years, what the opposition is pushing for immediately.The Ombudsman's powers are excessive in the way that the opposition has drafted its amendments. As for the youth discount, I really do not think this is going to encourage young people at all. It is going to make it more expensive for others: obviously, if young people get a discount, someone has to pay for it. It may indeed undo what the aim is, which is to attract people once they are established in work, have left a family situation where they may have had private health insurance anyway, are now independent and on their own and are looking at such things as buying a house.We really do run the risk that starting with additional discounts is going to undo some of the very things this measure is aimed at doing. I think that there is a very small percentage of young people with health insurance. I note some of the Australian Consumers Association's concerns, basically saying to us that this is not an issue that we should worry about and that it is not a really significant problem among young people.The issue of refugees is an important one. Obviously they are coming to this country without the means that many migrants have. However, because of some technical problems with the Labor Party amendment—and I congratulate them for the work they have done in this area—and the level of concern, the government is trying to look again at this issue and is going to be showing us very shortly, hopefully, an amendment without those technical problems.The hardship provisions are, I think, adequate. As I said, we are now rolling in to those the issue of some people who are coming out as migrants, particularly in the period when this measure is settling in. As I have said, for those who have already applied, understanding what the current system is, and for those who are in the pipeline for the two years, those issues are going to be dealt with under the hardship provisions as well.As far as an advertising campaign is concerned, I have a third letter from the minister outlining the concerns that were raised during the committee process and dealing with each of those. I will not in the remaining few minutes go through those individually, but certainly he is emphasising the existing system—in other words, that everyone is entitled to access a free public hospital system—and in particular setting out their rights and responsibilities under this new measure.The government, I understand, will be moving a few amendments, and we will look at these as we go. Government amendments Nos 1 to 4 generally are issues that we can support. I will leave our comments there. Obviously, as we get into the committee stage, we will be going into further detail on all of the issues raised, both in the Labor Party's comments and in the government amendments.I wish to table three letters of undertaking from the minister with regard to the issues that the Democrats have been concerned about. In particular, I highlight that we do seem to be making some progress as far as known gaps are concerned. In other words, people should know what they are up for, whether they are insured or not, before a procedure is undertaken by a doctor. There have been cases where people have indeed not had to pay those gaps if they were not known ones.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Lees, you need leave to table those documents. Will you identify them for the purpose of the record, please, seeing that you are tabling three documents?8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Two of the letters are from Dr Wooldridge and are dated 22 September 1999 and 23 September 1999, and the other letter is signed by Chief of Staff Ken Smith on 23 September 1999.Leave granted.12:12:008784McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—I rise to take part in the debate on the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 to provide a Queensland perspective on health funding and on the impacts on our state that will flow from the implementation of the bill. At the outset, I reiterate the Labor Party's commitment to a universal health care system that provides quality health care for all Australians irrespective of their means or their place of residence. Australians support Medicare. The Australian Labor Party supports Medicare and we will always support Medicare as the basis of a fair and just health system.We also recognise that the private health insurance system provides a strategy complementary to the public system, thus providing a complete health service for the Australian community. We recognise that the private health insurance sector needs to be a viable and strong industry in order to play that role. The two systems are complementary.The Labor Party recognises that the bill is the government's latest attempt to stem the community's drift away from private health insurance. We believe that, unfortunately, it is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that has not been properly consulted on with the community. The Labor Party has proposed a number of amendments that will improve the bill and address a number of concerns raised, especially through the Senate community affairs committee.We also recognise that this is not the government's first attempt to address the drift away from private health insurance. We have already seen the government try to entice the community back through the Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme. The 1996 means-tested scheme failed because premiums increased immediately after its introduction. In fact, the participation rates fell by approximately two per cent over the life of the scheme. The 30 per cent rebate now in place costs a massive $1.7 billion a year, and yet the proportion of people with insurance has increased only by a marginal 0.2 per cent, a fraction of the recent decline.The real tragedy is that these funds could have been so well used in the public health sector. This is a direct subsidy to private health insurance, a subsidy which has shown no measurable benefit to the overall health of the community. The Australian Labor Party have a clear position. We will oppose any strategy that limits access to the public hospital system. We will oppose anything that results in resources being taken away from the public sector to subsidise the private sector.Through this bill, the government is proposing to revisit the Australian health care agreements with the states. The government's rationale, we understand, is that there will be a direct shift of demand for public hospital services to the private sector when people are insured. It is proposed that when private health insurance levels increase above a national average of 34 per cent there will be a corresponding decrease of funds allocated through the agreement. If participation reaches 36 per cent nationally, the states will lose around $200 million.In Queensland it is proposed that this provision will mean a loss of some $15 million for every percentage point of increase above the safety net figure of 30.4 per cent. However, there is a fundamental flaw in the rationale. There is no evidence to suggest that increased private health cover results in an equal decline in people using the public hospital system. It sounds simple and easy but the evidence is just not there.Evidence from my state of Queensland in fact shows that people with private cover continue—and will continue—to use the public system and that the reasons for their use of the system are not necessarily related to whether or not they have private health insurance. Firstly, the Queensland public system provides services that are not always available in the private system. Especially in regional Queensland, the public hospital system provides the emergency services for the community. Public hospitals provide the care for new babies born in difficult circumstances. The public health service provides the specialist care for patients who require intensive health management. These types of care are technology intensive. The costs of the equipment and the staff with the skills to operate that equipment are very high, and the private sector simply cannot afford to provide these services in areas with smaller levels of population.Secondly, people use the public system because it has a hospital nearer their home. As we have heard earlier today, Queensland is decentralised, with 55 per cent of our population living outside the capital city and 20 per cent of our population living in rural and remote locations. There is simply no market for the private hospital sector in rural and remote Queensland. There are no private hospitals, for example, west of the Great Dividing Range. People using the hospital system—any hospital system—want that event to be as drama free as possible. Naturally, they desire to be treated as close as possible to their family support structures. They want to be treated in their local hospital. Western Queenslanders know that, if they have a significant health issue, it will probably be an emergency, it may require emergency evacuation and they will probably end up in the regional public hospital.Thirdly, patients know that there still will be large out-of-pocket expenses even though they have private health insurance. This bill does not address that significant issue nor the deterrents to accessing private health insurance: the gap payments. Whilst the reality of the gap between the refund and the actual cost remains at current levels, people will continue to weigh up the options and opt away from private health insurance.If the participation rate does rise to the predicted level of 36 per cent, the result for Queensland will be a loss of some $80 million annually. That is a shift of $80 million from the public health sector, with no evidence that there will be a corresponding shift of the burden on the public sector.The states are understandably concerned about these arrangements. And they have a right to be. The states were not aware of the government's plan when, in good faith, they signed the Australian health care agreements. And they can see the funds used to provide the services that simply cannot be provided by the private sector, for reasons of location or specialty, being whittled away and having to be provided by a state with limited capacity—and soon to be no capacity—for raising the revenue.We know that the federal government are working toward a national private health care membership level of 36 per cent—that is what they are spending the money on. But the government have made it clear that the basis for proceeding with lifetime health cover is that it will come at no cost. Well, we have to ask: where is the money coming from? It is very evident that the public hospital sector will pay, without any evidence whatsoever that the pressure on that system will be reduced.Queensland has had an interesting relationship with private health care. My state has historically had low levels of private health insurance—it currently stands at just over 28 per cent, compared to the national average of 30.3 per cent. But Queensland also exhibits a far more stable relationship with the private funds. When private coverage fell nationally by some 14 per cent in the 10 years from 1989, in Queensland the figures fell by less than three per cent. Thus, we have a lower but more stable private health insurance participation rate.At the same time the figures show that our private hospital share of the hospital market has grown. In the five years to 1998, the private hospital share of hospital services provided in my state grew from 31 per cent to 36 per cent. But those figures can be misleading: they are not comparing apples with apples. Private hospitals have focused on elective and day surgery, while our public system continues to treat patients with chronic and complex health conditions. Despite the growth in the private hospital sector, there has been little impact on the demand for public hospital services. It is too simplistic to assume that the availability of a private provider will mean that people will choose to use it for all their hospital services. Furthermore, it is the experience in Queensland that private patients do choose to use the public system.As you may know, Queensland Health provides what is nationally recognised as an excellent and efficient elective surgery pro gram. It is a program that operates in public hospitals for public patients and, where there is capacity, privately insured patients as well. But, from modelling the demands on this program, it is the opinion of Queensland Health that considerable numbers of privately insured patients choose to use the program as public patients. The utilisation of this program is above and beyond the expected demands, based on projections for a growing population, an ageing demographic and existing levels of private health care. There is also anecdotal evidence from Queensland Health that patients anxious about the gap payments for some procedures are advised to use the public program for non-urgent procedures—and they use it for free.The Senate committee inquiring into this legislation heard evidence of people shopping around for low cost health cover without having any intention to use it. This is also a concern in Queensland. There is no incentive in the government's proposals to encourage people, especially young healthy people this bill is supposed to be targeting, to take out comprehensive hospital cover. Young people and many other informed consumers who are concerned about the long-term implications of lifetime rating can simply take out a cheap private policy and continue to use the public system.Recent private health insurance data shows that, while overall figures for private health insurance have fallen, there has been growth in one sector of the market, front-end deductible policies and exclusionary policies; in essence a shift toward cheaper policies offering a lower level of care. These are not policies which lessen the demand on our public system. In fact in Queensland people who have purchased low cost private health cover are increasingly using the public hospital system. They have initially purchased these policies to avoid the Medicare surcharge and now have the ability to insulate themselves from the penalties contained in the lifetime health cover proposals.One of the principles of the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 is the desire to attract young people to private health insurance and keep them there. The Labor amendment to provide a further incentive to young people under the age of 30 should be supported as a measure which will encourage participation. The Institute of Actuaries' submission to the Senate committee said:The closer the scale of the contribution rates is to the actual cost for each age then the more likely young healthy people are to take out private health insurance.Young people do not have high levels of disposable income. They are a healthy group in our community and they are focused on their immediate futures, not their old age when they may be in need of more expensive health services.I am concerned that the advice provided by the youth sector to the Senate committee seems to have been overlooked. The National Youth Initiative said in their submission:The National Youth Initiative believes that this bill will have little or no impact on the numbers of young people taking out private cover . . . The obvious result of this for the public system is viewed only as continued strain and pressure.Yet the government continues to pursue its simplistic equation. The government premise is that you just have to increase the number of privately insured and there will be a corresponding decrease on the demand for the public hospital system. I am sorry, but the states are not telling us that that will happen, and the evidence before us simply does not add up.As I said earlier, if the Howard government achieves its aim of 36 per cent private coverage, our hospitals will lose nationally up to $200 million annually. In Queensland that is $80 million every year. Let us take a moment to think what that might mean. If you take $80 million out of the Queensland health budget, what could happen on the ground? In Queensland that is equivalent to over 117,000 public hospital admission; that is, over 117,000 Queenslanders could be denied access through the public system to such procedures as eye, thoracic, gynaecological or urology surgery. Eighty million dollars is greater than the entire elective surgery budget in Queensland. Eighty million dollars per annum could mean the loss of twelve 30-bed public wards and the decommissioning of operating rooms. It is equivalent to 1,500 jobs in the public system. Our nurses alone are recognised as one of the public system's greatest assets. Of course, some of those jobs are based in provincial and rural areas. It means cutting Queensland's efforts to make quality hospital care available to all Queenslanders by up to $80 million.As I said, $80 million out of the public system is equivalent to over 117,000 admissions in the public system. The idea that all those people want or can afford to seek treatment in the private system is unsustainable. There is not the capacity, and more to the point, there is not the wish of Queenslanders to seek private cover or private procedures. We like our public system. It has a unique history dating back to the 1930s. I suggest that this government is prepared to sacrifice it, and for what? A system that some people cannot afford, that many people do not like and which most people choose not to belong to.It is clear where we will end up under this government's ill-targeted and ill-considered private health care recruitment drive. If you take money from the public system on the basis of that incorrect assumption about the links between private membership and pressure on public health facilities, you will end up with pressure from state governments to limit access to public hospitals. We have already heard it from Liberal premiers Kennett—if he still is—and Court, who have advocated that entry into public hospitals should be means tested. Richard Court went even further to say that the public system should be limited only to those who receive social security benefits. This is the real philosophy behind this bill; to develop a health system of haves and have-nots and to move to an American style health system of health for the rich and, sorry, if you are poor. This bill is driven by the Liberal philosophy of user-pays if you can afford it.This is another attempt by this government to cost shift the health bill to the states, just as they did with the Commonwealth dental program which has simply been defunded in Queensland to the tune of $20 million annually. This tab has had to be picked up by the Queensland government. The Queensland government realises that the program provides excellent dental services to those Queenslanders who cannot access dental services because of their location or their means. The Commonwealth government do not care about the dental health of these Queenslanders, and do not care about the impact of the potential loss of up to $80 million from our public hospital system.I sympathise with the states. They were not aware of the government's plan when they signed on to the Australian health care agreements. If the lifetime health cover is to proceed, there must be assurances that there will be no reduction in public hospital funding, and in particular a clawback in public funding which is not related to actual demand for public hospital services. Without these assurances, what we have is an attack on the public hospital system and an attack on the principle of universal coverage under Medicare.The Australian public and the Australian Labor Party support Medicare and support its provision of universality of access to free hospital services. We will not be part of arrangements which erode that principle and force the states to question the merit of equitable access to health services in an environment of inadequate funding arrangements with the Commonwealth.12:29:008788Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 . As stated in Labor's minority report, `the concept of unfunded lifetime community rating is sound', and as has been mentioned by previous speakers, it has support pretty well across the board in the industry and many other groups. However, this is qualified by suggesting that it needs to be well-designed reform. Unfortunately, we are again faced with a policy full of glaring omissions and optimistic costing.To begin, the cut-off age of 65 has problems. It fails to account for individuals who have retired at an early age. Thus pensioners under 65 will be unduly penalised once the grace period is over. Another assumption is that the health problems of those who join will be less on the whole than current members. This is an important aspect as, remember, the motivation for these reforms is to make the funds more viable.Thus if the influx of new members places inordinate demands on health funds via a need for expensive treatment, the purpose of the exercise becomes redundant. It may be possible that the intent of the policy is to provide a revenue positive outcome for the industry. It could be reversed, with a revenue negative outcome for the industry being a probable end result. This would severely compromise the industry and the government's aims would be left in tatters. HCF and MBF, which both suggested the possibility of an older average group joining particularly in the initial grace period, have alluded to this possibility. This would of course result in an influx of high-cost demands in the short term which may not be reduced in the long term. Ian McAuley suggested that a rush to join the funds in the initial grace period by the 57- to 65-year-olds could result in `a body blow to the industry'. This again challenges the costing assumptions of the model.Unduly optimistic projections of a growth in participation rates by Trowbridge further undermine the assumptions of the policy. To suggest that participation rates will reach 35 per cent by the end of the grace period is fanciful. Additionally, the Trowbridge model relies on an exaggerated negative projection of participation rates without the policy changes. To suggest that rates would fall to 20 per cent is overtly pessimistic and, other than unsubstantiated opinion, challenges the philosophical underpinnings of the model completely. Further alternative outcomes include the possibility of a freeze on new entries for the over 30s as they become unwilling to pay the penalty. If, at the same time, the take-up rate of the under 30s does not increase, a cycle of increasing costs and dropping membership could result in premium rises of 20 per cent over five years.One of the concerns raised was the propensity of consumers to take low cost products thus avoiding the Medicare surcharge. This also allows consumers to avoid any future penalties and does not exclude them from simply upgrading to a more comprehensive coverage in the future. Thus a variation of hit and run is possible as healthy consumers pay the minimum contribution at the low cost product end and simply switch to a higher coverage as health concerns become an issue. Furthermore, if the heath problem is high cost but transitory, once it is dealt with they can drop back to the low cost end and simply switch back and forward depending on their own perception of their health status. Thus a quasi hit-and-run scenario is viable.Accountants will most likely advise their clients to join en masse for one month prior to June 2000. This will enable consumers to avoid the penalties from that point forward for every subsequent year they join. Remember, the main intent of this policy is to reward the genuine long-term members and to discourage the economic manipulation of funds by consumers or their advisers.As other speakers have said, migrants are not catered for in this bill. Through no fault of their own, many will come to Australia after the age of 30. This will mean they will attract a penalty for not joining at a younger age. How can they, when they are not in this country? This is obviously discriminatory and will most likely result in low rates of participation in private health insurance from new arrivals. Thus, over time, new arrivals will represent lower rates of private health insurance than is currently the case. Obviously, this will mean migrants will have a disproportionate reliance on the public system. It does not take much imagination to see the warning signs of a truly entrenched two-tier system emerging, with low income earners and migrants increasingly relying on an underfunded public health system.Most health experts agree that illness is related to income and status. Thus the higher cost demographic groups will still be overrepresented in the public system. This would not be a concern if the participation rates in private health were not related to public health funding, but they are.It is worth remembering that, once the private health insurance rates reach 36 per cent, states will lose $200 million under a clause in the Australian health care agree ments. Thus, if the optimistic projections of this policy come to fruition, it is highly probable that the growth in participation rates will be at the low end cost range. Private health consumers may still rely on the public health system for expensive procedures not covered by the lower cost private health insurance policies. When I was on the committee that was inquiring into this issue, we did hear people admit that was what they were doing.Thus a duality is constructed that will see a fall in public health funding based on the flawed theory that higher rates of private health insurance will always reduce the need for public health funding. If the policy was tight, this may be true but this is not the case with this bill. Many in this chamber will have very little regard for the rights of those who serve time at Her Majesty's pleasure—that is, in prison. We are still overseen by the monarchy, but hopefully we will not be after the end of this year when it may then be at the `President's pleasure'.Regardless of one's view of the socially challenged, this policy will result in an added punishment for those who are already incarcerated. If an individual is to serve more than a year or so, or will be in prison at the introduction of this legislation, they will incur a penalty for not joining should their release date coincide with an age of over 30. Again, prisoners represent for a variety of social reasons, mainly economic disadvantage, a high cost to the public health system. Again, we are seeing the higher cost demographic groups most likely relying completely on the public health system for their care with an unintended disincentive for those who could or would take up private health insurance.Refugees are in a similar predicament to migrants—and we will probably see a growth in this because of the dreadful situation in East Timor. After having to endure the emotional burden of often involuntary removal from their country, they could be penalised if they arrive here after the age of 30. Many refugees may benefit from extra cover for post-traumatic stress counselling or medical care needed as a result of their physical legacy of torture—and that is good, they should.If public health is further eroded by this Howard government's philosophical bias against Medicare, refugees may well be faced with lengthy delays in receiving care when time is of vital importance, particularly in the case of post-trauma counselling. Again, refugees over 30 after June 2000 will face a prohibitive penalty that realistically translates to a reduction in choice for this group. Yet again, a high cost demographic will be completely reliant on the public system, further challenging the correlation between higher private insurance and less funding for public health. I see that a lot in the area where I live on the north-west coast of Tasmania. We have one private hospital and a number of public hospitals, and the public hospitals particularly are drained because the area is economically poorer.Often people in relationships pay their contributions under the one scheme. It is therefore imperative that, should their normal contributions cease for a variety of reasons, should one party discontinue paying their contributions, all parties should be informed of the end of payment. Another oversight of this bill is that there is no provision for this to occur. The implications are obvious, given the premium paid is reliant on length of membership. Thus an individual may not know that their partner's contributions have ceased and therefore receive a unfair penalty. We all realise this could happen if a partnership break-up was a controversial one. In fact, in the most extreme cases, the non-payment may constitute a deliberate aggressive action to disadvantage a former partner.The continuing problem of gap payments is not mentioned in this bill, and yet time and time again this issue has been shown as the largest contributing factor in individuals deciding not to take out private health insurance. Fixing the issue of gap payments might be a more equitable way of achieving an increased participation than many of the flawed proposals contained in this bill, and many constituents have discussed this issue with me. The gap payment is one of the main reasons that people do not want to take out private health insurance.This bill also does nothing to fix a crisis in the public health system. Tasmania, like many other states, is experiencing a shortage of nurses. There are many nurses who have left the industry and will not return under the current working conditions, and that is because the public hospital system is being run down. Often focusing entirely on waiting lists and throughput has overlooked this. Thus, fewer people are attracted into the profession, and those with long-term experience are finding the conditions they are working under unacceptable.They are not just unacceptable in terms of their own self-interest, many feel they cannot adequately fulfil the expectations of the clients. This invariably leads to a loop that includes lack of job satisfaction, lowering self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy with no end in sight. Finally they leave, taking the corporate knowledge with them. Recently, on the north-west coast, a group of doctors made an appointment to see me to discuss these issues, and there has been a great deal of concern about this particular issue where I live.The government may attempt to shift the blame to the states. However, the states can fund public health need only according to the grants received from the Commonwealth. As mentioned, this bill could achieve greater pressure on the public health system as young healthy people take out low cost insurance, thus leaving high cost groups and high cost procedures to the care of public health. Rather than acknowledging this and increasing health funding, public health will be punished via the removal of funds if private health insurance reaches a certain level.Again, we are faced with a bill that aims to achieve one thing—that is, unfunded lifetime community rating—but it is unlikely to achieve it. Instead, there is a distinct possibility that the funds will have to be bailed out yet again, if the types of consumers they are seeking do not arrive. Finally, I doubt that the proposed advertisement campaign will achieve anything other than misinformation and fear. I suggest it will be yet another example of wasting money that could have been spent where it is needed most—that is, on public health.12:44:008791Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—in reply—I am pleased to acknowledge many of the comments that have been made in this debate on the second reading of the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 , particularly those today by Senator Lees, and the fact that the Australian Democrats and the Minister for Health and Aged Care have been able to reach an accord on this that will be very important. The government is committed to ensuring a balance between the public and the private health sectors, and this legislation goes a long way in that regard.There were a number of issues raised that I am sure will be addressed in the committee stage. But the fact is that we will be able to better inform consumers and guarantee and underpin the differences that may have arisen previously between the public and the private health sector systems. I commend the bill.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—The question is that the bill be read a second time. Those in favour say aye—8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—No, time's up. We have past the time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The ayes have it. I call the Clerk.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—No. I am going to take a point of order on this, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The ayes have it.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—The time had come to move to another item, and I do not think it was appropriate that that matter be put.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—I'd summed up.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—No. You had finished and summed up after the appropriate time to move to non-controversial matters, and I do not think it was appropriate that a matter be put at that time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think that is right, but it was only a matter of a few seconds. It is a technical matter. So that vote, therefore, is deemed not to have been put.Debate interrupted.Bills8791r8518791Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Patterson:That this bill be now read a second time.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Mr Acting Deputy President, I just raise this issue. My understanding was, and perhaps it slipped through this morning, that the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 would not be dealt with in noncontroversial matters, and that was a matter that I raised with the PLO. If it did go through this morning, as I say, that may have escaped me. But the fact of the matter is that this was not a bill which we understood would be proceeded with today.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator O'Brien, would you adjourn the debate then?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I was advised that the DLOs had agreed to it going through and the speakers were to be Senator Bolkus and then me in response and that there were no amendments from either the government or the opposition. I am happy, if it is appropriate, to have the business organised to bring on the war crimes legislation and to discuss in the interim whether the customs tariff legislation will come on. If you do not have the answer by then, we will go on to the law and justice bill and I will accommodate you.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator O'Brien, would you like to move that the debate be adjourned?Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned. Bills8792s2198792Debate resumed from 23 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:48:008792Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—In speaking to the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 , I point out to the Senate that I am definitely not implying that any Australian Defence Force personnel who served in World War II may have been involved in any conduct that was unbecoming, but neither can I accept the risk or the possibility that any Australian Defence Force personnel could be extradited for war crimes without the establishment of a prima facie case against them, and that will be the case if the government's proposal to amend the War Crimes Act 1945 is carried.The amendment I will move in the committee stage will ensure that any proceedings in an Australian state or territory under the Extradition Act 1988 and the War Crimes Act 1945 and involving a member of the Australian Defence Force will require a magistrate to be satisfied as to the veracity of the allegation and that a prima facie case exists before extradition is possible. I do not accept the argument that we need to water down the inherent protections contained in our legal system to comply with a request from another country, just as I do not accept the arguments that we should arbitrarily lower our quarantine standards either.We cannot predict the vagaries of the legal system or the consequences of future legal action. We cannot assume that what has transpired in the past will do so in the future. It would be a travesty if any Australian Defence Force personnel were extradited as a result of this action of the government without the establishment of a prima facie case against them, and that is why I intend to move my amendment today. If the government subsequently enacts war crime legislation that would cover subsequent conflicts that had occurred since the Second World War and the intention of that was also to protect Australian Defence Force personnel and their support people, then I would support the government in its endeavours to protect our service men and women and the people who have supported them since the Second World War.In concluding, I reiterate to the Senate two things: I am not about protecting any war criminals in Australia who may be residing here, and I am definitely not implying that any Australian defence personnel have actually carried out any such conduct.12:52:008792Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I would like to thank Senator Harris for his contribution, although we will not be able to support his amendment. The War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 repeals section 22 of the War Crimes Act 1945. Section 22 imposes a specific requirement for the content of extradition requests to Australia in respect of conduct which will be covered by the act, that is, certain crimes committed in Europe during World War II. Currently such requests must be accompanied by the presentation of evidence which establishes a prima facie case that the person has committed the alleged conduct. The main justification for the repeal of section 22 is that it is no longer appropriate to include this onerous requirement for war crimes extraditions, particularly following the emergence of newly independent states in Europe from behind the Iron Curtain.In principle, Australia is interested in establishing modern extradition arrangements with such countries should they be accepted as members of the Council of Europe. Enactment of this bill, together with the conclusion of such arrangements, will increase significantly our ability to cooperate with other countries which seek our assistance in bringing alleged war criminals to trial.With respect to the amendment that Senator Harris has put forward, the government's response is that it rejects any implication that Australians who served in Europe during World War II may have been involved in war crimes, and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Commonwealth parliament to endorse such a suggestion in legislation by enacting laws specifying that these persons require special measures to protect them from such allegations. The Minister for Justice and Customs has corresponded with the National President of the RSL on this issue, and I understand that the RSL has indicated its acceptance of the government's position. For these reasons, we will not be supporting Senator Harris's amendment. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8793The bill.Amendment (by Senator Harris) proposed:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 2 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute:1 Subsection 22(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (12) Subsection (3) applies in proceedings that are conducted in a State or Territory under section 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 in relation to a person, where the magistrate is satisfied that: (a) at the time at which the relevant conduct is alleged to have occurred, the person was a member of the Australian Defence Force; and (b) there are substantial grounds for believing that an extradition offence for which the extradition country concerned seeks the person's surrender is constituted by conduct constituting an offence against this Act. Note: The heading to section 22 is altered by omitting "Persons " and substituting "Former ADF members ".2 At the end of section 22 Add: (6) In this section, member of the Australian Defence Force means a person who was at the relevant time: (a) a member of the Navy, Army or Air Force; or (b) a member of any nursing service or women's service attached or auxiliary to any branch of the Defence Force; and includes a member of the canteens staff of any ship of the Navy and any person duly accredited to any part of the Defence Force who has served in an official capacity on full-time paid duty; 12:55:008793O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The opposition will not be supporting this amendment.12:55:008793Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I am very well aware at this point in time that we have service personnel, Australian defence forces, in East Timor, and I very clearly understand that the jurisdiction that they serve under comes under four different areas: Australian domestic law for civilians, domestic law for the theatre of deployment, international law and the Defence Force Discipline Act. So there are clearly procedures in place now in respect of unmilitary conduct by our Defence Force personnel.Again, I clearly intimate that the intention of this amendment is not, as the minister has inferred, in any way to imply that Australian Defence Force personnel have in actuality carried out any war crimes. However, if we go back to the history in relation to this War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 , there have been issues raised in both houses regarding defence personnel who served Australia during World War II. The reason that the bill only refers to a certain group of Australian personnel is the time line in actuality that the bill refers to. So the time is a function of the bill itself.Another aspect of this whole situation is that I believe that in Australia we need to protect the sovereign rights of the Australian people. In Australia we are clearly innocent until we are proven guilty. The government's proposal to remove section 22 from the War Crimes Act will remove the necessity for a person to prove in an Australian court of law that there is a prima facie case against Australian Defence Force personnel. That is in the light of doing two things: first, retaining our right to be innocent until proven guilty; and, second, supporting our defence personnel who have served their country.We, as well as the minister, have spoken with the President of the RSL, and initially it is my understanding that he was not aware that the government was going to pass this amendment bill that had the possibility to impact on RSL servicemen. Obviously from the minister's comments, the government has subsequently been in touch with the RSL and, accepting the minister's reply, the RSL has accepted the explanation of the government. I do not doubt that in any way.I reiterate that the purpose is to protect our returned servicemen and also to maintain in Australia that we have the right to consider ourselves innocent until we are proven guilty. There is an example of that just recently: it was very explicitly shown in the international courts, when the two Australian CARE workers were faced with the problem, that they were guilty until they proved their innocence; and we all know the protracted situation. It took an enormous amount of work on behalf of the Australian government to secure their release.In commending the amendment to the chamber, I clearly reiterate that we are not about protecting any war criminals who are living in Australia. What we are about is ensuring that our Defence Force personnel have the protection of being innocent until they are proven guilty and, in essence, have somebody who would wish to extradite them come to this country and prove a prima facie case.Amendment not agreed to.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.8794Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills8794r8518794Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Patterson:That this bill be now read a second time.13:02:008794O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Senator Bolkus was intending to speak on this matter, but he has been unavoidably detained. I am instructed to say that the opposition support the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 and are happy for it to proceed immediately.13:02:008794Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—in reply—I thank the opposition honourable senators. I commend the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills8794r6758794Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.13:04:008794Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 amends the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to allow additional judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to be included in the full court in appeals in the Supreme Court. I note that, when the ACT took over the responsibility for the ACT Supreme Court, the Commonwealth agreed to provide funding for the three judges of that court. That funding will be maintained.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills8794r886Billsr8878794Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.13:05:008794Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate on behalf of the Labor opposition that we will be supporting the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 .13:05:008795Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators and note that the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 will significantly increase success rates for reuniting people with their superannuation. I thank the chamber for its support. I commend the bills to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills8795r8488795Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Patterson:That this bill be now read a second time.13:07:008795Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate on behalf of the Labor opposition that we will be supporting the Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999 . It provides for powers to provide for better fine enforcement. We support the bill.13:07:008795Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their support. I commend the Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999 to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8795The bill.01:08:008795Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I table a correction to the replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999 .Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.8795Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills8795r891Billsr8708795Debate resumed from 25 August, on motion by Senator Ellison:That these bills be now read a second time.13:09:008795Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition supports the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 is a simple mechanism for the ABA to collect increased fees over the next three years to recover costs incurred by the ABA. I am informed that the increased fees will be $3.4 million over the next three years. The Commonwealth collects $194 million in television broadcasting fees. In that context, it is a very modest increase indeed. The opposition supports the increase.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 deals with issues which include the introduction of digital television, which we will be dealing with soon. The opposition want to note that there are still a number of unanswered questions and issues that have to be put before this parliament about the introduction of digital television. In the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill, which came before the parliament and was passed in 1998, the minister was given specific instructions by legislation to report back on a whole range of regulatory arrangements for the introduction of digital television. We note that those reviews are under way, and we hope that they are coming very rapidly to their conclusion. We expect that the minister will report to cabinet in September and October for the government to make a decision in respect of those matters and to have the matters before the parliament before the end of the year. We also note that the minister recently adverted to the fact that this may come back into parliament early next year, which would be February or March of next year.We would point out that the longer the minister leaves the reporting back to parliament on the introduction of digital television, the more he creates some tension about planning arrangements. The commitment which the opposition supported was for digital broadcasting to commence in metropolitan areas by 1 January 2001. We point out that, if the resolutions are not to be dealt with until February and March of next year, the deadline becomes quite pressing. We would hope that the minister does not leave it too late. We also want to warn that the opposition will not be stampeded into a cursory approval of the legislation next year on the basis that, if it is not passed, the introduction date will not be achieved. The government has known since last year that that is the deadline, and we will not be stampeded by that deadline. It is up to the government to give appropriate time for the parliament to deal with digital television issues.13:12:008796Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank Senator Schacht for his contribution. It is interesting, Senator Schacht, that I am talking about digital TV with you again. I have been advised that the reviews are on track. I have also been advised that no rush with the legislation is anticipated. There will be time to examine it. I commend the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills8796r8378796Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.13:14:008796Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The opposition will be supporting the bill.13:14:008796Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I acknowledge the cooperation of the chamber and commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8796The bill.13:15:008796Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Minister, I just wondered if you could tell me how much money this bill is providing to the states.13:15:008796Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, which was circulated by the Treasurer, outlines the financial impact statement of the bill. It states:The arrangements to be established by this Bill provide for the payment to the States in 1999-2000 of general revenue assistance estimated at around $17.7 billion and revenue replacement payments of around $6.8 billion.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.8796Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills8796r8468796Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:17:008797Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition supports this bill. The object of the legislation is to remove a description which is presently in the act, which says:. . . to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.The proposal from the government was to substitute that with the following words:. . . in meeting those objects, to work with other agencies (as appropriate) and to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in subsection 21(3) of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 and the social impacts of international tourism in Australia.Following concerns from various groups in the community, who felt that the new wording was too soft from an environmental perspective, the Labor Party—led by my colleague Joel Fitzgibbon, the shadow minister for tourism—negotiated new wording to give greater balance. Those words are:. . . in meeting those objects, to work with other relevant agencies to promote the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in subsection 21(3) of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 and to seek to raise awareness of the social and cultural impacts of international tourism in Australia.The opposition is pleased to see that the government has accepted, after negotiation, that new form of words and as a result the opposition is pleased to support the bill.13:18:008797Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I would like to express the support of the Australian Democrats for this bill. I would also indicate that I intend to move an amendment in the committee stage and to speak briefly to that.13:19:008797Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—In anticipation of the amendment, which has been circulated, the government agrees to the amendment to the bill circulated by the Australian Democrats. The bill will remove an anomaly from the Australian Tourist Commission Act and give the commission a workable object in respect of its environmental and social responsibilities. It will remove the problem that the commission has of being held accountable for something that it cannot achieve. It will also remove the need for the commission to direct resources towards activities which are unrelated to its core business.This amendment does not remove the requirement for the commission to be responsible for the social and environmental effects of international tourism. Rather, it brings the commission's responsibilities into line with its powers and capabilities in this area. Linking the commission's environmental responsibilities to the principles of ecologically sustainable development, as set out in the Natural Heritage Trust Act, provides the commission with a clear working definition of its responsibilities and maintains consistency between Commonwealth agencies in this area. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8797The bill.13:20:008797Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I rise to make a few brief comments in relation to my amendment so that my reasons for proposing it are more clearly understood. The Australian Democrats agree with the rationale behind the government's amendment to change the objectives of the Australian Tourist Commission so that they are more meaningful and achievable, especially in relation to environmental protection. However, the Democrats have concerns that the government's amendment could result in a situation where the Australian Tourist Commission would actually be required to do very little in relation to environmental protection and the minimisation of the social impacts of international tourists in Australia.I think most Australians are fairly cynical about what the words `to have regard to' actually require government agencies to do. In the context of environmental protection, they have tended to mean that very little action has been taken. The amendment that the Australian Democrats seek to move today provides a clear directive to the Australian Tourist Commission to be proactive on environmental matters while at the same time not placing a restrictive or prescriptive burden on the agency. It will follow that the ATC will continue to promote Australia internationally as a preferred tourist destination while at the same time ensure that the ATC works with the relevant agencies to protect our unique and fragile environment.I want to move on very quickly to talk about another important aspect of the amendment and that is the inclusion of the need to minimise the cultural impacts of international tourists in Australia as well as the social aspects. Recent government initiatives, such as the commencement of work on a code of conduct for international tourists who intend to visit indigenous communities, suggest that the government is becoming more aware of the need to tread more carefully when it comes to cultural matters. The Democrats believe that many international travellers also want to be more aware and mindful of the sensitivities and protocols they should observe while visiting this country. They would therefore appreciate guidance from the ATC on these matters—not just on indigenous protocols but also those of other cultures that now enrich the nation. I believe this to be particularly the case next year when Australia hosts the Olympic Games and, undoubtedly, experiences a sharp increase in international visitors. The Democrats believe that these objectives are clearly expressed in the amendment we seek to move, and I commend this amendment to the Senate. I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 5 to 11), omit the item, substitute:1 Paragraph 6(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) in meeting those objects, to work with other relevant agencies to promote the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in subsection 21(3) of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 and to seek to raise awareness of the social and cultural impacts of international tourism in Australia.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.8798Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.13:24:008798Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their cooperation in dealing with these non-controversial bills with such speed. I thought we would not be through by 2 o'clock.Sitting suspended from 1.24 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice879887988798Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill representing the Prime Minister. I refer to Major General Cosgrove's confirmation on Tuesday this week that it will be `a number of weeks rather than days' before INTERFET is in a position to have a presence throughout East Timor. Given the murder of the Dutch journalist, the reports of continued killings outside the small areas presently under the control of INTERFET and the shooting incidents which have occurred this morning, what steps is the government taking to establish the extent of the continuing violence?8798Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As Senator Faulkner will be aware, the plan is obviously to expand the net and provide the protection to the people of East Timor that is necessary: firstly, to address the humanitarian concerns; secondly, to provide a stable environment for a return to something like normality and; thirdly, to allow for a transition period pursuant to the original arrangements under which the vote was taken. If I interpreted Senator Faulkner's question correctly, he is asking me exactly how much of East Timor is now being covered by United Nations forces. I obviously cannot give him that information today but, as he would be aware, the force is expanding its coverage—as I understand it, it is now protecting the second airport, which enables another access opportunity for humanitarian aid and other support—and will provide the security that is its mission as fully and as effectively as possible.8799Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government consider that the INTERFET force is sufficient in terms of size and resources to establish and maintain security in the whole of East Timor?8799Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I understand it, the government is certainly satisfied with the capacity of the force to provide for stability and humanitarian concerns. Again, I am not absolutely sure exactly where Senator Faulkner is leading with this question. To some extent, time will tell. It is certainly regarded by the government as being adequate to restore stability. How matters will evolve in the longer term is yet to be seen but, speaking very generally, Australia is encouraged by the level of international support that has been given to this force. The number of countries that are prepared to come on board and play a part is encouraging, to say the very least. So far, the deployment seems to have been effected efficiently and capably. (Time expired)87998799Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is also directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will the minister inform the Senate of the benefits in relation to job creation and economic growth of the government's moves to reform business taxation?8799Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I welcome the opportunity to add my voice of commendation to the Howard government's continuing moves to reform the taxation system of Australia to provide the opportunity for business, and in particular small business, to grow and to employ more Australians. That is what this government has been about—and very effectively to date. Growing the economy, providing employment opportunities and job security for Australians, has been our key priority, and it is a priority that is being met. We have—it is beyond dispute—performed strongly as a country under responsible economic management. Since the Howard government came to office, we have been able to achieve more than 500,000 new jobs to date. The economy, as we all know, continues to grow strongly. Economic growth is at some 4½ per cent for 1998-99, which is a remarkable occurrence with the background of the Asian economic crisis. Inflation and interest rates remain at historically low levels, consistently below the levels seen in the last 30 years.This strong performance has been brought about in no small part by our government's commitment to sound economic management. As I said, an important part of that has been taxation reform, something that can supplement and support our efforts to get the budget back in surplus—which we achieved—and to put in place the fiscal restraints that are necessary to keep interest rates and inflation down and give small business the chance to grow. Taxation reform was long overdue, and this government set about that task as well. We know it has already got through the first major phase of taxation reform—getting rid of the wholesale sales tax, putting in place the GST and so forth. Reform of corporate taxation was also long overdue, and the paper that the government has now released will affect that as well. I remind you, Madam Deputy President, that lower company tax rates will be introduced in two stages to 30 per cent, which will be among the lowest company tax rates within our region. This will encourage greater investment and give Australian businesses the chance to grow and, most importantly, create new jobs.We will change the capital gains tax regime, again providing incentives for business to save and invest, in particular delivering major benefits to small businesses. We will reduce the compliance burden for 95 per cent of small businesses and about 99 per cent of primary producers—in other words, get tax rates down for corporate Australia and reduce the compliance burdens. We are really giving an incentive to small businesses to grow. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants said of this package:This is groundbreaking reform. On the face of it, accountants could be upset because there will be less work for CPAs.In other words, less compliance costs is good news for small business. The new business tax system will provide Australia with internationally competitive business tax arrange ments. What a contrast to what Labor delivered in its 13 years in government! And what a contrast—a government that is delivering new policy and implementing it—from Labor in opposition because even in opposition Labor cannot settle upon policies. (Time expired)8800Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate please enlarge on the benefits to the Australian economy of business tax reform and the alternatives that are being offered?8800Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There are no alternatives because Labor, although it has been in opposition for four years, still has not been able to deliver taxation policies. Senator Sherry said they cannot do it—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Don't you even read? You've got to concentrate and follow the game.BH4Senator HILL—No, I am sorry, Senator Cook; you are right. Senator Cook said at the last election, `Let's put up taxes on four-wheel drives.' That was the Labor Party's taxation reform policy at the last election, which was rejected overwhelmingly by the Australian people who wanted real reform—get rid of the indirect taxes, bring in a comprehensive, modern, direct taxation system, get down corporate taxation rates, get down capital gains tax and give opportunities to business to expand. Yes, this is a contrast from Labor, because we can draw the policies and deliver them whereas Labor, according to Senator Sherry, cannot do anything until next year after the national conference gives its direction. (Time expired)88008800Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the minister's dismissive and abusive response to questions yesterday in regard to the capacity of the Australian Defence Force to rotate troops through the East Timor deployment.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is clearly not acceptable to preface a question with those sorts of slighting comments. They are contrary to standing orders.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are you saying it's unparliamentary?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—It might be true. You went mad yesterday; try to restrain yourselves today. Madam Deputy President, I ask you that you direct that that part of the question be deleted.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order: the questioner described some comments as `dismissive and abusive'. Neither of those terms is unparliamentary. Senator Alston knows it. Again, he is wasting time taking a spurious point of order to try to ensure that Senator Newman can turn up a brief and try to fumble through an answer to the question.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. However, it is not parliamentary to reflect upon other members.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: if it is unparliamentary, does that not mean as of necessity that it ought be withdrawn and cannot be said? I recall yesterday that people were not allowed to be called `duffers' according to your ruling. But now today it appears that you can accuse somebody of being abusive and that is not a reflection. We need to have some consistency, Madam Deputy President, and I would be obliged if you could exercise your mind and indicate to us what the ruling is.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are you saying it's unparliamentary?7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—`Duffer' is.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—`Duffer' actually relates to cattle stealing. Senator Collins, it is not out of order, but I would urge the more circumspect use of language.GB6Senator JACINTA COLLINS—I indicate that I am happy to withdraw those comments made with respect to my question and other questions asked of the minister yesterday. But, in withdrawing those comments, may I reiterate that the issues were the damaging effect—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—No, you can't.GB6Senator JACINTA COLLINS—I am repeating the question, Senator Alston: the damaging effect of the Howard government's run-down of the reserves and of removing reserve service provisions from awards. Is the minister aware that the President of the Defence Reserves Association, retired Major General Glenny, has made a statement this morning echoing these very same concerns, including protesting at this government's lack of protection for the jobs of reservists who are called up to action? In light of these very credible criticisms of the Howard government's approach to the Australian Defence Force reserve resources, will the minister now inform the Senate of the government's plan? (Time expired)8801Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am very glad that Senator Collins has given me a chance to add to what I told her yesterday. May I first of all say that, yes, I heard General Glenny talking on AM this morning about conditions of service and I must say I have met Mr Glenny over some years. He is now retired.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—`General' to you.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Yes, he is a general but he is no longer serving as a general. I think that he is not, in fact, as well informed as he might be on the current situation. I would also point out to the Senate that the minister, Mr Moore, has today rejected utterly General Glenny's comments.I point out that the question relates to the so-called damaging effect of the run-down of the reserves. I point out that the Ready Reserve—which seems to be a bone of contention with the Labor Party—and which should, I think, have been regarded as a pilot scheme, was an extremely expensive scheme. It certainly turned out some very well trained people. It was a very elite third level of the Defence Force. But the big problem was that the Army could not find them after they had completed their training. They disappeared into the smoke. A whole lot of them could not be located. A fat lot of good to readiness that is.When we came into government we said it was more important to have a reserve force which is very well trained and equipped to the levels of the regulars. We have now got about 2,500 reservists who have been trained to exactly the same level and have gone through the same initial training as have regulars. That to me is a sustainable way and a proper way to have a reserve force in support of a regular force. We need all those with combat and combat related skills to be ready to deploy. That is what we have done. We have had two brigades ready to deploy, which never could have happened under the previous government. They are regulars. We have already said if there is a need for specialist skills and they are not found in the Regular Army they will be provided by the reservists. That is traditional—that has always been—and they will be there.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam Deputy President, do they really care about the personnel over there or do they just want to make another political stunt? We brought a second brigade group into place. We introduced the Army Individual Readiness Notice, and personnel must now meet set fitness requirements and be ready to deploy. It focuses on individual soldiers and their need to be combat ready. They primarily rely on our regular forces. As I said, reserve specialists, such as medical officers, are a vital component, as they always have been in other deployments of this kind. Reservists are a very important part of our overall defence capability. We have got some 20,000 personnel in the Army Reserve, the Navy has got 1,300 personnel and the RAAF has got 1,600 personnel. As I have just said, 2,500 Army reservists are recent trainees who have been trained to the same level as our regular forces under the common induction training initiative. They were ignored by the Labor Party. For 13 years the general reserve was run down, poorly equipped and not given optimum training. (Time expired)N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Earlier on in question time you assisted the Senate by suggesting what the definition of `duffer' was.Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! the level of noise in the whole chamber is far too high. Senator Abetz, you have the call.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I was wondering if you could assist the Senate by indicating which dictionary definition you used, because the Macquarie Dictionary tells me that, amongst a number of definitions for the term `duffer', is the following: a plodding or incompetent person. Accordingly, I would submit that Senator Newman was absolutely correct.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator Abetz.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam Deputy President, if you say there is no point of order, does that mean that the term `incompetent', when it is used against another member of this place, is therefore unparliamentary and has to be withdrawn? That is what your ruling means.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.8802Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Further to the minister's answer yesterday, which now seems to be modified to `primarily' regular servicemen, is the government intending to use reservists in 3 Brigade, and for the fourth time I will attempt to get an answer to this question, which is: will the Minister for Defence now override Minister Reith and insist on putting reserve service provisions back into industrial awards and agreements?8802Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam Deputy President, yesterday I did refer to the use of specialists, but obviously the noise across the chamber was too loud for Senator Collins to have heard. The point I would make is that, despite the denials of the opposition, we do already have a sizeable pool of very welltrained and skilled reserve personnel if the need rises. If they are required to have special skills—medical skills or skills regarding aircraft or other equipment—they can be called upon, as they have been in the past. The opposition has focused on rotation of troops as if you cannot stay on the job as an Australian defence service man or woman for more than, say, three months. The men that you sent to Vietnam you were prepared to have stay there for 12 months. (Time expired)88028802Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Will the minister advise the Senate of the beneficial impact of the new business tax system, particularly with respect to retirees and pensioners?8802Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Coonan for her important question. I have noticed that the ALP has had a very schizophrenic approach to the issue of tax reform. Some of its members are trying to sound statesmanlike and responsible with talk of cooperation and support for the government's reforms, but then we have other people around the back door suggesting that that support will be very hard to draw out of them. It will be like pulling teeth. The fact is that all Australians are winners under the proposed business tax reforms. The reforms are long overdue. They have been delivered by the coalition. They were not delivered by a government that had 13 years to do so. I want to draw to the attention of the Senate the reforms that will be delivered in the package. They will lead to higher economic growth, they will lead to more jobs, they will lead to an increased revenue base to deliver services to the community, and they will lead to improved rewards for saving. They are all very important initiatives for people who are unemployed or people who are retired. The outcomes of the reforms are vitally important.A substantial impact is that the reforms will lead to an increase in contributions to superannuation funds as well as private savings. The reforms will provide a substantial impetus for increased retirement self-provision, and they will enhance the sustainability of the social security system as a result. That is obviously good for Australia. By contrast, Labor put all its eggs in one basket, namely the superannuation basket. It disregarded private savings for retirement provision. The effective tax rates on the capital gains of superannuation funds is now only 10 per cent, versus the 15 per cent left to us by Labor. That surely will encourage more superannuation contributions and greater returns to fund members. I notice that ACOSS has been very swift to criticise some of the proposals, and I draw to their attention the fact that they have neglected to take into account the sustainability of the social security system in the long term. Measures to do this involve encouraging enterprise and savings efforts as well as a sustainable revenue base. The Sydney Morning Herald noted yesterday morning:Changes to the tax credits system for share dividends will close loopholes for companies and the rich, and make the system fairer for retirees and low-income investors.One of the very constituencies that ACOSS purports to represent is clearly one of the winners, and I am sad that ACOSS has not taken this into account. I turn now to small business, who usually hope and try to become Australia's self-funded retirees. The provision of capital gains tax rollover relief for scrip for scrip takeovers will remove an impost on businesses and trusts reorganising themselves. This, in turn, will be of benefit to investors. Labor was not sympathetic to those who are engaged in small business. The capital in their business is their superannuation. It is their retirement nest egg. Often it is their total life savings. Full exemption from capital gains tax on the disposal of business assets held continuously for 15 years where the taxpayer is at least 55 years of age and retired will provide long sought after relief.We in the government value the contribution these Australians have made for their own retirement. Senator Murray yesterday asked about the proportion of people with income who are getting benefits. Can I point out to the Senate that more than 70 per cent of people on incomes below $50,000 are going to benefit from this and something like 60 per cent of people with incomes under $38,000 will get the benefits of some of these capital gains tax reforms—very important to low and middle income earners. (Time expired)88038803Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Why did the Treasurer consistently mislead the parliament and the Australian public that the proposed business tax reforms would be revenue neutral when he has, in fact, admitted there will be a $2 billion shortfall in the absence of additional measures? Just what are these additional measures? Do they include the taxation of trusts measure, which has been delayed until 1 July 2001? Given that the Treasurer now admits that the proposed business tax changes are not revenue neutral, will the cut in business taxation be funded from the ever shrinking budget surplus or by further cuts to Commonwealth expenditure, such as health, education and social security?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The questioner made certain inferences, imputations, against—ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—No, he didn't; he said he misled.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam Deputy President, one of the wise members of the opposition just confirmed for you exactly what was in the question. The allegation was made that somebody had misled the parliament. I suggest to you that that sort of allegation fits under standing order 73(1) in the categories of (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d) and, as a result, should not be allowed.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: these sorts of questions have been consistently allowed by the current President of the Senate, Senator Reid, and all of her predecessors. I make this point: we have a deliberate strategy on the part of Senator Abetz to try to ensure that few questions are asked by the opposition in question time today, limiting the capacity of the Senate to hold the government accountable. These are spurious points of order. He should be sat down, and if he continues he should be disciplined.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner is correct. The use of `misleading' has been allowed by a number of Presidents, including the current President, and therefore is acceptable. The use of the words `deliberately misleading' is not acceptable.8803Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—What an extraordinary thing for Senator Cook to stand up and accuse a Treasurer of—not getting his figures right. Senator Cook, as I have pointed out in this chamber before, is exceedingly famous for three or four things. The third most famous quote of Senator Cook was his forecast, in November 1995, that the budget was in surplus and would continue to be in surplus. What we discovered when we came into government, Senator Cook, was that there was a huge black hole. What this government did was to turn a Labor deficit into a big surplus—a surplus across the forward estimates. Senator Cook, for you to stand up and purport to attack the Treasurer is just absurd.Senator Cook misled the Senate by not actually quoting fairly what the Treasurer said yesterday. I invite him to read the question that the Treasurer answered yesterday. Among other things, this is what the Treasurer said:. . . as I forecast yesterday, it—the package—can be completely funded and we can return to full surpluses, with the additional matters that the government has indicated its agreement to and on which it is consulting on design and implementation. That will put Australia in a strong position—strong surpluses, a new indirect tax system, a dramatically lower personal income tax system, new Commonwealth-state financial relations, new family allowances . . . You, the Labor Party, are the people who deliver deficits. We are the people who deliver surpluses. We have a strong record in this area and a strong record in getting our figures correct, unlike Senator Cook.The second part of Senator Cook's question related to the deferred measures. These include the tightening of thin capitalisation measures; restricting gearing by foreign investors into Australia; rules restricting gearings by Australians investing offshore; and providing Australian imputation credits for foreign dividend withholding tax, another one of the deferred measures preventing alienation of personal services income and denying tax deductions for non-commercial losses. There are a number of so-called high level reforms, for example allowing the write-off of black hole expenditures and write-off for intangible assets. Included further out is half of the growth dividend identified by the review. We believe that we have put a package down which has quite rightly received very widespread support throughout the business community and, in the first 24 hours, support from the Labor Party. Now we are seeing the Labor Party, as they do on all big public policy issues, backing away and trying to find a populist point. You failed the test on the indirect tax reforms. I dare say the Labor Party will also fail the test on business tax reforms. The Labor Party were pleading with the Treasurer in the first 24 hours, saying, `Why don't you come and talk to us? Don't talk to the Democrats, come and talk to us.' You have shown by your form in this chamber and your form in the other chamber just how thin the support in the Labor Party is for the Ralph report. (Time expired)8804Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Of course we are not backing away from anything, but the Treasurer himself has admitted that he cannot fund his own cuts. Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Assistant Treasurer: how can the Treasurer possibly justify telling the Australian people, as he did a few nights ago, that he would have to cut expenditure to pay for our intervention in East Timor when he is proposing to give $3.8 billion to business in lower taxes, for which he cannot pay?8804Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The question is based on a faulty premise. The Treasurer did not admit that. Don't you listen to the answers which are given to you? The Treasurer said:In addition to that, as I forecast yesterday, it can in fact be completely funded and we can return to full surpluses.Why did you not read properly the answer that the Treasurer gave in the other place? Why did you stand up, once again, and attempt to mislead the Senate? You have got serious form on this, Senator. You are the man who was in part responsible for the massive deficit which was left by the former government. You are on record in this chamber as misleading the Senate and misleading the Australian people about it. Frankly, the Treasurer will treat the comments by Senator Cook with the contempt they so richly deserve. 88058805Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the minister seen reports in the media that INTERFET has taken land mines into East Timor? Are these reports true? How does the government view the use of land mines in East Timor by any nation participating in INTERFET?8805Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Thank you very much for your question, Senator. The ADF troops participating in INTERFET operations in East Timor are not carrying land mines, but they are supplied with claymore munitions. You would realise the Australian government is a signatory to the Ottawa Convention and we would not endorse the use of mines. The Ottawa Convention, which is the Protocol on Prohibition or Restrictions on the use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices, imposes prohibitions upon the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpile, retention or transfer of antipersonnel land mines. Antipersonnel land mines are defined by the convention to be mines designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons.This is consistent with the definition of APL that appears in the Antipersonnel Mines Convention Act 1998, which incorporates the provisions of the convention into our domestic legislation. Claymores do not fall within the definition of `APL' or `mine'. For the purposes of the convention and the act, a mine does not include a device that is command detonated. Claymores are devices that are command detonated and are operated by a soldier in the loop, requiring specific identification of the target. The ADF troops with INTERFET in East Timor are carrying claymore munitions for use in self-defence only, in accordance with the approved rules of engagement for this operation. There have been media reports that the TNI have laid mines in East Timor and that the Australian Leopard tanks are to be deployed primarily to clear land mines. I am aware of the media speculation on this issue but am advised that these reports are unconfirmed. I am also advised that our troops have, to date, not detected any mines. Australia currently has no plans to deploy Leopard tanks to East Timor. But, like many other ADF elements, the readiness levels of 1 Armoured Brigade have been raised.8805Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I thank the minister for that answer, although I am sure that we could debate claymores some other time. Landmines, as well as antipersonnel mines, come in the form of antitank mines. Does the Australian force part of INTERFET have any intention of using antitank mines as well in East Timor?8805Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have no advice on that matter. I think that the answer I have given you probably covers the whole lot. I will certainly double-check that.88058805Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware of significant media criticism that, under the proposed capital gains tax changes, an investor could end up paying more in CGT under the new CGT regime than under the old CGT regime? Isn't it true that, due to the abolition of averaging and indexation, many mum and dad investors could end up paying more in CGT under the new regime than they currently pay? Is this why the government's proposed changes raise an additional $400 million in capital gains tax revenue for the four years ended 2003-04, as detailed in the government's own costings?8805Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There are many things which have been widely applauded in this tax package, one of them being the capital gains tax reforms. If you look far and wide through the press, you will find the overwhelming support that we have received for the changes we have proposed to the capital gains tax regime. The regime is one which we the believe is of great benefit to companies, to super funds and to individuals. It is certainly one which is widely welcomed. I suppose you could always develop scenarios to prove a point, but I have to tell you that the overwhelming weight of comment on the reforms that we have brought in has been entirely positive. People have welcomed the changes. I would have to tell you, Senator, that the Labor Party is all over the place on this. On the one hand, your shadow Treasurer has said, I believe, that he is disposed to accept the changes which have been proposed.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please address the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—I am just saying that the Labor Party is all over the place on this. On the one hand, we heard in the first 24 hours that the Labor Party was prepared to support the capital gains changes which had been announced. Then we found that there were questions in this place and in the other place suggesting that maybe this was a huge advantage to the rich. Now we are finding questions saying that it is not a cut at all but in fact will cause some detriment. All I can say to the Labor Party is this: could you get your lines right on this? Could you work out what you really want to do on business tax reform? Do the work. Find out what the reforms mean. I have to tell you that the Labor Party is all over the place on that, and your question refers to that. As far as the second part of your question is concerned—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You remembered the question. Congratulations!WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Evans, I take that as a huge endorsement. Senator Evans says, `At last you have answered a question.' Thank you. I fully endorse that. The second part of your question, if I remember it correctly, referred to the estimates of revenue. It is quite correct that the government will be raising revenue on the changes to the capital gains tax regime. Again, I would have thought that was a plus and not a minus. One of the stated reasons for this is that it avoids the lock-in effect of the current capital gains tax regime, and there is forecast a greater turnover of assets as a result of the changes which we have brought in. Again, I think that is a good thing, not a bad thing. So, Senator, I would urge you to see if you could work out at the questions committee whether you are in favour of the changes to the capital gains tax regime or whether you are opposed to them. Then, whichever side of the road you are determined to run on, run questions which are consistent with that. But do not get up and complain that the benefits of this are too great. That was the substance of the last part of the question we got from Senator Cook, and then you got up and complained that it is too harsh. You guys are all over the place, as usual.8806Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister representing the Treasurer also agree with the analysis by Ivor Ries from the Australian Financial Review that the longer an asset is held, the higher the proportion of profit that will end up with the taxman? Isn't it a fact that, as a direct result of the government's changes, many people will bring forward asset disposals in order to avoid the higher CGT liability that they would incur by holding assets longer? Won't the government's preferred method of changing capital gains tax actually be forcing people to turn assets over more regularly than they would have, and therefore be encouraging a more speculative and unproductive mode of investment?8806Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I will tell you what the reforms do. I have to say that whoever drafted this question obviously did not do it with the shadow Treasurer. The Labor Party have been running these lines that they are supportive of the capital gains tax measures. I invite them now to read the question which has just been posed to me, and they will see how thin this support is for the changes that we have announced. Senator, I said to you yesterday that the overseas experience supports the conclusion that a lower CGT rate increases realisations. That is one of the factors which are involved. To the extent that any of your questions seem to touch on that, the answer is yes, it does. The second part is that it reduces the so-called lock-in effect, and that is why we have the rise in revenue in the forward estimates. (Time expired)88068806Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Does the minister recall in the GST debate on 23 June saying this: With respect to financial services, the government has agreed to allow partial input tax credits to purchasers of a specified list of services used by enterprises making financial supplies. This measure will particularly benefit small organisations in the financial sector such as credit unions, et cetera.Credit unions have expressed concern to me—and to you, I believe, Senator Kemp—that the list of items eligible for the reduced input tax credit is too limited and will not overcome their competitive disadvantage. Will the government give an undertaking that their original commitment will be achieved and that credit unions will be able to have their concerns alleviated about the draft list? (Time expired)8807Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In response to the question from Senator Harradine, the situation is that I am well aware of the debate we had—I think that was a debate that you took a particular interest in. The debate, I have to say, has moved on since that famous day, Senator. You may be aware that the government are currently receiving submissions based on a paper we released to the sector called the Consultation document on the application of GST to financial services . Not surprisingly, at present we are having widespread consultations with the industry, and the industry will be putting their views. Included in this are credit unions.The government recognises that input taxing of financial supplies can lead to particular problems between different sized financial institutions. To address this, the government announced that a reduced input tax credit will be allowed for the purchase of specified services used to make financial supplies. The reduced credit rate will be set to achieve neutrality between insourcing and outsourcing of the financial service. That was one of the central problems that were raised with us by the credit unions. Although the reduced input credit will be available to all providers of financial supplies, including banks, we believe the measure will particularly benefit smaller financial service providers that operate with a large range of outsourced activities—and I think that is essentially the credit unions.In summary, we have brought forward a paper which we are now consulting on—a consultation document on the application of the GST to financial institutions. We are having those consultations and, if credit unions have any further particular concerns, this is the process now in place for the credit unions to make their views known.8807Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. There are three matters. First of all, does the minister agree that the government gave an undertaking that the GST disadvantage that was going to be visited on small financial institutions such as credit unions would be overcome? Does he agree that the credit unions believe that the list of items is too narrow and will not overcome this disadvantage? And why will the government not renew its undertaking and commitment to credit unions to address their problems by either expanding the list or introducing the original proposal for credit union system grouping provisions?8807Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Harradine, what we have done is listen to the concerns of the credit unions, and that is why we have put out a paper. It deals with, among other things, the reduced input tax credit, which we think alleviates the types of problems which have been raised with us by credit unions. But, Senator, if they have particular concerns in relation to this, we have the process which is now in train. We have the consultation paper out, and the credit unions will be able to put their case to the government, which will carefully examine it.88078807Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. Is the minister aware of the Treasurer telling Melbourne listeners on 3AW in August of last year that his petrol marketing reform was `a policy which is unashamedly directed towards lower prices' and that `this is not a policy which is designed to put prices up'? Can the minister confirm that, since the Treasurer made this claim, average Melbourne petrol prices have gone up by more than 7c a litre, Sydney prices up 6c a litre, Brisbane prices up 8c a litre, Adelaide prices up 9c a litre, Perth prices up 7c a litre, Darwin prices up 4c a litre and Hobart prices up 6c a litre?8808Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—This really is an absurd question from Senator Schacht. What he seems to be suggesting is that the government's reform of petrol retailing has led to price increases. There are two answers to that proposition. First, the government's reform package has not yet passed this Senate, so how that can be blamed for price increases completely escapes me. Secondly, as Senator Schacht surely knows, the OPEC nations have effectively doubled the price of oil in the last six months. The price of oil has increased from some $US10 to $US12 to some $US22 to $US24. Inevitably, prices at the petrol pump in Australia will increase as a result of the doubling of oil prices. So there are two answers, as I say, to this stupid question: we do not yet have the reform that we seek, and petrol prices have inevitably increased as a result of the doubling of world oil prices.8808Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you say the reform proposals have not passed the Senate and that international prices have gone up. Why then did the Howard government try to claim credit when the prices fell last year, with the Treasurer saying:The petrol price data proves the success of the first stage of the government's reform package. Overall petrol prices have fallen in cities as well as in country towns since the implementation of the government's reform package.If last year's price fall was all the government's own work, why won't the Howard government and Mr Costello take credit for this year's price hike?8808Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The core of the government's reform package is the repeal of the sites act and the franchise act and their replacement by the Oilcode. It is certainly true that the companies in good faith, and on the basis of the commitments made by the government to seek the repeal of the franchise act and the sites act, did make certain concessions which they were not required to make by law relating to access to terminals and other matters which they voluntarily undertook to do in response to the government's commitment to reform. The measures which the companies did take did have, we believe, some direct impact on price reductions that did occur prior to OPEC increasing the price of petroleum.So the government has had a very good track record on this issue of reform. We have been seeking reform. We have tried as hard as we possibly can to get the parties to agree to the repeal of the franchise act and sites act and their replacement by the insertion of the Oilcode into the Trade Practices Act. We congratulate the companies for the measures they were able to take voluntarily in response to requests from the government last year. (Time expired)88088808McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Macdonald. Will the minister inform the Senate how the initiatives in the government's report into business taxation assists business people and primary producers throughout regional Australia?8808Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator McGauran's question allows me to highlight the excellent results for primary producers and small business people, particularly in regional Australia from the government's decisions in response to John Ralph's report. Small business and farming are, in fact, as most coalition senators would know, the lifeblood of regional Australia and they will benefit very substantially from the cuts in company tax rates from 36 per cent at present to 34 per cent in the next financial year, and 30 per cent thereafter. Those tax cuts build upon the income tax cuts for Australians which parliament has already legislated for as part of the coalition's earlier tax reform package. The introduction of the new simplified business tax system for primary producers and small business people will hugely reduce the paperwork and compliance burdens. The annual stocktake will be a thing of the past for 75 per cent of shop owners and operators of small businesses and for 99 per cent of farmers. Mr Ian Ballantyne, the General Manager of Queensland Canegrowers, has strongly endorsed the government's tax reform for business. He said:It would appear that this is going to simplify people's lives a lot.Ian Donges, the President of the National Farmers Federation, said that the system would be much fairer and much simpler, and therefore primary producers would be much more competitive as a result. Where a small business man or woman sells an active asset which they have held for 15 years or more, and the taxpayer is at least 55 years of age and intends to retire, the whole gain will be exempt from capital gains tax. The National Farmers Federation has estimated that around 70 per cent of Australian farmers have actually owned their farms for 15 years or more. Farmers retain the accelerated depreciation regime and they will benefit substantially from the big capital gains tax reductions for small business. They will also be exempt from paying capital gains tax on assets sold on retirement.These are the sorts of things that the government has been doing. We set up the Ralph committee to consult not just with the big end of town but right around Australia, and that is what they have done. That is in remarkable contrast to the Labor Party. I must say I am indebted to Neal Blewett who related that, when the Labor Party was looking at the so-called One Nation statement, Keating and Dawkins were keen to have their January meeting—so the book goes—with businessmen in Sydney and Melbourne to test their ideas. Robert Ray, bless his soul, thought that that was too narrow and he feared that there would be an adverse regional reaction. Fortunately, Senator Ray identified the problem for the Labor Party but had nothing to do with it. That is in huge contrast.In coming to these conclusions, the government has consulted widely in rural and regional Australia. I must thank Senator McGauran and my other Senate colleagues from this side, Senator Calvert, Senator Crane, Senator Eggleston, Senator Ferguson and Senator Brownhill. Those of us who live in regional Australia and understand these problems have ensured that the right result came from the Ralph report. This is in stark contrast to Labor, whose regional development policy was Better Cities. That was their rural policy—Better Cities. Remember what they wanted to do with what they called the Toorak tractors—an essential form of transport in rural and regional Australia, four-wheel drive vehicles. The Labor Party wanted to tax them out of existence. That is what the Labor Party thought about rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)8809McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister further inform the Senate of the government's initiatives within its business taxation report, and further expand on the previous failed policies?8809Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Again Senator McGauran raises some very important issues. The Labor Party used to throw money around like a drunken sailor and as a result interest rates went up. There was nothing more debilitating to farmers and small businessmen than those huge interest rates. Fortunately, under the Howard government and decent financial management, those interest rates have come right down. Labor increased the company tax rate from 33 per cent to 36 per cent, whereas we are bringing it down. They did nothing to reduce compliance costs; in fact, they increased the burden of paperwork. Labor increased wholesale taxes in their last budget by two per cent. They increased petrol taxes, and Senator Schacht will well recall that. They increased taxes on motor vehicles. (Time expired)88098809Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer to the government's proposal to offset the impact of removing accelerated depreciation with an expanded strategic investment coordination process. How much money is the minister's portfolio allocating to this expanded process for each of the five years commencing on 1 July 2000?8809Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—In 1997 the government announced in its Investing for Growth statement the introduction of the strategic investment incentives program to stimulate and support major investment programs. The criteria for that program were clearly laid out—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Are you going to put Ron Walker in charge of it?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, stop shouting. Can I have some order please!JX4Senator MINCHIN—The criteria for that strategic investment incentives program were clearly laid out in the Investing for Growth statement.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Large donations to the Liberal Party.JX4Senator MINCHIN—As a result of that program—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Just look at the donations to the Liberal Party; we know who'll will be getting it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht!EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Schacht's close colleague Senator Bolkus has said publicly in South Australia that it is time for Senator Schacht to move on. Perhaps you could help him by moving him on today—right out of the chamber.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator Ferguson. That was a spurious point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President—Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! When I have order, I will call Senator Faulkner, who I presume has a point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes, I do. Madam Deputy President, as you have seen during this question time, there is a deliberate strategy on the part of the government to take totally spurious points of order, normally at great length. I would say to you, Madam Deputy President, that it would not be tolerated if President Reid were in the chair and it ought not be tolerated by you.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order.Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There has been far too much interjection, and the noise level and behaviour in the chamber today has not been very good. I will have silence so that I may call Senator Minchin, and I hope the remainder of question time will be heard in silence.JX4Senator MINCHIN—This strategic investment incentives program has been extremely ably managed by Mr Bob Mansfield, the incoming chairman of Telstra. In fact under that program we have made two major commitments. One is for $40 million to Visy to establish a pulp mill at Tumut. That commitment has been warmly welcomed by the New South Wales Labor government.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. The minister seems to have forgotten that the question has nothing do with that. What it asked was: how much money is the minister's portfolio allocating to this expanded process? I ask you to direct him to the question that I asked.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If we actually had some silence, the minister may be able to develop his answer so I could hear whether it was out of order.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Those clowns opposite are seeking to pillory and attack a magnificent program of this government which has made two very specific and generous grants that have been warmly welcomed by the two main Labor governments of this country. The Queensland Labor government has warmly welcomed our commitment of $100 million to the Comalco refinery at Gladstone.Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise is far too high. I would ask that people on both sides maintain order and cease their interjections.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Under this program, we have made a grant of $100 million towards the establishment of the Comalco refinery at Gladstone, which has been warmly welcomed by the Beattie Labor government in Queensland. We have also made the $40 million grant to Visy in New South Wales, which was warmly welcomed by the Carr Labor government. This is a terrific program which, as the Treasurer has announced, will be expanded as a result of the change to the lower company tax rate and the removal of accelerated depreciation. It will in future include examination on a case by case basis of the award of investment allowances.8811Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Why was there no costing for any expenditure in the government's announcement this week? Doesn't this serious omission highlight the fact that the commitment to revenue neutrality for business tax cannot be delivered?8811Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Again, Senator Conroy is showing his complete ignorance of these issues. There is no budget allocation for the strategic investment incentives. It was made clear in 1997 that they would be considered on a case by case basis based on the income and revenue generated by the projects. That will continue to be the case. The size of the grant and the way in which the government provides an incentive—whether it is by way of an investment incentive or a grant—will be determined on a case by case basis, taking into account the revenue likely to be generated for the government from the project in question.88118811Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. Minister, is the government aware that the most damaging finding in BASI's draft report into the failed class G airspace trial is about the functionality of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority itself, that BASI's draft report finds there were fundamental deficiencies in CASA's corporate governance arrangements and that CASA is riddled with organisational problems? Minister, does the government concede that the BASI draft report delivers a body blow to CASA, which urgently needs reform?8811Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Woodley again demonstrates his interest in this substantial policy issue.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You groveller.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—He has asked a series of questions about BASI's draft report.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Answer the question, don't make a speech.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy! Senator Carr! I would like to be able to hear Senator Macdonald's response.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—There won't be one. I bet you.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I am not proceeding until I have silence.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I remind the Senate that BASI has prepared this draft report as a basis for obtaining comments from interested parties. It is not a finished document, and it could well change as the bureau takes advantage of the insights provided by the people and organisations who were involved in the trial. As a result, it is really inappropriate for me at this stage to provide the Senate with a commentary on the draft report.I can advise Senator Woodley that the government has looked at the weaknesses in the way the airspace reform has been handled. The Deputy Prime Minister outlined the new process in a speech that he made at an aviation conference in August. The government has made it quite clear to aviation agencies that Airservices Australia is responsible for the design, declaration and management of airspace. In the past, CASA has been an active proponent of airspace reform, which, frankly, has conflicted with its role as an aviation safety regulator. CASA now has three responsibilities with respect to airspace reform. It will determine the minimum standards necessary for the safe operation of aircraft in individual classes of Australian airspace. It will be responsible, as a safety regulator, for overseeing Airservices' airspace management role. It will be able to upgrade the classification of a particular area on safety grounds.For example, it is possible that BASI could find that an incident or a series of incidents was due to lack of controlled airspace over a particularly small airport. CASA will now be able to require Airservices to upgrade the classification of the area and, when CASA proposes such an upgrade, the Department of Transport and Regional Services will engage an independent analyst to consider its safety case. Airservices is now developing a revised airspace reform program in consultation with the industry.8812Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for a very comprehensive answer but, in his answer, he indicated that there could be changes to the report, and that is where I do have some concerns. Minister, could you assure the Senate that there will not be a loss of critical detail in the final BASI report—that in fact any detail lost will not be critical for the final report?8812Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—As I said the other day, Senator Woodley imputes that the people conducting the investigation, that BASI, would wrongly, improperly and even dishonestly alter their views for some reason or other. Senator Woodley, that is what you are inferring. I am sure you do not really mean that. BASI will put out a report. They are a well-regarded agency and they will put out a report that is fair.As you know with draft reports, they do a draft report, they send it to interested parties, they allow those interested parties to look at it and say, `You have got this wrong,' or, `Your factual understanding of that is incorrect,' or, `Your conclusions arising from that set of circumstances are wrong.' The competent people at BASI will then look at those responses and come to a conclusion, as they should. It is not something for the government to do. As I have said before, heaven forbid that we sitting along here should ever be in charge of air safety. That is a matter for professionals, and that is what will happen. (Time expired)88128812Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs. I refer the minister to her trumpeting of a new funding package for the Australian Federal Police during question time on Monday. Can the minister confirm that, out of the $155 million supposedly new funding package, $100 million is to pay off the existing accrued AFP Adjustment Scheme liability and $50 million is actually part of the $115 million package announced in 1998 and not new funding at all? Does this not mean that, out of Monday's funding package, the actual new money going to the Australian Federal Police is only $5 million, not the $155 million so loudly trumpeted by the minister?8812Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Bolkus for the opportunity to display, yet again, how wrong Labor has got it. The bottom line, Senator, as I am advised, is that the full $155 million is new money.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—As advised!7E4Senator VANSTONE—I do not see why you see a problem with that. It is new money. Mr Kerr has got it completely wrong. He is simply confused between the AFP reform money, which was the Ayers review money, and this new capital injection into the AFP. Senator, I am happy to give you or Mr Kerr a briefing on it, if you would like. It is clearly what you need, but the best thing you probably could do is go to the remarks made by Commissioner Palmer, who presumably you will accept does understand AFP funding. He said on radio the other day in Canberra:This organisation has never enjoyed a higher reputation, has never enjoyed better funding. It is coming out of a number of years of tight fiscal constraint. It has never been more strongly supported by any government in its history. It's never been better funded and has never had a brighter future . . . So your answer, in short, is Mr Kerr is wrong. Sorry.8812Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I know that the minister has not even tried to answer the specifics of the question, and offering a brief is something that she always does when she cannot answer the question. Minister, will you now admit that the 1998 package not only failed to fund the AFP to the level suggested by the Ayers report but also put completely unreasonable expectations on the AFP to find $50 million by making cuts within that agency, expectations which obviously have not been met? Minister, when will the Howard government, finally and properly, adequately resource the AFP?8813Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Bolkus for another opportunity to outline how ill informed that side of this chamber is. No, the AFP was not improperly funded in the Ayers review. You simply do not understand, Senator Bolkus, what this new money is for. It is to buy out the most stupid thing you ever did—that is, set up an incentive for federal police officers to leave. You know what you did. You got all of the AFP signed up on 10-year contracts and you said, `You can have an incentive to leave at the end of 10 years.' That is now coming home to roost, so we have decided to fix the problem that you stupidly created in 1991.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam Deputy President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice8813881315:14:008813Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have an addition to the response I gave Senator Bourne earlier. This relates to her supplementary question regarding antitank mines being deployed to East Timor. The answer is no.Miscellaneous88138813The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—At question time today Senator Abetz read some of the definition of the word `duffer'. For the record, it is important to place on the record the primary meaning according to the dictionary. `Duffer' is listed twice in the dictionary. The definition states:1.Brit Colloquial a pedlar, especially one who sells cheap, flashy goods as valuable items under false pretences. 2. one who steals cattle, sheep, etc., especially by altering the brand.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Madam Deputy President, since when do you take it upon yourself to read only one or two of the definitions of `duffer'? Are you assuming, therefore, Madam Deputy President, that it is improper for Senator Newman to in fact use the word in a different form which is clearly in the dictionary? What you in fact have done, Madam Deputy President, is to impute to the minister that she was using a definition which would be unparliamentary without even asking her whether she was in fact using the definition which was parliamentary.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Abetz, there is no point of order. You gave part of the definition. I had previously given one. I have just backed up, with the use of the dictionary, the definition I gave.Miscellaneous8813881315:16:008813Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin) to a question without notice asked by Senator Schacht today, relating to petrol prices.Today we pointed out that the Treasurer of this country claimed last year that the government's policy of so-called reform of the petroleum industry would unashamedly bring down petrol prices. That is what he said. Since then, prices have gone up. Senator Minchin thought he had me and the opposition trumped in his answer by saying, `They've gone up because the wholesale price around the world has gone up.' He then said that the government's policy had not even yet been passed by the Senate.What Senator Minchin did not subsequently realise was that the Treasurer, when the price had gone down briefly last year, had claimed it as a credit to the government's policy. He did not wait for it to be passed by the Senate. He claimed that the government's policy was already working and was reducing petrol prices in the cities and particularly in country towns. No wonder the coalition in Victoria got such a belting in regional Victoria last Saturday when you have a Treasurer so out of touch that he is claiming that petrol prices in the country have gone down, when everybody knows they have actually gone the other way and the disparity between city and country prices, by a number of measures, has got worse.No wonder the country areas of Victoria revolted against the coalition and had staggering swings against them. That is one of the issues. As we all know, petrol prices in the bush have been a consistent issue for country people for many years. The Treasurer tried to claim credit last year by saying that the price going down for a short period was a triumph for his own policy. He has now been caught out and the Liberal Party in Victoria, even though it was a state election, paid part of the price for this Treasurer's stupidity in claiming that this was a success for the government's policy.There was also a debate here this morning on a disallowance motion relating to an amendment to the regulations that Senator Minchin tried to put through to give a special benefit to BP Australia. They had not conformed to the law under the sites act and therefore were seeking retrospectively to have the regulations amended. They had not issued new contracts to franchisees under the sites act. They wanted that to be retrospectively approved and not contrary to the act. Today in the Senate we rejected that special treatment be given to only one company when all the other companies had complied with the law.What this shows is that this government's policy on petroleum and petrol prices is in absolute disarray. We have waited in this place now for over three years for the government to reach a conclusion on negotiations of the Oilcode. We have admitted—and we have been very patient in opposition—that it is a very difficult job to get the major parties to agree on a new Oilcode; and still the government has not been able to achieve it. Now all it can do as a temporary measure is try to give a regulatory benefit to one company.We have still not had a response from the government as to what they are going to do now that that regulation has not been able to be achieved. We do not know what they are doing to further negotiate with all the parties in the oil industry. We have made it clear that we want a mandatory Oilcode under the Trade Practices Act which gives franchisees—that is, retailers—protection for the long term. This is small business at its very best. I would have thought that a Liberal government would bend over backwards to help small business.In this area, there is certainly pressure in the cabinet for the big end of town to get the benefit by the government doing nothing. If a number of franchisees lose out in the end, that will be on the head of the government. The government do not have a policy. After the Treasurer trumpeted the great success last year by saying that prices were coming down, they have now been caught out holus-bolus for the sham that was. The government do not have a policy on getting the best for retailers, the petroleum industry and, above all, Australian consumers. They stand condemned for their lack of policy.15:21:008814Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—It really is a joke to hear the Labor Party, which we know has absolutely no policies and openly proclaims the fact that it has no policies following the last election and which probably will not have until we are much closer to the next election—the policy free zone—accuse us of having no policy. They know perfectly well that we have a well-articulated, comprehensive policy in response to the ACCC and Productivity Commission inquiries.After only two to 2½ years in office we bit the bullet on this issue. Labor did nothing in 13 years to address the problems in petrol retailing. We did a very comprehensive program that involved the repeal of the sites act and the franchise act and the insertion of an Oilcode into the Trade Practices Act. We did say at the last election that we would proceed with that package only if we had agreement from all parties to that package. There is a significant sticking point in reaching agreement to that comprehensive policy package because of disputes over the repeal of the sites act.Senator Schacht refers to statements made by the Treasurer last year. What Senator Schacht forgets in his accusations that we are claiming credit for something that we do not deserve to is that, at the time we announced the reform package, the companies agreed to propositions put by the government that involved significant elements in the first stage of reform. The companies agreed to open access to the terminal gate at the refineries for new entrants, and that particularly included things like farming groups getting together and forming cooperatives or whatever to purchase petroleum direct from terminals on an open access basis. That had never been the case before and that was a significant achievement of this government, with the cooperation of the companies.We also set up a rural price monitoring program which the companies are actually paying for and which is audited by the Australian Automobile Association, with prices published on the Net. The Treasurer directed the ACCC to have a specific charter to investigate anticompetitive behaviour, in particular hot spots in the petroleum retailing market around the country. So a number of very specific initiatives were taken last year as a result of the package which we announced and were able to be introduced immediately. That is why it is appropriate for the Treasurer to have said that as a result of those moves there was a depressing effect on prices. Of course in all of these things you have to say `other things being equal'.Obviously the most significant impact on petrol prices is world prices, but this opposition are attacking us over petrol prices when they were the ones who took the excise on petrol from something like 7c to 40c during their time in government and they are the ones most responsible for the price of petrol in this country today because of what they did to increase the excise by stealth through their 13 years in government. We have held that; in fact, we will be bringing about a reduction in petrol prices as a result of the GST and our reforms to transport fuel costs.We also believe that there will be a depressing effect on prices, other things being equal, by the further reforms that we want to introduce, but they can be introduced only if there is agreement, because we made a commitment to agreement, and if the Labor Party and Democrats are prepared to support that reform. We have had no commitment from the Labor Party or the Democrats that they are prepared to repeal the sites act. At this stage our reform package does not look promising so far as its legislative passage is concerned. That would be extremely disappointing and would mean that the one great chance we do have to reform petrol retailing in such a way as to bring about a depressing effect on prices may well be lost. Of course, above and beyond all that, there is absolutely nothing that any one of us can do—Labor, Liberal or Democrat—about world price increases generated through APEC.We have tried to work very closely with all the parties involved in this to reach agreement. It is not easy. It does not help to have the Labor Party grandstanding and attacking us for having no policy when they know we have a very comprehensive policy which we are attempting to negotiate with the parties following their 13 years of complete inactivity apart from their disastrous and perennial increases in the excise on petrol, which is now the major part of the price of petrol which consumers must pay.15:26:008815Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I also wish to take note of the same answer to the same question. I have a degree of respect for Senator Minchin, and it is probably not his fault that we have this mess before us at the moment because the minister really responsible for the mess is in the other place—he is now Minister for Defence—which probably partly explains why we have such a mess somewhere else. If anyone was watching the debate on East Timor on Tuesday when the Minister for Defence read his speech to the parliament, no-one in Australia would have felt more disappointed in a Minister for Defence at that point in time. Those members of the defence forces of Australia would have had to have had a degree of lack of faith instilled in them with regard to the minister.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Senator Murphy, I will allow a wide-ranging debate but I think you should get back to the question.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Yes, but I thought it was relevant because this is the same minister who gave us this package that is yet to pass this place, as Senator Minchin said. That is the very point. Minister Moore claimed in a joint statement with the Treasurer that petrol prices would indeed go down. In fact, he said:The package recognises the particular problems faced by consumers in rural and regional Australia. Those consumers pay the price of a lack of competition in the retail market. For the first time this package does something to help them. Consumers in large cities—this is where we are talking about the government claiming success for the package already—have already benefited from retail competition with prices as much as 20c per litre cheaper than in the country.Will this lower prices at the pump?This package will bring increased competition to the petroleum retail sector with benefits for the motoring public.With regard to the proposed code of practice, if you look at what has happened in Victoria and Western Australia, where they did actually introduce state legislation that somehow reflected proposals to bring in more competition, what did the oil companies do? They just worked around it. That is exactly the problem you have with what is proposed by the government at a federal level.There is no mechanism to ensure that the oil companies will comply with the Oilcode—there is nothing. That is why we in opposition proposed the Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill 1999 , which is a private member's bill introduced in the other place by Joel Fitzgibbon, the shadow minister for small business. We did that because your Oilcode, as proposed, does not do anything in the interest of increased market competition. I noted the minister said, `They agreed to access to their terminals for people in rural and regional areas to go in and buy a bulk supply.' It is difficult enough for a lot of people to do that anyway.I also noted what the minister said in terms of their price monitoring arrangements, which the oil companies are actually paying for. Of course, he also said the results are on the net. Minister, I would have been interested to hear you read out the results of the price controls thus far to see how successful the monitoring has been and whether or not it has delivered lower prices, in particular, to the consumers in regional and rural Australia. It has not, nor will your Oilcode. It will fail because you have not put in, and are not prepared to put in, the right sorts of controls.I know that our shadow minister made an offer to you. You should have accepted it, because it was a very good offer, but you rejected it. So I do not think you should come in here and try to take the high moral ground with regard to legislation that you have and want passed that will not serve the interests of the public in this country one little bit in respect of petrol prices. When we offer you the opportunity to make significant increases in terms of the number of franchised service stations that can be brought under the control of the majors and, at the same time, seek to have a review of the process, you ought to accept it. (Time expired)15:31:008816Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise to speak on this motion and, in doing so, I think it would be appropriate at this time to remind the Senate of a very famous comment that Senator Peter Walsh made some time ago. He said, `If you don't know the answer to the question, don't ask it.' We can extend that with a little bit of poetic licence to say, `If you don't know what you're talking about, don't get up and talk.' I think that is very important. The proposition put before us then by Senator Murphy shows just how little he understands this issue and Oilcode.I want to deal with the Oilcode for a moment. The proposal, which is supported by the production side of the industry, the MTAA and the retail representatives—and I think it has been signed off now or is very close to being signed off—is in fact going to become part of part IVB of the Trade Practices Act. It will have the enforcement of the law through the Trade Practices Act. You cannot come in and say it has no enforcement—it comes under the full surveillance of the Trade Practices Act. It has all the power of the unconscionable conduct provisions that exist in that act and all the other aspects of the Trade Practices Act.We heard something about misleading the Senate in question time today, but if ever I have heard a misleading contribution from a senator in this place, that was it. To make the claim that the proposal will not have the force of law is so wrong that it is sad to have it broadcast around the country. If I do nothing else in my contribution, I will correct that misrepresentation that you just made. The proposal will become part of the Trade Practices Act and be enforceable under that act, which is, incidentally, one of the most powerful acts that has ever been brought into this parliament, particularly with the additions that Mr Reith, as the minister representing small business, contributed in terms of unconscionable conduct.I want to move to one or two other aspects of this particular debate. As has been noted earlier today, the Labor Party and the Democrats decided to knock back the regulations that were put before this place. That is another knife in the back to achieving more fairness and reform in this industry. They have in fact held this up. I chaired the committee that dealt with this particular issue, and we worked through a whole host of issues with the MTAA, the oil companies and representatives of the franchisees, et cetera.One of the things that was said this morning, under the proposals coming forward under this reform, was that franchisees could have all their stations, operations and the business side of their franchise, but they would operate their fuel as a commission agency. They tried to slur that and put it down. I inform the Senate that that proposal was put in there at the request of the franchisee operators, not because we wanted it or because it was part of the original statement. They came and put the arguments before us, we accepted those particular arguments and made that recommendation and the government accepted it through Minister Minchin.Senator Schacht sat on that committee and went through the process. I have to say that he was rather generous to me in some of his comments this morning. I am not sure that that is going to do me any good at preselection; nonetheless, he was rather generous in terms of those particular comments. But the facts are that he misrepresented the position in terms of that. I find that quite disappointing. It is a difficult issue. He was a minister for as long as we have been in government and could not resolve the problem, and yet he comes in here and starts throwing bricks around.Finally, I want to speak for a couple of moments on the Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill 1999 from Mr Fitzgibbon. That bill is so short in dealing with some of the practical aspects relating to the breaking of a contract that it is almost unbelievable that it has been brought into this place without the homework being done. You cannot legally break a contract. It is saying in effect, `We will legislate to break contracts.' It does not deal with the compensation or the rights of the people there. It does not deal with how you are going to handle the branding of fuel. What are you going to do when you have somebody else's fuel there? Are you going to change the signs of the fuel companies or the agents? A lot of service stations today are owned by agents—three, four or five stations. Are they going to have to change the brand when they have the franchise agreement?There are a whole lot of follow-on aspects to this. One of the things that is very important in this country is contract law. A lot of it has been developed through common law. You cannot go out and deal with people in that manner and say, `Take their rights away.' It is a ridiculous proposition. If you ever put up that sort of bill, you have to deal with all aspects of it. It is unworkable and unmanageable. I cannot believe that the Democrats—for example, Senator Murray—came in and supported this position. (Time expired)15:36:008817Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I would also like to take note of the answer given by Senator Minchin today to Senator Schacht's question. I have heard a few of the comments made by the previous speakers and I am a bit amazed—you would think the oil companies are one of those benevolent organisations that operate in this world on behalf of the populace and the consumer. We have to understand this about where the government is going in relation to this issue: since 1980 when the sites act was introduced, the oil companies have campaigned vigorously against the operation of that act. They have done everything they can and used every device they can muster to try to have that sites act repealed.You would think that the government's policies would be working, but we have not had any lower prices in the last few years since this government has been in power. In fact, prices have gone up. In my previous occupation I used to have some dealings with some of these gentle giants that the government would have us believe are looking after the interests of the consumer and the community, and they are probably some of the most ruthless people I have ever had to deal with. I have had experience on a few sides of the Trade Practices Act.The oil companies have not wanted the act that was introduced in 1980 and, as I said earlier, they have done everything they can to try to have it repealed, reneged or reviewed. As I understand it, the problem for the companies has been that on 19 September 1998 the second round of the nine-year tenure for franchisees was up for renewal. Unfortunately for the oil companies—and, I suppose, for the government—the government promised to repeal that act, so the companies failed to renew their contracts with the franchisees.Where does that leave us in relation to the current situation with prices? We believe that the government has failed to deliver in a number of areas. We have not had reduced prices. We have not had the security in the industry and, from my point of view and from my experience, we are handing over control of the source to the bowser to the oil companies. We should bear in mind this: not that long ago there were seven oil companies operating in this country; now we are down to four. If that is not an oligopoly, then I might be a duffer—I was going to say something else. We are handing over control of prices to those gentle giants that the government has made commitments to look after.As far as we are concerned, the government has failed to deliver, and we now have a situation where there is a lot of uncertainty in the industry. The way to go is the way being proposed by the Labor Party, and that is to give that security to the industry and to give some sort of surety to the franchisees and to the other people involved. Unfortunately, the actions of the government since it has been in power have made things more and more uncertain. The government has not been able to give people the certainty that they need to operate in this community.15:40:008818McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I also join in this debate to take note of the answer given by Senator Minchin on petrol pricing. We all understand that petrol pricing is a very sensitive issue. It is sensitive in everyone's electorate, especially in my rural electorate, because every time families have to go to the bowser, they are paying $40 to $50 cold to fill their tanks. That is what people know; that is what they see. The question that is relayed back to us is: why are the petrol prices so high? We can only say that petrol prices are dependent on many factors. There is no one single factor, least of all a government factor. One factor is that petrol is very sensitive to world prices, and today the world price for barrels of oil is high. It is high for many different reasons, one being the fact that supply has been reduced from the Middle East countries. It is always dependent on the oil prices. We have all established that transport costs are a minimal part of the price of petrol—coming in at 1c to 2c, at least in rural areas. So they have a minimal effect but, nevertheless, an effect.Another factor is that government tax does affect petrol pricing. But I should add that the government, since being in government for well over three years now, have not increased the government petrol tax one cent. In fact, because the tax is indexed to inflation—inflation has virtually been zero in this country—it has not gone up at all. It is to our credit that we have not taken advantage of government taxing of petrol. But I will tell you who has and who did: the previous government. In the 1993 budget, and probably in every budget that they produced, Labor increased petrol taxes. We have not. Under the tax reform package for businesses we will be reducing petrol prices by at least 7c. But, all in all, petrol pricing is sensitive to world prices and competition.We know that in the rural areas no-one can go to a meeting without being asked that perennial question: why are petrol prices so much higher in the country than they are in the city? The answer is competition. The turnover by the rural petrol stations is just not as great as it is in the city, so there is an enormous difference in the competitive forces. For that reason, the cost structures are higher for the petrol stations in the country areas and therefore the petrol prices are higher. That is the predominant reason. This government has undertaken to increase the competitive forces, and by increasing the competitive forces we will get downward pressure on the prices. The introduction of the independents, particularly Woolworths, has had the enormous effect in country areas of forcing the four majors to reduce their prices in country areas.The government are fully aware of the sensitivities of petrol pricing and have introduced a reform scheme to deregulate so as to introduce competitive pressures on the petrol prices. Our plan is to abolish the sites act and the franchise act, as well as the Laidley agreement which prevented direct access to the terminals, but we are not going to abolish them—this is something the other side failed to acknowledge during this debate—until we get an Oilcode.It sits on the table until an Oilcode, agreed to by the oil companies and the service station owners, is signed off. Until that happens it sits on the table. There will be no rush to deregulate until all parties accept the Oilcode so as to ensure fair and proper competition and so that the four major oil companies do not get an unfair advantage. Any private member's bill that the other side bring in is, I think, to be dismissed immediately, and any opportunism that they bring to this debate is to be dismissed. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.881915:45:008819Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I want to, if I may, table an answer to a question asked by Senator Faulkner on 1 September. Opposition senators interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—It is a bit late. With the hullabaloo following question time, I did not do it then. I just want to table this answer to a question, if I may.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—I have been advised by the Clerk that answers to questions should be incorporated rather than tabled, unless they are lengthy. The normal practice is to seek leave to incorporate.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—That is the normal practice; I do not know that I particularly want to follow normal practice. Am I obliged to do so?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I will seek advice.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Is it embarrassing to you?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—No, not at all.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You can table it, Senator Ian Macdonald, but of course it will not be available to readers of Hansard .YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I could read it out. It is very innocuous.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Incorporate it.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—You want me to read it out, do you?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Incorporate it.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I will table it. It is available to all senators if it is tabled, is it?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—A minister does not have to have leave to table a document. The document is tabled.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It is insulting and childish.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Insulting to whom?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Cook! He is entitled to table it. Ministerial Statements8820882015:47:008820Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I table a statement by the Minister for Trade on a report on the visit to South America and the meetings of the Cairns Group and APEC, together with a copy of Australia's APEC Individual Action Plan for 1999. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—REPORT ON VISIT TO SOUTH AMERICA, AND THE MEETINGS OF THE CAIRNS GROUP AND APECSTATEMENT TO PARLIAMENTI thank the House for this opportunity to report on the outcomes of my visit earlier this month to four South American countries, and on the meetings of the Cairns Group and APEC that I also attended.Cairns Group Ministerial meetingIn Buenos Aires, I chaired the nineteenth Ministerial Meeting of the Cairns Group of fair trading agricultural nations from 27-29 August.Mr Speaker, coming less than three months before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting at Seattle which is expected to agree on an agenda and a framework for WTO trade negotiations, the Cairns Group meeting could not have been more timely. I am pleased to report that, in a strongly worded communique, the Group reaffirmed its commitment to an ambitious liberalising outcome from the next round of agricultural negotiations and agreed to work closely during the lead-up to Seattle.The meeting reconfirmed the Group's ambitions for freer, fairer and more market-oriented global trading conditions, with trade in agriculture placed on the same footing as trade in other products. The Group agreed that at Seattle, they would push for a clear and detailed mandate for agricultural negotiations to ensure they begin on time, conclude before 2003, and have clear objectives.The Group also welcomed the strong message of support from Mr Dan Glickman, US Secretary for Agriculture, who was a guest at the meeting and who assured us that the United States would not agree to any WTO outcome that did not include a good result on agriculture. Given the broad convergence of Cairns Group and US interests, Secretary Glickman agreed that the United States should cooperate closely with the Cairns Group in the lead-up to Seattle and beyond.Mr Speaker, Secretary Glickman's presence also gave me another opportunity to convey Australia's continuing concerns over the US decision to restrict Australian lamb exports, and also to seek details on the United States' proposed US$7.5 billion emergency farm aid package. Secretary Glickman assured me that the proposed package would not breach US obligations under the WTO.Cairns Group Ministers agreed to meet next in Seattle on the eve of the WTO Conference, and again in Canada next year.South American visitsMr Speaker, during my trip to South America from 27 August to 5 September I visited Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay. Highlights of those visits included the signature of a double taxation agreement with Argentina, the opening of the new Australian Consulate-General and Austrade office in Lima and an IDP Education Australia office in Sao Paulo, and high-level official and business contacts in all countries visited. My meetings with Australian business representatives emphasised the trade and investment opportunities for Australian companies in the region, particularly in the mining, agri-business, infrastructure and services sectors. The rapid development of these markets demonstrates the effectiveness of the Government's policy of encouraging greater market diversification by Australian exporters.Merchandise exports to South America were valued at just $200 million in the mid-1980s, but have grown to around $900 million in 1998-99. While Australia's exports are concentrated in the minerals and resources sector, exports of manufactures have grown strongly in the last decade and now account for over 40 per cent of all exports. With merchandise imports from South America valued at $550 million in 1998-99, Australia enjoys a substantial merchandise trade surplus with the region.South America is also a promising market for services, and Australian exports of services now exceed $250 million. Apart from traditional areas like banking, finance and mining, there are also new opportunities in education, superannuation, health and telecommunications.Investment, estimated at $3.6 billion in mid-1998, has been the cornerstone of Australia's involvement in the region. South America's strong resource and agricultural base has been attractive to Australian companies, particularly the mining sector, but the range of Australian investment is diversifying.The longer-term economic outlook for the countries I visited is positive. All have massive natural resources, increasingly affluent populations and are moving towards more open markets. Opportunities in South America warrant a fresh look by Australian businesses and the Government is doing its part to help, as the new trade- focused Consulate-General in Lima demonstrates. And the current inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into Australia's Trade and Investment Relationship with South America will provide a valuable review of Australia's links with this region.APEC Ministerial meetingMr Speaker, together with my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I attended the APEC Ministerial Meeting in Auckland on 9 and 10 September. I went with three key objectives:to produce a strong unambiguous statement of support by APEC for the launch of a new WTO round;to maintain the emphasis in APEC on trade and investment liberalisation and to ensure that Individual Action Plans reflect a determination to meet the Bogor goals; andto highlight the useful trade facilitation work that has been done by APEC and to accelerate progress where possible.I'm pleased to report that the Ministerial and Leaders' meetings delivered strong outcomes that very much met these objectives.We now have an unambiguous commitment by the Asia-Pacific region to a pragmatic set of negotiations that deliver substantial improvements in market access. The agreement forged by APEC in Auckland, which has set the scene for a successful WTO meeting in Seattle, includes:a call for comprehensive market access negotiations, including on industrial tariffs in addition to agriculture and services;agreement that the Round should be completed in three years as a single package without precluding the possibility of early results on a provisional basis—including the Accelerated Tariff Liberalisation package; andon agriculture, a commitment to participate actively and constructively in the negotiations, and support for the elimination of agricultural export subsidies and unjustifiable export prohibitions and restrictions.Another significant outcome of the meeting was agreement to improve APEC members' Individual Action Plans, the documents which record the steps economies have taken—or will take—to reach the APEC goals of free and open trade and investment. I will be working hard to ensure that the Individual Action Plan process delivers better market access for Australian companies and that the Plans themselves are improved. To this end, Australia will provide technical assistance to help developing economy APEC members produce better Plans. Mr Speaker, I presented Australia's own Individual Action Plan to APEC in Auckland and today I have the pleasure of tabling it for the information of Honourable Members. I commend it to the House.I also used the margins of the APEC meeting to launch a study on the benefits to APEC members of opening up sugar markets in the region. Australian sugar producers are the most efficient in the world and I will be doing all I can to highlight the distortions in global sugar trade, including at the WTO meeting in Seattle.The other outcome from Auckland with which I was closely involved was an agreement to boost business facilitation. APEC's work on streamlining standards, customs procedures, business travel and in other areas complements the more traditional trade liberalisation work and reduces costs of conducting business in the region in a very concrete and direct way. For example, the Auckland meeting signed off on a new Mutual Recognition Agreement on Conformity Assessment for electrical and electronic goods which could take five per cent off the production costs of this US$250 billion regional trade—saving exporters and consumers up to US$12.5 billion a year, once fully implemented. APEC Ministers agreed in Auckland to give more attention to this practical kind of work and to involve business groups more in setting priorities and taking advice.ConclusionMr Speaker, the Cairns Group and APEC meetings have laid the groundwork for the crucial WTO meeting in Seattle. I am encouraged by the great support Australia has generated for its WTO objectives, and our Government is determined to pull out all stops to ensure that those objectives are met.15:47:008821Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the documents.I seek leave to make a short statement in reply.Leave granted.Opposition senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Go ahead, Senator Cook.AW5CARRSenator Carr—He is complaining about what an idiot Senator Ian Macdonald is.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask for that to be withdrawn.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I think you should withdraw.AW5CARRSenator Carr—I withdraw.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Let's get back to business.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Mr Vaile's statement dealt with the Cairns Group, South America and APEC. I will respond in each area and make some general comments about where this leaves us—with a new World Trade Organisation round fast approaching.Overall, it has to be said that this is an insipid and weak statement. It reads like a travelogue rather than a serious report on policy and a report on how Australia's interests have been advanced by the Minister for Trade in these three areas. What is now of critical urgency is that the Howard government say what its policy position will be when the expected millennium round commences in Seattle, as it is anticipated it will at the end of November this year. In particular, Australians are entitled to know what the government's position is on competition policy as part of the world trade agenda, on investment measures, on labour standards, on environmental measures and on what is now fast becoming a controversial matter—genetically modified organisms.I turn first to that part of Minister Vaile's statement dealing with the Cairns Group. Mr Vaile gives us a potted summary of the objectives of the Cairns Group but nothing on the challenges it will face and how it intends to meet them. Worse, he betrays no sense that he understands how the Cairns Group fits into the overall trade picture. It has to be said that eight of the 15 Cairns Group countries are also members of APEC but there is no mention in the statement as to how that substantial bloc, in favour of agricultural trade liberalisation, could have played a role at the recent APEC conference. It reminds us on this side of the Cairns Group communique from Buenos Aires in August which read more like a tirade against agricultural protection than a strategy for removing the barriers that cost Australian farmers so dearly. It might as well have been recycled from the year before with just the names and the dates changed. My point here is that this is a significant group that gives Australia more clout in world trade negotiations than our ordinary size would suggest, and there ought to have been in the statement some vision about how we intended to affect the millennium round to open up the world agricultural markets.Finally, dealing with this part of the statement, Mr Vaile said that the US Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Dan Glickman, assured him that the US $7.5 billion aid package to American farmers to support them because of lower commodity prices does not breach WTO rules. But there are some more fundamental questions for him to deal with and which we would have expected would have been in the forefront of the mind of a former agriculture minister. First, will the US package hurt Australian farmers? Second, if so, what does he intend to do about it? I look forward to hearing Mr Vaile's answers on those matters.Mr Vaile in this statement also reports on his visit to South America. It is terrific to see Mr Vaile visiting four South American countries and ensuring that Australian exporters get slightly better access to those markets. But while Mr Vaile is focusing on market access, there is a much bigger game being played out—that is, the free trade agreement game. Negotiations are currently occurring on free trade agreements between a range of Asian countries and their South American trading partners. These include Japan and Mexico, Singapore and Mexico, and Korea and Chile.All these agreements, if they were to succeed, would hurt Australia. But it is not only that we are not being asked to play some of these games; even when we are asked to play we seem to choose to sit on the sidelines. The one potential free trade agreement that might include Australia is known as P5, made up of the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Chile and Singapore. However, despite frequent entreaties from the New Zealanders, we are refusing to put any real work into P5 whatsoever. Why? It is almost impossible to know because the minister has made no public statements about it. Perhaps trade for this government is limited to trade promotion.Let me now turn to APEC. Labor feels passionately about APEC, which is why in June Kim Beazley gave a pathways speech focusing on APEC and I produced a 27-page discussion paper on APEC. We cannot help but despair as we watch the organisation of APEC drift into irrelevance under the Howard government. Mark Vaile's goals for APEC give some idea of where the organisation has got to.Labor has urged the government to grasp the nettle of achieving the Bogor goals of free trade by 2010 for developed countries and by 2020 for developing countries. We have pointed out that the next WTO round will be the last round to be completed before the year 2010. If Australia wants to see the Bogor goals achieved, it needs to get them up in the WTO. That means APEC members—who had all committed themselves to the Bogor goals—agreeing to take those goals together into the WTO round. Instead, anxious not to aim for something that is not absolutely sure to be achieved, the government opted to just have APEC members endorse a new round—a modest objective if ever there was one. Mr Vaile's second and third goals for APEC are vacuous in the extreme. Goal No. 2 is:. to maintain the emphasis in APEC on trade and investment liberalisation . . . It is an extraordinarily anodyne goal. Surely this is the core of what APEC is about. How difficult can it be to focus the organisation's attention on its reason for existence? Goal No. 3 is:. to highlight the useful trade facilitation work that has been done by APEC . . . This is not a goal; it is a public relations strategy. I quote it again:. to highlight the useful trade facilitation work that has been done by APEC . . . Amidst all of this vacuity there is no mention of China's accession to the World Trade Organisation. Whilst it was not an agenda item at the Auckland APEC meeting, the meeting between President Bill Clinton of the United States and President Jiang Zemin of the People's Republic of China was one of the major events in Auckland, yet it does not even rate a mention in Mr Vaile's report. What is the government doing, if anything, to promote China's accession to the World Trade Organisation?We understand that Australia and China have settled their bilateral package. It is in the national economic interest of this country for China's membership of the WTO to go ahead. It will help stabilise the Chinese economy and enable them to continue with further restructuring and addressing their unemployment needs. This is a matter in our national interest and it should be clear on the agenda where Australia stands and what Australia is doing to achieve a positive outcome, rather than Australia hanging back and waiting for settlement with the superpowers without any consideration about what our role can be in forging some sort of agreement on that front.Today's platitudinous statement will do nothing to reassure those who are looking for a sense of drive and vision in November's Seattle World Trade Organisation meeting. Already we are being told privately that the minister is not sure whether he wants to liaise with Australian business in Seattle. Conditions for liberalising world trade are better than at any time in the past 20 years, but there is no sense that this government is ready to play the leading role that Australia played in the Uruguay Round.In the concluding stages of the Uruguay Round, Australia sat with the United States, Europe and Japan and forged the final outcome. It did so because as the permanent chair of the Cairns Group it had a major stake in ensuring that agricultural trade liberalisation proceeded. The fundamental position adopted by Australia in the concluding stages of the Uruguay Round was that there would be no agreement to a settlement in the whole of the trade package for the rest of the world unless there was a settlement on agriculture. By holding strongly to that point and being supported by the Cairns Group countries—the nations of South-East Asia, Latin America, New Zealand and Canada—we were able to force a major breakthrough in terms of agricultural liberalisation.We opened the door. The door is not open all the way, but it is substantially opened. The challenge for this coming round is to push the door open all of the way. That means dealing with issues of agricultural protection that we have seen on the rise in Japan, particularly in the rice industry where access by Australian rice producers has declined, and to see that American subsidies for agriculture—which, irrespective of their WTO compliance, will nonetheless dilute world prices—do not harm Australian agricultural interests. These issues and the opening up of the common agricultural policy in Europe are major issues. In the statement there ought to have been some vision about how we intend to deal with them, rather than leaving Australian farmers wondering what this government is doing on the international trade front to open market access for them. Our farmers are the most competitive agricultural producers in the world. They export most of what they produce. If they cannot get into foreign markets because of barriers to trade, then this government is to blame.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees88248824882415:58:008824Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present further additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee in response to its inquiry into the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 .882410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation CommitteeParticipating member: Senator Forshaw to be a participating member for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 .Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References CommitteeSubstitute member: Senator Payne to substitute for Senator Brownhill on Friday, 24 September 1999 for the committee's inquiry into the economic, social and political conditions in East Timor.Participating member: Senator Hutchins.Miscellaneous882416:00:008824Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move: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.The overwhelming wave of rejection of the type of government adopted in Victoria by Mr Kennett should be a salutary lesson for all governments throughout Australia. Those who feel they can approach government through harsh and unjust actions in the sure confidence that they, as politicians or as governments, know what is best and that only they know what is best have surely been taught a substantive lesson from the events that occurred in Victoria on the weekend.In recent times there has been an ideology pursued by governments that has permitted the lowest forms of government within this country. At the lowest levels of public administration, assumptions are being made about what government should and should not do. There has been a presumption in recent times that governments should withdraw from their responsibilities and their commitments to service the people of this country and that they should concentrate on servicing the business community in particular. They believe they should adopt policies which have seen a reduction in the standards of living of ordinary Australians and the removal of services which have traditionally been regarded as the primary focus of governments. These assumptions can justly be challenged by the fact that ordinary Australians have demonstrated, on numerous occasions in recent times, that they will not tolerate that sort of behaviour.Like the federal government, the Liberal government in Victoria were proud of their boast that they were totally business oriented. They ran government in the state, as they say, like a small business enterprise, where profit was the goal. Those who were not performing on a business type basis were deemed to be inefficient and were to be eliminated. That meant, of course, that if you were running a school, a hospital or a child-care centre, it was perceived that you had to apply those same methods of operation you would if you were running a large corporation. It is quite apparent that that is not the way in which governments should function.The government has been able to withdraw services in Victoria both as a result of federal government cuts and as a result of a deliberative policy decision in Victoria which had seen, for many hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens, public services being reduced to a bare minimum. Ordinary Victorians in their hundreds of thousands have demonstrated that they are not going to put up with that. They have demonstrated that this born to rule type of government is to be rejected.They have rejected the mantra laid down by the federal government and adopted in Victoria by the state Liberal government. It is a mantra of reform without consultation, a mantra that has predicated its existence on the assumption that change should be pursued, that the government should ride roughshod over citizens' rights and that politicians should demonstrate what they perceive to be leadership by a contemptible dismissal of other points of view that were critical of the actions of those governments.After the Victorian election results, we are now seeing commentators all around Australia being very wise after the event. They are saying that now is the time for a change in government policy. I think it is appropriate that we ask: to what extent can governments of the type that we have seen in recent times, both here in Canberra and in Melbourne, actually change? Is it possible for the leopard to change its spots? I am of the view that that is most unlikely.Mr Kennett's initial response to his humiliation on Saturday was defiance. In a very glib manner, befitting the style of government that he has operated over the last few years, he said, `Tomorrow is the next day of your life and we will just go on as if nothing has really happened.' Yesterday he demonstrated a conversion. He found that he was able to say, in some very highly qualified way, that he was sorry and that he had regrets. He said that, if he had hurt anybody, he had regrets. He indicated that he was prepared to change his actions.I think those statements had more to do with the Liberal Party meeting in Melbourne today than they had to do with any underlying change in government policy or style in Victoria. Think about John Howard and his capacity to do that. I saw the difficulty with which he faced the basic issue on reconciliation. It was quite apparent that he was not even able to go as far as Mr Kennett has been able to go in terms of expression of his regrets. In the case of Mr Howard, it is most unlikely that he will ever be able to change his style or policies, no matter what his regrets are now about the level of public disillusionment with those policies.It should be understood that the economic philosophy of the governments in Melbourne and in Canberra are essentially identical. It is a philosophy that had its genesis in a whole series of manoeuvres within the Liberal Party based upon the development and strengthening of a particular economic view within the Liberal Party, tied up with a range of think tanks. This has seen, for instance, the Tasman Institute and the Institute of Public Affairs demonstrate such influence in recent times.We have seen the secret meetings of the various gurus in the key Victorian Liberals around Mr Costello and Dr Kemp. They have been attempting to devise programs of small government, of privatisation, of extreme economic rationalism and of union bashing. We have seen Mr Reith attempting to pursue his particular view of consultative, inclusive government—predicated on the assumption that, if you carry a big enough stick, you have a big enough dog and you have enough thugs with balaclavas, then you can get your way.It is quite apparent that Victorians will not stand for that sort of behaviour. It is quite apparent that the sorts of policies that have been pursued through the Tasman Institute's Project Victoria have been put into practice by governments. This has seen the privatisation of utilities, of schools, of hospi tals and of public transport, and the replacement of independent public servants who have a professional approach to government with a group of compliant contractors. We have seen basic services consulted out. We have seen fundamental democratic controls through the use of the parliament, the Auditor-General and a whole range of other institutions seriously undermined. We have a situation in Victoria where the parliament itself hardly ever met. We have a situation where the upper house was completely the mouthpiece of some of the most troglodyte within the Liberal Party. We are at the point now where advertisements are being placed as to the nature of this government—I am thinking of the newspaper articles that were so prominently displayed yesterday. The government is shredding its records. We saw the situation where three truckloads of shredded documents were removed from the Premier's office yesterday. We saw, however, that those trucks were from a private company. This is a government that has even outsourced its shredding. The illegal and improper shredding of government files has been outsourced.We have seen the situation where the devastation of the public sector in Victoria is such that it would now require something like an 11 or 12 per cent increase in taxation or an increase of about $1.2 billion in expenditure on health care and education just to restore services to where they were some five years ago. The Victorian experience is very much a microcosm of what we have seen nationally in this country. We have seen an agenda being pursued by the National-Liberal government which has been based on a presumption that it is better to privatise key public services and better to remove public assets from the public sector and hand them over to your mates.We have seen the gutting of the federal Public Service. We have seen the introduction of draconian industrial laws which have been aimed at driving out organised labour and the rights of ordinary people to defend themselves and their capacity to present a view and an effective voice within the workplace. We have seen budgets which have substantially under mined the social infrastructure of ordinary Australians. We all know just how much ordinary Australians depend upon governments to maintain their standard of living, how important the local hospital and local school are, and how important it is to ensure that community safety is provided by having a decent and accountable Public Service in terms of police and all the other infrastructure that goes with public expenditure.We have also seen that the government here in Canberra has attempted to cut back resources in such a way that the states themselves have had forced upon them further changes and cuts to the services that they themselves provide. We have seen the most dramatic impacts upon rural and regional communities. We have seen the level of services provided remarkably reduced. As a consequence, opportunities have been remarkably reduced for ordinary Australians.Both the Howard and the Kennett governments have devised policies that have given rise to massive rural and regional dissatisfaction, with very high levels of inequality and social distress. Of course the modern day Liberal governments attempted to effectively disenfranchise those communities, and that has resulted in the most extraordinary of political developments. In the 1990s we have seen the rise of various rural movements which are totally dissatisfied with their representation from the National Party in this country and the failure of the National Party to defend those communities. We have seen the backlash from people who have felt abandoned by government and by their political representatives—to the point where it is quite apparent that governments have little understanding of the needs of rural and regional Australia.It is quite apparent that governments have abandoned the citizens of this country and have sought to rely increasingly upon secret commercial deals behind closed doors and, when any questions are raised about the nature of those deals, to claim that the parliament and the public are not entitled to know about them, because of their response to commercial in-confidence requirements.We have seen the abandonment by governments of the obligation to ensure that there is an equality of living standards across this country. I am sure that this is a lesson for the National Party. I see that there are a couple of National Party senators still in the chamber. It is important for the National Party to appreciate the lessons that have been demonstrated to them right across the eastern seaboard now. It is apparent, as we saw in Gippsland, for instance—the great country seat of the McGauran tribe—that it is not good enough to exhibit large sums of money and have conspicuous displays of wealth. Quite frankly, it is totally inappropriate to come in here as the National Party and display huge sums of personal wealth and privilege and, at the same time, represent people who have very little. That is the nature of the National Party these days, particularly in Victoria.Senator McGauran interjecting—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—It is worth noting that it is the National Party that has been able to display this wealth to the point where Senator McGauran is able to secure his own seat in the parliament through the display of such wealth. Well, perhaps it was once the case that the wealth was there. I understand that there have been some recent changes.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Under the standing orders of parliament, a member of parliament cannot reflect on another member of either house. I suggest that—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—What is the reflection? That he has had money?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—That I bought my seat.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—That he bought his seat. That is a reflection on Senator Julian McGauran. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to call the senator to order and ask him not to make those sorts of statements that are not in conformity with standing orders.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Carr, if that reflection on the member has been made, I would seek that you withdraw it.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I am hurt.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I am glad to see that the senator is so hurt by these suggestions. I do not think that he did buy the seat—if I might confirm that. I understand that his father was able to distribute considerable sums—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If that reflection is there, I ask you to withdraw it.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Whatever you wish, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Are you withdrawing it?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I am withdrawing whatever you have asked me to withdraw.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I rise on a point of order. That is a qualified withdrawal. It is a serious accusation that Senator Carr is making against the McGauran family.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On the point of order, I did ask Senator Carr, if that was the reflection, to withdraw it unconditionally. Will you withdraw unconditionally, Senator Carr?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I have already done that, Mr Acting Deputy President. Can I suggest that the National Party—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I rise on a point of order. He is playing ducks and drakes. I am sure that you would agree with me on the point of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You can resume your seat, Senator. Senator Carr, you can withdraw unconditionally.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I have withdrawn unconditionally.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you. You may proceed.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Again, I am very sensitive about this and therefore I want an unconditional withdrawal. He said, `I have withdrawn unconditionally.' I would ask him to withdraw unconditionally. He has not, to this point.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am satisfied that there has been an unconditional withdrawal of any reflection on your obtaining a place in this honourable chamber. Senator Carr, proceed.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The National Party have yet to learn some of these basic lessons. The fact remains that they are unable to effectively represent rural and regional communities and have been demonstrated to have lost the confidence of rural and regional Australia. It is quite apparent that, given the responses here, they have still to learn these basic lessons. So not only is it Mr John Howard and Mr Jeff Kennett that have failed to appreciate this matter; it is quite apparent that Senator McGauran has yet to appreciate the seriousness of the political crisis that is facing the National Party.It is important to appreciate that the Howard government policies have inflicted huge social damage upon this country. In simple terms, over the last three years we have seen the removal from the states of some $1½ billion in federal funding. We have seen community infrastructure decline dramatically as a direct result of the huge cuts that have occurred, for instance, in education. We have seen TAFE colleges in provincial cities and metropolitan areas financially squeezed almost to the point of extinction. We have seen serious funding shortfalls in TAFE in Ballarat, Bendigo and at Wodonga. We have seen huge losses in Gippsland. Last December the Northern Metropolitan College of TAFE were down to a couple of days of operating monies as a result of serious financial shortfalls. They were on the verge of bankruptcy as a direct result of the savage cuts to those institutions.Regional universities—at Ballarat, for instance—which have traditionally been major contributors to regional communities, have faced funding cuts which have almost driven them out of existence. We have seen school class sizes increase, we have seen special needs teachers removed and we have seen a whole series of actions whereby the Commonwealth has embarked upon policies which have undermined the capacity of ordinary Australians to have access to quality services. In rural communities that is particularly the case. We have seen our national health system undermined as a result of the chaos inflicted by this government. We have seen an attempt to impose an Americanised private health sector model. We have seen state governments privatise hospitals. In Victoria we have seen them undertake actions—sometimes in a most corrupt manner—which I am sure only a judicial inquiry in Victoria will fully reveal. There have been actions with regard to the Crown Casino which, in due course, will come to light. We have seen a climate of fear and intimidation in Victoria to the point where people are not prepared to come forward but, through the secrecy of the ballot box, they have been saying, `That's not good enough,' and the `mates only' policy is coming to an end. I have absolutely no doubt that when there is a proper judicial process instrument in Victoria it will get to the bottom of these issues and demonstrate that corruption has been endemic in Victoria under the Liberals. With regard to telecommunications there has been a massive loss in services as a result of the privatisation of Telstra. We have seen huge job losses inflicted disproportionately on rural and regional Victoria.In the last election the coalition was able to secure only 41 per cent of the primary vote compared to Labor's 46 per cent of the vote—or 51 per cent on a two-party preferred basis. This reflects the Victorian result at the federal election last October. In fact, if the truth be known, Senator Richard Alston was a campaign director for the Liberal Party in that election, and the votes were a bit better federally for Labor. The Labor Party was able to secure 53.5 per cent of the vote—a swing of about 3½ per cent. This is despite the fact that there was a demonstrable abuse of the caretaker conventions by the national Liberal government when Senator Alston and Senator Hill used their administrative discretion to abuse the grants that were being administered through the Federation Fund cultural and heritage projects—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I again draw your attention to the fact that Senator Carr is making unpalatable reflections on the members of this Senate, Senator Alston and Sena tor Hill. He knows full well that he is not allowed to do that. You know full well that he is not allowed to do that. I ask you to draw his attention to that standing order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I think it would be wise if you did not cast any reflections on members in this place. I think you sailed very close to the wind on the last occasion.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think that what we have here is a pattern of behaviour of secrecy and complicity within this government to abuse their privileges—and that is what the administration of public office is in this country, to take advantage of their situations by various means and to develop a secret state which highlights an arrogant and uncaring attitude towards the people of this country. It is an arrogance which presumes that people will not protest too loudly, that they will accept what is dished out to them, no matter what the abuse.It is quite apparent that that is not the case. It is quite apparent that, as far as most people are concerned, arrogance is no substitute for real leadership in politics—that being able to bully and buy people only gets you so far. It appears that the policies of confrontation that have been pursued by this government will be rejected. Policies such as the use of dogs and thugs in balaclavas will be rejected. A government will be rejected if it assumes that, instead of working with the community and bringing the community forward with issues, it can impose solutions. We have seen the Victorian government rejected because of its policies of `the mates come first'. We have seen a government demonstrate arrogance, contempt and a capacity to misuse the public purse in a manner which is unparalleled in the Commonwealth's history. It uses antics and sideshows as a substitute for real policies to improve the living conditions of ordinary Australians.This is a government which has demonstrated a capacity to behave just like its cousins in Canberra. In my judgment, it is only a matter of time before the actions of this government in Victoria with regard to the building of monuments, and its corrupt behaviour with regard to the casino and its privatisation and tendering processes, will be exposed for this country to see. The sorts of actions that we have seen with regard to Hudson Conway and Penthouse Pete will undoubtedly come to the point where all will be revealed.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. That reflection on another member of the lower house is against standing orders. This is the third time that I have asked you to pull the speaker up. He continues to defy your orders. I ask you to ask him either to sit down and not proceed with his speech or to withdraw.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In response to Senator Boswell's point of order, Senator Carr, you should refer to members by their proper title and you should not make reflections on people in other places. As I warned you on the last occasion, you are sailing very close to the wind. The Clerk and I have discussed this and we advise you to—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—We advise you to mend your ways.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, do not put words into my mouth, Senator Boswell. We advise you, Senator Carr, to be careful and guarded in the way in which you address members in other places.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Mr Acting Deputy President, on that point of order: as Senator Boswell stated, we are requesting a withdrawal of the reflection.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—What reflection?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—There was a serious reflection in relation to corruption and with regard to calling the member for Flinders by some sort of cheapjack nickname. We would ask you to withdraw that and address the member for Flinders as he is entitled to be addressed. More than that, you were stringing words together, previous to that, in relation to matters of corruption. It does not surprise me that Senator Carr would do that, but it is out of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On that point of order, Senator McGauran, it is not a matter for withdrawal. However, as I have pointed out to Senator Carr, he should refer to members in other places by their correct and appropriate titles. I draw your attention to that, once again, Senator Carr.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—The whole question that arises from this election—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Mr Acting Deputy President, on that point of order: I am not clear on your ruling and ask for your indulgence. Are you asking him to withdraw?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, I am not asking him to withdraw.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—This election result is much more than a protest vote. It cannot be dismissed in such a cavalier manner. This is a fundamental rejection of the ideologically driven, uncaring and arrogant attitudes of the government, which have demonstrated that they are prepared to ride roughshod over the concerns of ordinary Australians. Ordinary Australians demand much more from government. (Time expired)16:25:008830Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Unlike Senator Carr, I am proud to be a Victorian and to represent Victoria in this Senate. I am also proud to be a constituent of the Kennett government—living in Victoria as I do—and a member of the Howard government team here in Canberra. Senator Carr referred to a pattern of behaviour and I might refer him back to what was the Labor pattern of behaviour both in his own federal government, culminating in Mr Keating's prime ministership, and in the Cain-Kirner government, to which Senator Carr, I believe, was an adviser. The pattern of behaviour that existed there was to bring an economy to its knees both in the state government, culminating in the election of 1992, and in the federal government, culminating in the defeat of Labor after 13 years of mismanagement of the economy. So I would suggest that he studies his own tribal patterns of behaviour very carefully before he starts to comment on those of other parties.If we look at some of the election policies that Mr Bracks brought forward during the recent state election, I believe that they bear no relation to any of the consistent and sensible economic policies brought forward by Prime Minister Howard. Look at such election policies as buying back Waverley football ground, bringing back 100 tram conductors and initiating pooled development funds for the country—which, to me, have sinister overtones of the Victorian Economic Development Commission of the nineties—and look at the quality of the proposed ALP frontbench, which was described in today's Sun-Herald as being `very thin and green'.Senator Carr interjecting—GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—It says in the article, Senator Carr, that your team does not have the capacity to rule Victoria.Senator Carr interjecting—GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Like many of your representatives in the Senate, Senator Carr, of the 18 members of shadow cabinet, seven are former teachers and lecturers. While I have nothing against teachers, being a former teacher myself, I do have a problem with people who are elected to run the country who have no experience whatever of the private sector, and no business experience. Only two of those 18 members have run a business or held a senior executive position. That means that half of them have been union or party officials, and there are two more who were Kirner advisers. The phrase is used: `a slew of union and party officials, a couple of lawyers and just one or two from business'. That gives us no confidence whatever in the capacity of the Bracks frontbench to run Victoria.Victoria—and I am going to deal with it from an agricultural and educational point of view—has strong competitive advantages, as we all know. It has a fertile and productive agricultural base, a sophisticated manufacturing sector, a highly educated and skilled work force, excellent social and physical infrastructure and a mature political system. In agriculture alone, regional Victoria's productivity has increased significantly in the 1990s and the federal government has assisted in this.Across the state in both urban and rural areas employment has grown in all major service industries, especially in trade and industries associated with tourism; and unemployment has fallen from 12.3 per cent five years ago to 7.5 per cent today. The agriculture and food industries in Victoria play a critical role in the economy, and the strong economic framework which has been provided by the coalition government in Canberra has assisted in that. You have low interest rates, you have low inflation and you have all the benefits of strong economic management associated with that.The Kennett government established the Food Victoria initiative to work with the agrifood industry to identify and remove impediments to growth. As a result, the value of exports of agricultural commodities and processed food exports from Victoria is now around $4 billion per annum. That represents 35 per cent of the state's export earnings. Food exports have risen 79 per cent in the five years to 1997.The Kennett government, by its strong economic management and the reduction of debt, has attracted food industry investment in excess of $1.7 billion. It has actively supported export strategies. It has established world class food industry infrastructure. It has funded research and development, and the Growing Horizons agricultural initiative launched this year provided $12.4 million in the first year, and that was a 32 per cent increase in the state's agricultural R&D projects. The Commonwealth government also assists R&D by providing matching dollars to the 15 research and development corporations that are in the agriculture portfolio and many of them have ongoing projects in Victoria. There is a food industry advisory committee in Victoria with industry leaders, and that is the framework that brings together industry and government.The dairy industry in Victoria is meeting all of these challenges and Victoria dominates the Australian dairy industry, producing over 60 per cent of the milk, 75 per cent of manufactured dairy products and over 85 per cent of exported dairy products. The Victorian dairy industry is internationally competitive. It provides at wholesale level the state's largest agricultural income.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Are you still going to vote for deregulation in Victoria?GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Yes, deregulation will happen, Senator Schacht. The Victorian dairy industry earns in excess of $800 million in annual exports. Dairy products represent the largest single component of the Victorian food industry. Earlier this year I was delighted to open a very large—Senator Boswell interjecting—Senator Carr interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! Senator Troeth, please resume your seat for a moment. If you people want to participate in the debate, do so later. Senator Troeth is entitled to be heard.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I recently had the pleasure of opening a magnificent new Bonlac plant at Cobden. Bonlac has grown to be one of the most significant dairy product manufacturers in Australia and that plant is a fine example of a $20 million investment in regional Victoria based on innovative technology and marketing and world class environmental management systems. That whole Cobden region in Western Victoria is benefiting directly through more jobs and an increased demand for services which would have been provided by the Kennett government. That plant represents a real opportunity for the region to tap into the lucrative export market in high value dairy products. That particular example is exemplified by all of the agricultural markets and projects presently going on in rural Victoria.Senator Schacht interjecting—GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—There are other agricultural based industries—Senator McGauran interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Troeth, you were correct in resuming your seat. I was about to call these people to order. Senator Schacht and Senator McGauran, if you want to have a debate, come into the debate at the end. I cannot hear Senator Troeth because of the intervention by you people across the chamber. I am entitled to hear Senator Troeth and, if you want to put your names on the speakers list, I am sure we would welcome it later on.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. With respect, I was not interjecting.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I did not say you were interjecting.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Thank you. I was just having a side conversation with Senator McGauran about the future of Gippsland.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Go down the back and have that, if you want to have a side conversation. We are entitled to hear Senator Troeth.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—I was endeavouring to tell the Senate about the success of the dairy industry and the magnificent opportunities in front of it. Not only that, but Victoria is the major state for stone fruit production. It also produces 70 per cent of Australia's processed peaches and apricots.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—How did they vote in Swan Hill? You just fell over the line.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—It is booming, Senator Schacht. It also produces 34 per cent of the dessert stone fruit. That is a booming industry. The wine industry is another growth industry and, again, that has been aided by the economic framework provided by the federal government. Again, the asparagus industry is—Senator Schacht interjecting—Senator Carr interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht and Senator Carr, refrain from speaking whilst the honourable senator is on her feet, please.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—So we have several booming agricultural industries in Victoria.Senator Schacht interjecting—GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Why don't you ask him, Senator Schacht?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you have been invited to put your name on the list, if you desire.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, that is enough, thank you.Senator McGauran interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, I think we will be better if we proceed with Senator Troeth.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Both federal and state governments believe very strongly in farmer education. Again, Farmsmart, which is provided at the state level, is a joint initiative between the government and the VFF to assist farmers to improve their skills in overall farm business management. FarmBiz is provided through joint Commonwealth-state funding and again is an overall initiative to improve farmer education, and that is a community service which is provided in Victoria. Again, Landcare in Victoria has over 850 groups and that is helped by the Commonwealth government with NHT funding.I could go on to give you many other examples of the sorts of agricultural opportunities which are opening up in Victoria. But both federal and state Liberal coalition governments believe in providing the economic opportunity for both individuals and businesses to achieve their potential. The part that rural and regional communities must play in this is to look for areas in which their region has comparative strengths which can support existing businesses to grow, to create sustainable employment opportunities and to attract investment from both established and new industries.All this involves change. It has been a recognised fact of the late eighties and most of the nineties that communities are sometimes slow to accept change and to recognise the opportunities that it brings. I believe Victoria is still in the middle of accepting change, and this is why the electorate is so volatile. We saw them dispose of the Labor government in 1992. The votes have been cast against the coalition government in this election, although it is interesting to note that seven seats in Melbourne recorded a swing to the coalition.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What? Kew, Brighton, Malvern or Hawthorn?GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Try Melbourne. Melbourne, a strong Labor seat, had a 1.6 per cent swing to the coalition, Senator Schacht, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. We are talking about creating over time a changing economic framework in which both individuals and businesses can look at their potential. The Kennett government has recognised the need to continue to listen and respond to issues raised in regional Victoria. Throughout the seven years of its government, there have been regular regional forums, and cabinet has met frequently in country Victoria. The government was listening, and it was attempting to address the concerns of its country constituents. I would like to turn to education. Following a major period of structural reform—Senator Carr interjecting—GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Mr Acting Deputy President, as Senator Carr was allowed to be heard in silence, I would request that he at least affords me the same courtesy.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Ignore them, Senator Troeth.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Unfortunately, Mr Acting Deputy President, that is not always possible. I would ask you to ask Senator Carr to refrain from interjecting.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Troeth, you are being protected, but there are times when you also invite comments. I am trying to balance both of those things and to put them in the correct perspective. You will be protected in addressing this chamber.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order.Senator Carr interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, keep out of it.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I am not challenging that ruling, but I want to be able to understand the ruling. Senator Troeth is on her feet, so you can never say that she invites interjections.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Of course she does!WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—No. She is entitled to put her case. There is no reason for the other side ever to interject. I know that is a norm in this place, it is a culture in this place, but you cannot rule that she has invited interjections.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, there is no point of order. There have been statements made during the speech of Senator Troeth where she has addressed others and then turned back to the chair to say that the remarks were through the chair. But the remarks have been directed at those on the other side and have invited comment. I am protecting Senator Troeth as she is entitled to be protected and as I would protect any speaker on either side from any party who speaks in this chamber.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do like your remark that you are providing me with the protection that would be provided to any other senator. I am not asking for special protection. I know Senator Carr would like me to skip over some of these facts, but the fact is that, in total, the coalition is spending over $800 million more on education this year than was provided by the former Labor government in 1991-92.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—And closing schools everywhere!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, I have invited you previously, if you want to participate in the debate, to put your name on the list and then make your comments. Otherwise, listen to Senator Troeth.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Victoria has recorded the highest student retention rate of any state, and it outperforms all other states in encouraging students to complete their schooling. The retention rate for Victorian government school students in years 10 to 12 was 73.7 per cent, 4.3 percentage points higher than the national average of 69.4 per cent. Victorian government schools have been given the thumbs up by parents following the release of the official parent opinion survey figures which were filled in by around 50,000 parents across government schools. The survey shows that 89.1 per cent of primary school parents and 82 per cent of secondary school parents are satisfied with their schools and indicates that the public has a positive perception of government education. All secondary schools are funded on the basis of one teacher to 16 students, and primary schools are funded on the basis of one teacher to 21 students. More than 11,700 primary school classes operated across the state in 1998. Of these classes, only 6.9 per cent had more than 30 students, which was down from the 1996 level of 8.2 per cent.Through its information technology program, the Kennett government is well on its way to achieving its aim of equipping and skilling schoolchildren with the latest in technology. There are over 100,000 computers in Victorian schools available for student use, and the computer to student ratio is one to six, the best in Australia and one of the best in the world. So much for uncaring policies! The aim is to reduce that ratio to one to five by June 2000, and teachers are also being equipped with laptop computers and being trained in IT.AW5CARRSenator Carr—How much will they cost?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—They are free.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—When the coalition government came to office in October 1992, it inherited a $670 million backlog in government school repairs and maintenance.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is not true.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Troeth, resume your seat. Senator Carr, Senator Schacht and Senator McGauran: Senator Troeth is entitled to be heard. Whilst you might not agree with what she says, you have your opportunity during the debate. I do understand there are interjections as part of the debate in this place, but repeated interjections are disorderly and I remind you of that. Senator Troeth has five minutes left to speak. She is entitled to be heard and, if you have something to contribute to this debate, you are entitled to participate at a later stage. Senator Carr, you have already had your opportunity. Senator McGauran and Senator Schacht, if you want an opportunity, negotiate with your whips to get some time and stand up and participate in the debate. Senator Troeth is entitled to have her say.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Many of those schools were literally falling apart as a result of Labor neglect—and I ought to know, because I worked in them. Since then, the government has worked hard to reduce the school maintenance backlog and, by the end of the 1998-99 financial year, it was estimated to have been reduced to less than $150 million.The early literacy program has also been instituted in schools, placing particular emphasis on the first three years of primary school, which, as we all know, is crucial for children's learning. Victorian primary school children have among the best literacy and numeracy skills of any state in Australia and that is being tested by LAP testing.When the coalition came to government in Victoria and also, I might add, federally, it changed the emphasis in schools from teacher bureaucracy, industrial relations and financial support being given to the ALP to what I would describe as emphasis on true learning and the development of the child's potential. Similarly, the Commonwealth is now providing choice in education so that parents can make an informed choice between either a government school—if that is what they choose—which is equipped to a very good standard or a non-government school. We saw that, under Labor's new schools policy, very little incentive was given to those groups in the community who wanted to establish their own schools through choice in religion or choice in philosophy. Now that choice is available.Not only that, but schools at a Commonwealth level are now being funded not through the amount of money they can raise and through looking at their budget books but through looking at where their students come from. This gives a far better indication of their school's socioeconomic rating and they can be funded accordingly. At every non-government school extension and opening I have attended in Victoria over the last year while this system has been operating, principals of every persuasion have come to me and said how grateful they are to the federal government for at last providing choice in learning for their children. That is one of the most important choices any parent can make.I would like to finish my remarks by pointing out to the Senate that Senator Carr has not always been so keen to stand up for Victoria. He made a particularly splenetic and un-Victorian submission to the inquiry on the ABC which I would like to comment on. Senator Carr, as we all know, has been a senior member of the Labor Party in Victoria for some years. He stood by during the Keating government and allowed Paul Keating to shift ABC arts and communication jobs from Melbourne to Sydney. Perhaps Senator Carr may like the right of reply at some stage to start demonstrating that.According to his own submission to the bipartisan Victorian parliamentary committee into the ABC, 1995 was the low point of Victoria's relative ABC staffing. Senator Carr, you were in government at that time. What did you do for Victoria? Your submission stated that staffing in Victoria has risen from a low point in 1995, and that was reached in the dying years of the Keating government.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Your own minister cut the funding, Judith.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Tell us about Radio Australia.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Radio Australia is a—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr! Senator Schacht!GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—At the same time, your Prime Minister, Paul Keating, showed disgraceful favouritism towards the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. Did you do anything to stand up for jobs in Victoria? You are talking about uncaring and arrogant government. When you had an opportunity to influence policy, I do not know that your Prime Minister, Paul Keating, did anything for Victoria or indeed did anything for Australia. That was why he was booted out in 1996. I hope my remarks have demonstrated that the Kennett and Howard governments have adopted the best possible policy for both Victoria and Australia.16:50:008835Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The result of the Victorian state election last Saturday took most Victorians by surprise. Jeff Kennett said it was a protest vote. It was indeed a protest vote but not in the way he suggested. Victorians, in my view, were not just saying, `We want to give Jeff a bit of a scare.' They were saying, `We've had enough of a government and a Premier which couldn't care less about democracy, the community, decent health and education services.' They said, `We've had enough of an arrogant Premier who can never get enough power.'At this election, he had the hide to stop his ministers and candidates speaking out about their policies and their record. They could not even attend forums set up in local halls in their communities. This was as stupid as it was arrogant, and anyone could have told the Premier that there would be a reaction to this kind of attitude. This is not a Premier inclined to welcome criticism or advice, and I am told he keeps control of his troops just like any schoolyard bully. The Herald Sun said last Sunday that the bullying is over. They said that his graceless speech on Saturday night showed he may not be up to the job: too inflexible, too angry, too limited, and too bored. In that speech, he said:We Victorians have lost the advantage of giving to government the opportunity to govern.What he really meant was that his government could no longer push through legislation without any scrutiny, no longer stitch up cosy deals in secret with mates and no longer treat the parliament with contempt. I do not recall any other period in Victoria's history in which such serious conflicts of interest, contractual bungling and destruction of the cornerstones of our democracy have put good governments at such risk.Jeff Kennett has divided Victorians into winners and losers, and it is clear who the winners are. It has been a government that has been too closely linked with the Crown Casino and Hudson Conway. The minister for planning intervention, Mr Maclellan, has made decisions which have directly benefited the cosy Hudson Conway/Crown Casino/Grand Prix group. The Grand Prix Corporation got legal immunity from damage that was done to houses in Albert Park and by formula 1 cars. Yet Ron Walker had the gall to complain about the decision of voters in Victoria last Saturday when he said that, after all he has done for the state, this was the thanks he got. The thanks the Liberal Party has got from the likes of Mr Walker are huge dollars in their coffers, as we all know.This is a government that has also been too dependent on gambling and too unwilling to look at the enormous problems that poker machines have caused in areas which are economically vulnerable. I was astonished, I must say, to hear Steve Bracks, the opposition leader, say that he would pay for his election promises by increasing taxes on gambling. I hope that was a mistake. I hope I misheard him.It was all the more surprising and worrying coming, as it did, just weeks after a report by the Productivity Commission which drew attention to the unhealthy link between government facilitation of gambling and the central part that gambling taxes have played in paying for government services. Do we really want to reinforce the dependence of government on gambling money? This is a really bad sign from Mr Bracks and indicates that he has not yet grasped the fact that the culture of gambling becomes an addiction not just for the punter but for the public purse, and we can and must learn to do without it.Who can forget in Melbourne the sudden erection of hundreds of road signs directing people towards the Crown Casino? Who can forget the bus service—and no doubt it still runs—which took people directly from suburbs like Footscray to the casino; the Premier's personal endorsement of the casino; the public underwriting of the Grand Prix in a park that would cost Victorians around $100 million; the more than 1,000 trees which were cut down in Albert Park to facilitate those formula 1 cars; and the concrete barriers and the stands occupying the park for more than three months of every year? I hope Mr Bracks takes a more enlightened view of this Grand Prix Corporation's assault on a public park in Port Melbourne when and if he comes to office.Many Victorians were fearful when Joan Kirner first introduced poker machines into Victoria. They rightly argued that they were likely to have a huge impact on people in low income areas, and that is exactly what happened. About $921 a year was gambled for every adult in Victoria. Apparently Australians are the world's heaviest gamblers, according to the Productivity Commission's report. Both parties in Victoria say that they will cap poker machines at $27,500 and introduce advertising rules, disclosure of the odds on machines, clocks to remind punters that they have stayed too long and a restriction on ATMs at venues. But Victorians ask the question: why should we have to wait until we have an election for these kinds of sensible measures to be put in place? I look forward to whichever party is in government delivering on those promises, and more, in relation to gambling.Victorians said last Saturday: we are frightened of the fact that we may not get a hospital bed when we are most in need. Casemix funding, introduced in Victoria some years ago, should have been an administrative tool, but it has been used to run down hospital services and to encourage hospitals to send patients home too soon. Why is it that we have patients on trolleys in corridors for days on end when wards in those same hospitals are closed? It makes no sense, and it made Victorians very angry.Regional hospital networking has seen important hospitals close in Victoria. The Preston and Northcote Community Hospital closed like so many others. The Mildura, Moe and Traralgon hospitals closed to make way for private hospitals. Country Victorians have seen their efforts in building up their hospitals come to nothing, just real estate to be sold off to the highest bidder, although even that is debatable. We do not even know if it is the highest bidder. The Kennett government has put its cronies into positions of power in all of these networks and into the boards which run hospitals. They have turned out to be puppets of the Victorian state government, unable to speak up and unable to protect the services of the communities that they are supposed to represent.The closure of schools and the sacking of teachers are legendary in Victoria. Mr Kennett even changed the Constitution to stop any legal action being taken against school closures. The heavy hand of economic rationalism has been felt in education much more than any other service in Victoria, and Victorians are very deeply angry at the fact that this state now spends less than any other in this country on schools and, as a result, class sizes have risen alarmingly. The vast majority of our public schools are still dependent on old decrepit portable classrooms. They are in no sense portable. Many are 25 years old and more, relics of the sudden entry of baby boomers into schools.We have the highest percentage of students in private schools in Victoria. Senator Troeth says that is a matter of choice, but I think it is more likely that parents see how few resources there are in government schools. Those who can pay, those who have the resources to pay, will do so in order to make sure that their children have available to them good resources. I have been into many private schools, and portable classrooms are virtually unknown in these places. Principals in government schools rightly complain to me that it seems that there is an unlimited flow of dollars for capital works for neighbouring private schools where they still depend on these old structures.The alienation of young people in our school system is a very serious problem, but any alternative schools with more suitable programs for such young people have been scrapped. We can blame the Kennett and Kemp ideology for the growing inequity in our education system, but I think we should not forget that our education system has been underfunded for a good deal longer than the time we have had coalition governments. We have the Labor Party under Whitlam to thank for giving people access to university education, but I think we can also thank them for HECS, which has started to seriously bite into notions of equity in access to tertiary education. The shrinking dollar has as much to do with Labor as it does the coalition.The most galling and dangerous aspect of the Kennett government's reign over Victoria is the progressive demolition of accountability mechanisms which have taken years to build in that state. Ches Baragwanath, a former Victorian Auditor-General, has been a fearless watchdog over the financial doings of the coalition and Labor governments in Victoria. He was successfully nobbled by Mr Kennett two years ago. He said the other day that he shared the views of the New South Wales Auditor-General, Tony Harris, who said that changes to the Victorian Auditor-General had set the state up for a WA Inc. style corruption scandal. Mr Baragwanath said:I've always maintained that full light is a prerequisite to good order, that corruption flourishes behind closed doors and in the dark . . . I remind the Senate that on two occasions in this place two years ago I put amendments to legislation which would have insisted that before federal funds were spent in Victoria there would be an independent Auditor-General in place. I also remind the Senate that neither party supported those amendments at the time.For a long time the Democrats have been warning about the lack of accountability surrounding government outsourcing and tricks being played to stop parliament and the people knowing what is going on. The Kennett government has outsourced, privatised and corporatised to the point where financial and contractual information is almost impossible to access. We have sold off in Victoria 10 times as much as other states—$28 billion worth of public transport, electricity, the TAB, research laboratories, ports, prisons, plantations, forests and the list goes on and on and on. The Kennett government has used the national competition policy introduced by the Keating government as a tool to reduce the public sector to a shadow of its former self and spent $200 million on consultants in its first two years of office. One contract worth $24 million was recently awarded without going to tender.All of this suggests that the Victorian parliament is just not working. In fact, in many respects, that is the case. It sat for just 20 days this year. It is not working because the upper house is simply a rubber stamp for the government. I want to take the opportunity today to say to the Senate that we should be sending a very strong message to the Victorian ALP and the coalition that it is time to reform the upper house. I will be introducing amendments to this motion to do just that, and I look forward to both parties supporting those amendments.Senator Conroy interjecting—1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Senator Conroy interjects and says that the Democrats would be in parliament. Indeed they would. With proportional representation similar to that of the New South Wales and South Australian governments, the Democrats would have two members in the upper house as a result of the last election. Let us have a referendum in Victoria if necessary. I believe that Victorians have had enough of unaccountable government. I think it is time we offered voters the choice of an upper house which properly scrutinises government. Reform of the upper house some years ago—in fact, many years ago—would have stopped what we now find very difficult to undo. Sure, we can have royal commissions into Intergraph and into the casino scandals, but in reality the horse has already bolted. What we need is a stitch in time, an assurance that the checks and balances are in place—a watchdog over the executive of government.I personally would have enjoyed the sight of the all-powerful Jeff Kennett having to use good argument to persuade the upper house to support his legislation, but it is not too late for us to bring in that reform. I call on the major parties—whoever is in power and whoever has the numbers in the upper house—to commit to this. Let us do it in the first term of the new government. Let us restore democracy and decency to Victoria. I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute:"the Senate:(a) 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; and(b) calls on both the Liberal and Labor leaders in Victoria to urgently introduce legislation to reform the Victorian Upper House electoral system so it may become a true house of review and thereby act as a guard against future episodes of mismanagement, and to ensure the legislation is passed within a year".17:05:008838Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I cannot let some of Senator Allison's comments pass. As Senator Allison is well aware, the Labor Party and the Democrats and the Greens came together before the election to indicate that we would all be supporting proportional representation for Victoria's upper house. We will certainly keep our word on that deal. I hope that down the track the Democrats, when they decide they are going to vote for it, will also keep their word about this deal.But I particularly find it galling for Senator Allison especially to stand up here and criticise Steve Bracks about his position on gambling, because Senator Allison is an individual who gave $10 million to Jamie Packer. This is an individual who improved the bottom line of Crown Casino when she walked out of the chamber to allow passage of some of the worst amendments you will ever see. They were called the GST high-roller amendments. When the five chicken Democrats walked out, they gave the government the numbers to pass the high-roller amendments, and that put $10 million in Jamie Packer's pockets.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy is misrepresenting my position. I did not walk out of the chamber; I did vote on that occasion.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is not a point of order. Take it up at another time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—It is a point of explanation, I believe.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Do you get to give them nowadays?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I hope you heard what Senator Allison said. I think she made a point.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I seek a clarification. Are points of explanation allowed just whenever senators want to?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Well, it is not a point of order.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you. I again make the point: when it came to the vote on the GST high-roller amendment that improved the profit margin of Crown Casino and Jamie Packer by $10 million, the five chicken Democrats took a walk out the door and the government had the numbers. It was all part of the government's cosy deal with the Democrats. So for Senator Allison to stand up here and pontificate about gambling taxation is just the height of hypocrisy.But I would like to move on to the substantive issues for debate here today. At a state and federal level the Liberal Party want to privatise everything that has not been sold. Prior to the state election, the Kennett government proposed the privatisation of the Ballarat water treatment works. We know that the Kennett government plans to privatise the rain. It wants to sell off the most basic resource to our lives—Victoria's water. A precious resource is to be given a dollar value and simply sold off into private hands, even foreign hands, forever. But the good news for ordinary Victorians is that all four of the Ballarat seats that were up for grabs, upper and lower house, voted against the government and voted Labor on the weekend. As I think the federal member for Ballarat said on radio a couple of days ago, he has to get in his car and use half a tank of petrol to find another Liberal—the Government Whip, Michael Ronaldson.What are the ideologues in Canberra in the coalition saying to this proposal to privatise water supplies? They are supporting the National Competition Council, who are saying, `Sell' and are therefore claiming Mr Kennett has the right to sell our water. Of course during the election campaign Mr Kennett tried to get away with saying that he would not sell, but after last Saturday it is clear the electorate does not believe him and does not trust him or the coalition in Canberra on privatisation.To avoid the debate on privatisation and other key election issues, the Liberal Party invented a new campaign technique—silence. Every Liberal candidate was gagged. And what was the response of the federal Liberal Party to this strange new election technique? Silence. Why was it that every candidate was gagged? Why was it that no federal minister was allowed to participate in the campaign? Was it because the Liberal Party policies were hopeless? Was it because the Liberal candidates were no good? I leave it to you to judge. Was it because Mr Kennett could not trust his federal colleagues? It was Mr Kennett who said, `I have gagged them because I don't want them wandering around like Brown's cows.' He is talking about elected representatives of parliament there to represent their voters, the people who elect them. And how does he describe them? `I don't want them wandering around like Brown's cows.' Welcome, Senator Patterson. I am trusting that Mr Kennett was not referring to you as one of Brown's cows.The Labor Party and Mr Bracks wanted to debate, in any forum at any time, health policy, education policy, police staffing levels and government contracts, and the answer from the Premier down was: `We're not up to it; there is no debate.' Why was there no debate? The Liberals at a state level and the coalition at a federal level have been running down public health and education so quickly that they could not face a public debate during last week's state election campaign. The people of Victoria have sent the Liberal Party a very simple message: no comment, no votes.The National Party last Saturday—and I am disappointed that Senators McGauran and Boswell have not stayed to defend the coalition in Victoria—lost the Assembly seat of Warrnambool to the Liberal Party and the Assembly seat of Gippsland East to an Independent. The National Party held only nine seats before last week in the Legislative Assembly and now they are down to seven and facing oblivion. What was the response of the Leader of the National Party, Mr Pat McNamara? `We now hold the balance of power and will stand up to Mr Kennett.' Does anyone believe Mr McNamara? He has had seven years to stand up to Mr Kennett and he is now challenging Senator Boswell for the title of the greatest rollover exponent in the country.The former member for Gippsland East, Mr David Treasure, was asked this week to explain why he felt he had lost and his response was: `I don't know what they want.' This is a candidate in an election. He has just been defeated and he admits, `I don't know what they want.' Where has he been for the last four or eight years of his term? What we do know is that the two party preferred vote for the National Party in Gippsland East has dropped from 72 per cent in 1992 to 49 per cent last Saturday, and even members of the Treasure family are now working against the National Party. This is a seat the National Party has held continuously for over 70 years. It is no coincidence that it is also the area represented federally by the McGauran family. Perhaps Senator McGauran, who did not stay for the debate, can explain to the Senate why he is working so hard to bring about the demise of the National Party.The new Leader of the National Party, the Hon. John Anderson, reflected on the weekend, amidst this calamity, as he said, that the National Party had not lost any seats to the ALP. Well, that is okay then! That was the best he could do in the face of this rout—they did not lose any seats to the ALP. He did not say that he would make sure Mr Kennett was brought into line. Why is this? The reason is that, like his federal colleagues, he would let Mr Kennett privatise all of Victoria's irrigation system without questioning it at all.Every time Mr Kennett opens a new monument in the CBD in Melbourne the average Victorian parent is thinking about their child's overcrowded classroom or the time they had to wait in casualty at the local hospital. If they have the audacity to complain, they are told that they are un-Victorian and whingers. There is no debate and there is certainly no recognition that what they are claiming is their right. On all of these matters Mr Kennett has had the undivided support of his federal colleagues, except perhaps the Treasurer. But that is a different story for a different day.In the Herald Sun on Monday, 20 September, Melbourne Major Events Corporation Chairman, Mr Ron Walker, took a dip at voters for pushing his close friend to the brink of defeat. He said, `The Premier has worked very, very hard to help this state regain its presence and it is true to say Melbourne today—indeed Victoria—is known throughout the world more so than the 1956 games and this is the thanks you get for it.' Mr Walker said, `Perhaps the older population felt they were disadvantaged and didn't accept change so much.' Does this sound like the voice of a person who has heard what the electorate is saying?What Ron Walker is saying is that all Victorians need is a casino and a grand prix and they should be happy and go back to sleep. Well, the Victorian electors spoke on the weekend and Ron Walker is still deaf. Of course Ron Walker certainly did not hear the electorate say that they wanted to know about the casino tendering process and the cost of obtaining and running the grand prix. Nor did Ron Walker hear that there are too many gaming machines in this state or that there were problem gamblers at all.Will the federal government implement the findings of the recent Productivity Commission report on the problem of gambling, or will Ron Walker, as federal Treasurer and bagman of the Liberal party, say, `I raised the money for the elections, so you'll do what I say'? Here is the test for Mr Costello. Here is his chance to prove what an undemocratic state Victoria has become. Implement the Productivity Commission report. It might mean a few dollars less for Ron Walker and Lloyd and his mates, it might mean a few dollars less for Jamie Packer, but then Mr Costello does not care. He has Lachlan Murdoch on board, as we all saw in today's papers. Here is your big chance, Mr Costello. Implement the Productivity Commission report.You will all remember Mr Ron Walker. Ron Walker is the person who tried to stop Russell Skelton of the Age writing a story that Lloyd Williams had bought a block of flats in Paisley Street in South Yarra without a building permit or a planning permit. Ron Walker is the person whose chemical factory burnt down in Fitzroy in suspicious circumstances. Ron Walker is the person who, in conjunction with Lloyd Williams, bribed Norm Gallagher. Lloyd Williams confessed to doing so in the Winneke royal commission into the BLF.Ron Walker is the person who arranged for a small commercial fit out company, Coulsen Constructions, to do work on the Premier's house. Ron Walker is the person who `persuaded' Mr Brian Quinn to move the Coles Myer headquarters from the city to the site of the old Toorak drive-in. Obviously no money changed hands, for Mr Brian Quinn is an honourable man—which is why he is currently serving time in jail for stealing from Coles Myer. As the former Town Clerk of the City of Melbourne said in summing up on Mr Ron Walker, `He would tell a lie when the truth would do.' Who is the Premier's closest friend and staunchest defender? Why, it is Mr Ron Walker, of course!Why is it that no federal member of parliament in the coalition has called for the release of the casino tendering documents? Why did the government members on the casino inquiry try to thwart an examination of this issue? As Senator Carr well knows, he was gagged consistently by government members on this inquiry to make sure that the truth was not uncovered. Surely the Liberal Party has nothing to hide. When these documents are ultimately released—and they will be—what will we find that Mr Ron Walker has been hiding? Has he changed his spots, or is the Liberal Party corrupt from the top down? In the Bulletin this week in an article by Virginia Trioli—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Are you saying it is not true?VW4HERRONSenator Herron—I am. It degrades this chamber to have those sorts of accusations made with nothing to substantiate them whatsoever. If the honourable member has anything to put forward rather than the inane ramblings of his own brain, I think that we should have some facts on the table. I do not think he should traduce people's personalities or their pecuniary interests in any way whatsoever unless he can produce some documentation. It does no honour to this chamber to come out with the verbal diarrhoea that is occurring at the moment.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—There is no point of order. As we all know, parliamentary privilege covers a host of matters.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—You can talk about John Elliott, the former president. If you like, you have the bagman Walker. I have spoken extensively about Elliott. He is a worried man, because the Swiss courts are releasing their documents in the next 24 hours.In the Bulletin this week an article by Virginia Trioli quotes the former Liberal Premier of Victoria, Sir Rupert Hamer, as saying that the electorate is calling for a more open, accountable form of government. Sir Rupert Hamer is also saying that the current Mr Kennett is not capable of changing his spots. On the John Faine program in answer to a question regarding Stephen Mayne's allegations—that is Stephen Mayne who was the former press secretary to the Premier and Treasurer—on secrecy in government and inappropriate share dealings, the Premier said, `I am not answering that question. I am going to just sit here and drink my tea. You're pathetic.' That was the Premier of Victoria responding to a question about probity put by a former employee of the Premier. If that does not demand an answer, what does? It is more evidence of the new campaign technique—silence, no debate; `I am going to drink my tea.' Mr Kennett was putting forward the proposition that, in an election campaign, he did not have to answer any questions and was not accountable to the electorate.After the election, Mr Kennett talked about `the toenails of the state', referring obviously to rural Victoria because during the campaign he described rural Victoria as `the toenails'. I wonder which toenail Seymour is, which toenail Gisborne is, which toenail Ballarat is, which toenail Ripon is, which toenail Bendigo is and which toenail Narracan is. All of those toenails gave him a good kick on the weekend. Mr Kennett said on Wednesday 25 September, yesterday, `I wish to apologise to all those I have offended over the past seven years.' The Victorian community is saying, `We will accept your apology, providing you resign and disappear from public life.' The question the public is asking is, `Will his federal colleagues tell him to publicly go?' Here is the big chance for the Treasurer. He should have a quiet word in his mate's ear. Senator Tchen is here today. I think he is speaking today. Here is his chance to go to the bloke who put him in here, the bloke who rorted the Liberal Party preselection in the Senate to knock off Senator Synon. Here is Senator Tchen's chance to stand up and say, `Enough is enough, Mr Kennett. It's time for you to step down.'10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, you did reflect on a person rorting. I would ask you to withdraw that particular comment.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am sorry. It is Senator Synon who actually accused the Premier of rorting.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, you have to use the correct term.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Cheating? Which is the correct term? I am talking about Jeff Kennett.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You are saying the Premier now; you did not say it before.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. How much longer do we have to put up with this inane diatribe? There is no longer a Senator Synon. That is my point of order. It is illustrative of the inane ramblings of the senator opposite. Perhaps one day he might grow up and add some lustre to this chamber rather than doing what he is doing at the moment.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, there is no point of order. But I would remind Senator Conroy that, when he reflects on a person in another place, that is out of order.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise point of order. I have been sitting in my office and now I am standing in my appointed place to draw your attention to the point of relevance. What we are discussing is the quality of services in Victoria and I would ask you to consider what Senator Herron has correctly described as nearly 20 minutes of inane rambling on any subject but, which has vilified many private citizens who simply have no comeback to the level of remarks that Senator Conroy has been uttering. I ask you to rule on the matter of relevance.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Troeth, I hear your point. I will have to rule against it because I believe that general business debates are usually very robust, and in this particular case Senator Conroy has been more robust than normal. But people on whom he has reflected do have a recourse and perhaps those people, when they read Hansard , may wish to do so.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It is good to see one of Brown's cows has found their voice and that they have removed the gag.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think people out there who are listening to this debate would ask that you return to the matter at hand.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise another point of order: Senator Conroy has just used a term which was used in application to state members. I am a federal member, and therefore he should not use that term when referring to me.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—On the same point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Senator Conroy made a derogatory remark about a senator. I mean, if `duffer' is unparliamentary, I would put it to you that this was a derogatory comment.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I accept that it is a derogatory term, which is why it is so unusual for the Premier to describe his own ministers and his own candidates as `Brown's cows'. But I accept the implication and I withdraw the implication. It is disappointing, however, that federal senators and members of parliament in Canberra were not prepared to participate in the state election and show themselves. I spent some days campaigning in rural Victoria. It is disappointing.As I was saying, the Victorian community is saying, `We will accept your apology, Mr Kennett, provided you resign and disappear from public life.' The question the public is asking is: will his federal colleagues tell him to publicly go? Stand up, heed the message from country Victoria, heed the message of loss of service and tell Mr Kennett that it is time to go. Mr Gude has gone, Mr Stockdale has gone and Mr Knowles has been defeated. Who is there to lead—Victor Perton or John Richardson perhaps? Obviously there is a need for some federal talent—Senator Rod Kemp perhaps? A businessman—you guessed it, maybe Lloyd Williams is available for Frankston East's preselection. The fact is the Liberals are in disarray and the Nationals are terminally ill.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—John Elliott?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—John Elliott is still not in jail. Perhaps he could stand.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—We have a good candidate.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—We got a seven per cent swing against them in the booth, Senator Troeth. Remember it is the Premier of Victoria who less than six months ago called for the sacking of the New South Wales Director of the Liberal Party on the grounds that he did not know how to campaign. Only six months ago the Victorian Premier demanded the resignation of the New South Wales party secretary. Well, what does he have to say about Mr Poggioli today? The only thing we can hear so far is the sound of shredders in Victoria as they shred their documents. That is the only sound we are hearing from the Premier.The coalition, state and federal, often say that they believe in less and less government. Too often that means less and less responsibility. Who is taking responsibility for basic family services in Victoria, decent schools and first-class health care? Where is the responsibility in a government that abandons the regions and the towns?Mr Kennett talks about Victoria in 2050. What is that dream? He has a private dream—just like his federal colleagues—of zero government, zero responsibility, a dream that if it came true would be a living nightmare for all Victorian and Australian families. Has anyone heard Mr Kennett or any of his ministers say that they are proud of a Victorian hospital, proud of a Victorian school, proud of running an accountable government? Absolutely not.Yet up here in Canberra we have the federal coalition running around saying publicly that Jeff is their man, that Mr Kennett is their choice to lead the party to the Frankston East by-election. And that is exactly what Senator Troeth has just done. Jeff is their man, their choice for the future. They expect him to manage the new political setting and relations with the National Party and with the Independents. Does anybody believe them? Certainly not Sir Rupert Hamer, certainly not the people of rural and regional Victoria where the ALP now has more seats than the Liberal Party and the National Party combined. This is truly historic: the Labor Party has more seats than the combined numbers of the Liberals and the Nationals.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Say it again.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will repeat that: Labor has more seats in rural and regional Victoria than the National Party and the Liberal Party combined.While Mr Kennett concentrates on the circuses in the CBD, our streets and suburbs remain neglected, and insecurity grows as our police numbers are wound back. What is the response from the coalition in Canberra? A resounding, `Go, Jeffrey, go.' Not the desirable, `Go, Jeffrey, for God's sake, go.' It should be `Go from public life, Mr Kennett.' But we get a ringing endorsement here today from Senator Troeth, a ringing endorsement from Senator Tchen and a ringing endorsement from Senator Patterson for Jeff. That is what we will see.Imagine the state of our schools in Victoria if Mr Kennett were to lead for another four years. The Victorian school system is already the worst funded and most unequal in the country, and Mr Kennett's plan is to give up on the future of our kids and slide the state education system into private hands. That is what was exposed during the campaign.The Kennett government has privatised the Mildura Base Hospital, the Latrobe Regional Hospital, the Berwick Hospital and is in the process of a world first—the first privatisation of a major teaching hospital, the Austin Hospital at Heidelberg. If Mr Kennett is allowed to continue he will further run down and then privatise the Geelong Hospital, the Ballarat Base Hospital and the Bendigo Hospital. Privatisation means profit for the owners and an uncertain future for families.Victoria needs more police on the front line. The police went on strike at Frankston police station three weeks ago. That is right—they went on strike at Frankston police station three weeks ago. That is because Mr Kennett was not listening to the police in Victoria. It is the first police strike in Victoria since 1923. The community knows that we need more police; the victims of crime know we need more police. Everybody is in agreement except for the Premier and his colleagues here today who want to wind back further on essential services. That is what we are seeing today: a sycophantic endorsement of Jeff, ignoring what just happened on the weekend. (Time expired)17:30:008844Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Thank heavens, Mr Acting Deputy President, that father time has relieved us of that diatribe from the other side. I have to say that it is a shame that Senator Robert Ray has gone to the UN—I am sure he has been contributing to the UN mission to Australia. Since his hand—the hand that guides Senator Conroy—has gone to the UN, Senator Conroy has been over the top. His performance in this place has been appalling. Bring back Senator Robert Ray to bring him into line, I say. Fortunately we were not on air today so people did not have to be subjected to what I think was appalling behaviour and an appalling contribution in this chamber.Senator Carr interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Carr said, `Burst our eardrums.'10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Senator Conroy, could you resume your seat, and could you keep the noise down a bit? I am trying to hear what Senator Patterson has to say.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Robert Ray has, time and time again, come into this place and said, `It's 10 steps to coward's castle.' And it was 10 steps to coward's castle for Senator Conroy today when he vilified person after person—people who have no ability to reply, except through the Privileges Committee of this place. The Privileges Committee is overworked because of the sorts of comments made by people like Senator Conroy. Senator Conroy has been to the Privileges Committee a few times and, with Senator Robert Ray out of the place, he will be there a lot more often.I think the topic that the opposition have chosen for today, the general business order of the day in relation to the parallel between the policies of the Kennett and Howard governments and the quality of services in Victoria, is indicative of the state of the federal Labor Party. When we were in opposition we used this time to put forward our concerns about their policies—gee, we had a lot of concerns about those—and to put forward our policies. What do we have today? Not one positive thing from Senator Conroy. Not one thing that Labor will do for Victoria, federally or on a state basis. It was a diatribe of vitriol about individuals. It was a speech—although you could hardly call it a speech—that told us nothing. It was a rave that told us nothing about what they were going to do either federally or from a state point of view for the state of Victoria. It was a gloat about winning seats in Victoria, but there was nothing about what the Labor Party would do for the people of Victoria. Senator Conroy said, `Imagine the state of our schools if Mr Kennett were to lead Victoria through the next parliament.' I say to you: I do not want to think about what would happen to schools if Labor were to lead the state.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Jeff Kennett closed nearly 400 schools.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I went to a school out in Berwick, in Robert Dean's electorate, and I was there when the federal government and the state government put money into refurbishing that school. The president of the school council said that eight years before—Labor was in government—water had been coming up through the floor and leaking through the roof of the school. The only sadness the president had about her daughter no longer being in the school was that her daughter went through the primary school when it was in that condition under Labor—she did not actually say `under Labor'; it was just that her daughter went through the school at that time—and her son came into the school the next year and benefited from all the refurbishment and the other things that had been undertaken in that school. I have been to school after school in the areas of Victoria which are developing and expanding, and I have seen new schools being built and schools that were run down under Labor being refurbished. I would encourage some of my colleagues on the other side to go out to those schools and see what is being done.As I said, the ALP have wasted their time in this place in attempting to drag along a debate that they failed to sustain on Monday. They went on about this when they had an opportunity in taking note of answers to questions. But, again, in that debate there was not one positive or constructive idea about what they would do in government—federally or from a state point of view—for Victoria. This is an attempt to deflect the attention of the public from the fact that the ALP totally lack policies—they are totally a policy free zone, both in the state and federal spheres.Let us put this ridiculous motion in perspective by enlightening people and reminding them of the state of affairs in Victoria prior to the election of the Kennett government. I think people forget. I went to South Australia a year after the Kennett government had been elected. There was a Labor government in South Australia. I could not believe it. I had forgotten how bad Victoria was. I had forgotten that, when you went down the streets, shop after shop had signs saying `To Let', that the unemployment levels in rural and regional areas were astronomical and that businesses were closing down.I remember going to New Zealand and going into a Clipsal factory. I was told, `Oh, we've shifted the factory to New Zealand because we can make Clipsal items such as light fittings cheaper here in New Zealand than we can make them in Victoria, and we ship them back to Australia via Japan.' That was the state of things. Victoria was a basket case. As I said on Monday, the joke going around was: what is the capital of Victoria? Ho, ho, ho—$1. People were fleeing Victoria. Victoria's population was decreasing. I can understand why people wanted to leave: they left Victoria because there were no jobs, there were no prospects and there was no hope. If you looked at Victoria in the early nineties, you would have seen it was in an appalling state. It was let down by successive inept ALP governments. Unemployment was out of control. Debilitating industrial disputes were crippling the ability to provide adequate community services. There was the State Bank of Victoria—one of the senators on the other side talked about privatisation.Senator Carr interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—At least we actually had assets to sell off. The State Bank was in demise. We did not have it to sell. The Labor Party talk about privatisation. They sold the Commonwealth Bank at a federal level, and what did they do? They spent the money. They did not use it to retire debt; they spent the money. That is the record the Labor Party have. They either let an asset deteriorate to the point where it is worthless and they have to get rid of it or sell it and use the money for recurrent spending. That is totally unacceptable. The next generations will live to rue the day that they did that. What did the Victorian government do under Jeff Kennett?AW5CARRSenator Carr—They did not want to see the water system privatised.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Yes, it sold assets, but it did not use the money on recurrent spending; it used it to retire debt. I remember sitting in a tram going from the School of Nursing to Lincoln Institute—AW5CARRSenator Carr—That's been privatised too.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Order! Senator Carr, you have interjected 14 times during this speech. The previous Acting Deputy President sitting here had the same problem. If this continues I shall report it to the President.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—People always shout and use personal abuse and vitriol when what somebody is saying hurts them. The louder he shouts, the more obvious it is that I am hurting him. Mr Acting Deputy President, I appreciate your support, but it really demonstrates that I am hitting where it hurts.As I said, I was sitting in the tram next to someone. She turned over her Herald Sun—`VEDC collapses'. The woman next to me said, `It doesn't matter. It's only the government's money.' But whose money was it? It was the people of Victoria's money. Tricontinental was another wonderful success of the Labor state government! Remember Tricontinental? Victoria was a basket case. It was a rust bucket.Having adopted Victoria as my state, I walked around Victoria as late as the last week or two and I looked at the city, and I have to tell you it is sparkling. There is development everywhere. It looks tremendous. If you go out into the rural areas, you will see change there too. I will remind people about what happened. I said on Monday that I hope Victorians do not rue the day of the last state election. If the vote falls that way and there is a minority Labor government, they will sadly be reminded very quickly of Labor's record. There was zero confidence, zero security and investment and zero vision.I just want to remind people of something that was said by a colleague of mine about the situation in Victoria under the Kirner government. Federal growth in jobs was 19 per cent, whereas in Victoria it was just 13.9 per cent. In February 1982 the unemployment figure in Victoria was 6.7 per cent, while in the rest of Australia it was 7.2 per cent. By February 1992 in Victoria it had blown out to 12.3 per cent, while in the rest of Australia, starting from a higher base of 7.2, it was still only 11.3 per cent.Jobs were lost in Victoria at the rate 3.5 per cent, compared with 1.1 per cent for the rest of Australia. Unemployment in Victoria rose at the rate of over 30 per cent, compared with 22 per cent for the rest of Australia. We were going down the tubes federally, but Victoria was going down the tubes faster than anywhere else. The number of unemployed people between the ages of 15 and 19 looking for their first full-time job increased by 73 per cent in Victoria, compared with just 49 per cent in the rest of Australia. We were leading the country—going down the tubes faster—with unemployment, especially youth unemployment. The number of unemployed people between the ages of 15 and 19 looking for a full-time job rose by what? It was 51 per cent in Victoria, compared with 22 per cent Australia-wide.What a litany of mismanagement under Labor. Is it any wonder that former senior cabinet minister Neal Blewett—and this makes really interesting reading—said in 1991:Credibility is gone in Victoria for state Labor.Or that he recounted the following from a 1991 cabinet debate:Keating had claimed doggedly that we are still in charge of events—How misled he was! He said:Keating had claimed doggedly that we are still in charge of events; we are not yet in Kirner's hopeless situation in Victoria . . . while Hand pointed out that confidence in the government and the ALP is utterly lacking in Victoria. Cook suspected that the ACTU is already making plans for survival under the Liberals.I want to remind Victorians that that is what it was like. My former colleague Julian Beale was prescient when he said in 1992 to the parliament:The damage caused to the Victorian economy by federal and state Labor government has been disastrous, but it can be repaired. The first prerequisite is a change in government in Victoria and a change in government federally. Confidence will never be restored in Victoria while we have state and federal Labor governments, and confidence is a necessary prerequisite for the return of investment and the creation of jobs.And that is exactly what happened. In the face of this desperation—in stark contrast to ALP governments—the state coalition governments since Cain and Kirner have created an environment for growth and a better quality of life for all Victorians. When the Kennett government came to power in Victoria, Victoria faced an incredible debt of $30.6 billion. This was clawed back to $11.3 billion by the end of 1997, and it was projected to fall to around $8 billion by 2001. What Mr Kennett wanted to do—and he said this right back at the beginning—was to give young people in Victoria the same opportunities he had when he was growing up. That was not being given to young people in Victoria when they were standing to inherit a debt of $30.6 billion, increasing at an ever-increasing rate, and when assets were being lost—not sold; lost—and no money was going back into the state as a result of those assets just dissipating.Let me just go through some of the achievements of the Kennett government—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Why?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Why? Because when they came into power in Victoria, Victoria was a basket case. She can crow all she likes from the other side, `Why?' I want to remind Victorian people because people do forget. They forget how bad it was. I had forgotten how bad it was. I had forgotten how appalling the state of Victoria was, how appalling the debt was and how appalling the situation was in the state in terms of schools and hospitals. I went around to nursing home after nursing home. Those state nursing homes were a disgrace. You should not have put a dog in some of the nursing homes they had. There were 10 people to a ward. They had done nothing to upgrade the nursing homes. She can sit here and ask, `Why?' Why? Because I want to remind people of how bad it was when Labor was in government in Victoria.The Kennett government allocated $1 million to community carers to look after family members and friends with disabilities. They guaranteed to maintain pensioner concessions. There was preparation, through the inquiry by the suicide prevention task force, for the introduction of a strategy to reduce the rate of suicide, especially among young people. That suicide prevention strategy involved $24 million per year to reduce the incidence of suicide, particularly for those in higher risk groups. There was a significant expansion of disability services, including training, vocational and cultural programs, and the establishment of community residential homes with full-time support staff. There was funding of $17 million to provide care and services for street kids. I could go on and on. There was none of this borrowing from the next generation. This was money that was not racking up debt for the next generation.When I went round to rural and regional areas, in many of them small hospitals were being totally refurbished. Some of the other achievements in health included, in the past year alone, the opening of the Northern Hospital in Epping, the La Trobe regional hospital at Traralgon, and the Broadmeadows hospital and health service. There were new hospitals scheduled to commence construction in Mildura, Berwick, Knox, et cetera.The record of the Kennett government was one of fiscal responsibility. It was one of bringing Victoria back into the black. We saw an increase in population, with people returning to Victoria as a result of that. We saw the implementation of a major program for environmental protection and the creation of new parks, including the Yarra Ranges. There was the consolidation upgrading of the natural assets at Phillip Island into a single park. There were new grasslands parks in central Victoria. There was a new strategy to protect the Port Phillip Bay and Victoria's coastline.Senator Mackay might ask why I am saying this. When speakers on the other side have got up, they have failed to remind people of how bad it was in Victoria before Jeff Kennett and the coalition government came in. They also failed to tell us what they were going to do. What I have done is to demonstrate the record of the coalition and what has happened in Victoria. They have no suggestions. All I can presume is that we are going to go back—if the dice fall that way—to the bad old days: to borrowing to pay for spending and to having parents say the water was coming up through the floor of the school and the water was coming through the roof. I could not believe that. I was stunned when I heard her say that. I could not believe the schools were in that state. I want to put on the record the things that have happened rather than this vitriol about individuals.Well in excess of $300 million was allocated to the community support fund for arts, tourism and sports projects, large and small. That was not just in Melbourne; that was in rural and regional areas as well. There was the opening of regional performing arts centres and there was support for regional galleries. There was support for family and youth services and a campaign to combat drug use.Small business saw a reduction in regulation and compliance requests. That was an important factor for small business. I was handing out how-to-vote cards and this young painter came up and said, `For heaven's sake, I hope Jeff wins because it has helped me in my small business.' I am sure, when I contact him, he will be devastated by the outcome. There was the introduction of $50 million partnerships for growth programs to attract new industry and investment to country centres to strengthen existing business and finance new community projects. It was a legacy of activity and a legacy of development. It was not the sort of legacy that Labor left of debt, of despair and of no ideas. The debate today has given me no hope that Labor has any ideas for the future. (Time expired)17:51:008848Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Senator Patterson has been telling us about some of the good things that happened under the Kennett government. I might even add to that. I thought he was right on the approach he took to the One Nation party. I thought he was right on migration. But I can point to many good things that Mr Cain did when he was Premier, particularly in the area of the justice system. There were good things that Ms Kirner did when she was in government.AW5CARRSenator Carr—In education.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—In the education department particularly, as Senator Carr would know. I have now lived through many elections over my life, not only state and federal elections but also elections within the party—always conducted with the utmost propriety. I have been in that party or in that particular faction that has lost, and I have always chewed the cud and analysed why we should not have lost. The fact of the matter is that it is a `to do' loss, and what you have to do then is look to the future and plan what you think is best for your state, your party, your faction or your country. The people of Victoria do not owe the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party any particular favours. You enter the field of politics and try to get into government to serve; and to take the approach that somehow the people of Victoria are—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Ingrates.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Ingrates—thank you, Senator Mackay—or are in some way wrong is just not the proper way to look at the issue that now faces us. To take an example outside the Labor Party, I read in today's Age about an Independent who has won Gippsland East. Mr Treasure, who formerly held that seat, explains all the reasons why the Independent should not have won; but the fact of the matter is that he did. Mr Ingram won, it seems—to a large extent in any event, from what he says—because he wants the Snowy River to run free. That is a matter of the spirit.We have heard analysis from the other side about the economics of this and the economics of that; but, besides the bottom line, there are other matters that people are interested in, and that is what Victoria has shown. They are interested in properly planned suburbs, so that houses are not allowed to be built in a way that takes the sunlight away from the backyards in which they live. There are all sorts of issues and to concentrate just on the economic issues is to miss the point.Whatever the people of Victoria saw, they saw something good in the Labor Party and something good in Mr Bracks and his team. I would like to congratulate him on his speech at Ballarat. Senator Carr was there, and Senator Carr does a lot of work in Ballarat. I thought Mr Bracks's speech was full of propositions. It has been put here today that we as a Labor Party in Victoria have got no plans, but we have got lots of plans—plans about the fundamentals that people want from government.When I talk about education, health and proper policing, I am mentioning words that have been said in this place again and again as representing what the people want. Those words are used again and again because they are true. That is what people do want. It has been said from the opposite side that there are now shiny new shops in Melbourne and this and that, but what has happened in the country? Whatever we might think here, the people in the country have said, `We are not being brought into the community in the way that we should.' That is what they have to say. They say, `We live in a society with lots of other people, and we want a share in the resources of that society and in the benefits that that society can bring.'The Labor Party lost badly in Victoria in 1992 and again in 1996. Senator Carr would remember that, as he lived through it with me. They are not nice times when you have to come out of defeats like that. People talked about the fact that we had lost because of the way that money had been treated. When the analysis is made of this election, when the euphoria and disappointment have passed and we are able to approach it in a more logical way, the way that the Kennett government has used money might well be an issue. I do not mean it is an issue of propriety; I mean this: I do not think that people object to paying taxes. What they object to is their money being misspent or not properly looked after. If you spend money from taxes on good schools, good hospitals and good policing, they are willing to contribute to that and will do so.I think we are going to have a very interesting debate in this chamber and in this parliament about what the Age calls the `Ralph revolution' with capital gains taxes slashed. The issue is not whether you tax people but whether you tax them fairly and whether those taxes are used appropriately. To simply say, `We do not tax you as badly as you might otherwise have been taxed' is not the issue. The issue is about these fundamental services that any decent society would want. They are interested in their taxes being used in an appropriate fashion.I do not want to name them all, but I think a tribute ought to be paid to Steve Bracks, John Thwaites and the team. This time last week, they were people who were going almost to disappear from the face of the earth. This week, they have made a great contribution. Also in this context, I mention the trade union movement in Victoria, which have performed quite brilliantly throughout the time that the Liberal government has been in operation. I illustrate that with the way they have led in Melbourne the marches against the Indonesians and in favour of the East Timorese. I think that Leigh Hubbard needs special mention in that context.The time has just about gone. This debate is about the future and not the past. The people of Australia have seen the future in Steve Bracks and his team, in much the same way as in 1972 the people of Australia saw the future in Mr Whitlam. When they saw that they were right, and when they see it in Mr Bracks they are again right.Documents88498849Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Bartlett:That the Senate take note of the document.18:00:008849Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to speak briefly to this Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. It is a significant report. As honourable senators would know, the Democrats have spoken for many years about the need to improve the treatment of gay, lesbian and bisexual people in Australian society. There are still wide ranging areas of discrimination. As my colleague Senator Greig outlined in his excellent first speech a couple of weeks ago, this discrimination has very real impacts on many people throughout the Australian community.There is no logical rationale for that ongoing discrimination. This report addresses one of those areas—which is the superannuation entitlements of same sex couples—and it examines federal legislation. I urge all senators to examine the issues that are contained in this report. It is a fairly straightforward report, because in many ways it is a straightforward issue. Perhaps in years gone by, when there was less of a social understanding or acceptance of de facto couples, the concept might have been a bit harder for people to wrestle with. But, clearly, to suggest that there should be some fundamental difference between de facto heterosexual couples and same sex couples is absurd. There is no social or legal justification for such a differentiation.Clearly, there are many people who are disadvantaged by the fact that their sexual orientation is what determines the fact that they cannot access their partner's superannuation and that they have fewer entitlements than others in the Australian community. It is a fundamental and clear-cut area of unjustifiable and inappropriate discrimination and one that leads to a significant proportion of the Australian population being discriminated against unfairly. On behalf of the Democrats I urge all members of all parties in this chamber and in this parliament to support moves to address the areas of discrimination such as the one outlined in this report from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.It is probably appropriate that I also mention the Democrats' private senator's bill that has been in this place for over three years now—originally introduced by former senator Sid Spindler. It has been the subject of a comprehensive Senate committee inquiry which produced a lot of helpful information. The passage of that legislation would address not just this problem of superannuation entitlements of same sex couples but also many other areas of unfair discrimination. I also urge senators and, ideally, eventually members in the other place to lend their support to that legislation in order to address the issues that are raised in this report.Question resolved in the affirmative.8850Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Senator O'Brien:That the Senate take note of the document.18:04:008850O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I speak very briefly in order to have this matter leave the Notice Paper , although I am certain that the matters I referred to when this was before the Senate yesterday will resurface in other areas. I take note of the fact that, following my contribution yesterday, Senator Ian Macdonald rose to his feet and said he felt constrained to defend the minister. Whilst I am not surprised that he felt so constrained, it has to be said that the only way he could sustain five minutes of speaking time was to spin off a couple of matters that Senator Forshaw raised by way of a point of order. But the reality was that he had nothing to say about the matters I raised in relation to Mr Forsyth's letter—the letter which com mences the corporate plan report which was laid before the Senate.I remind the Senate that this was a letter dated 11 February 1999, a letter which apparently, like many other things, had been lying for some time on the desk—perhaps on the return or on a side table or in a cabinet—of Mr Anderson, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. In seeking that we take note of the report, I simply say that, if my comments have been a spur to the minister to address some of these issues quickly, then so much the better. But if these issues are not addressed quickly, the minister can be sure that I will be rising to my feet in this place to draw the attention of the Australian public to the inaction of this minister on critical transport issues which face this nation.Question resolved in the affirmative.8850The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:Centrelink—Social security compliance activity in Centrelink—Report—July to December 1998, including a statement by the Minister for Community Services (Mr Truss). Motion of Senator West to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Bartlett debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 5 February to 31 March 1999 (First). Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.National Health and Medical Research Council—Report for 1998. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document agreed to.National Health and Medical Research Council—Grants for 1999. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.Committees885088508850Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Senator Carr:That the Senate take note of the document. 18:07:008851McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I welcome the response to this report—and not only for the reason that the response has been lodged. The report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration into the working holiday makers scheme, entitled Working holiday makers: more than tourists , was presented to the parliament in August 1997. Here we are in September 1999, two years and one month later, and we get a response to the report—a report on a matter that the minister himself initiated that there should be inquiry into. There is a convention around the place, which I know is not rigidly adhered to, that the government respond to committee reports within three months. Nobody in the chamber expects that that will be adhered to on a rigid basis, but I think that having to wait two years and one month for a response is perhaps an indication that things could be done better than has been the case on this particular occasion.The working holiday makers scheme, as the committee identified, is a very important element of Australia's tourism program. It is also of great importance to various sections of industry that depend on these people from time to time to fill holes in their labour market programs. The government response to the report is welcome, but in itself it is not enough. We are awaiting the report of Mr Noel Hicks. Mr Hicks has been commissioned by the government to look into other elements of what I believe to be part of the working holiday makers program; that is, those elements dealing with transient workers in the agricultural industry—the fruit picking industry. Mr Hicks has been commissioned to do some research and present the minister with a report. Unfortunately, we have no details of whom Mr Hicks has spoken to, where he has travelled and whom he has received submissions from. We are not even sure that the report by Mr Hicks will see the light of day.I think it is very unfortunate that so many things are now being done in secret by the government. I do not think this leads to good policy development. I was of the opinion that a different body, perhaps even the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, could have undertaken the task that Mr Hicks has been engaged to undertake. Indeed, if the committee had undertaken that task, it would have been conducted in public. The community right across Australia would have been invited to participate in it. I have no knowledge whatsoever of Mr Hicks having any involvement with those involved in Western Australia in that very important element of the program. Anyway, that is an aside from the government response to the report.The committee worked long and hard in developing the 41 recommendations in the report, which were put to the minister. I am pleased to note that the majority of the recommendations have been accepted by the government. While they have been accepted, however, not all of them have been accepted in full. But it is pleasing to see that the government is at least taking some interest in what the committee put forward to it. That some recommendations have not been accepted is also quite appropriate because, in developing the recommendations that we put to the government, we endeavoured to engage it in the thought processes of more policy development in this area. There were other recommendations which the government did not accept and, as I say, that is part of the policy development area as well, which is quite acceptable to us.Another area which also probably deserves a mention is the work being commissioned by the minister in appointing the chair of the committee, the member for Hindmarsh, Mrs Chris Gallus, to chair a working group. The working group will oversight the progress and implementation of the harvest trail. Again, this is being done by Mrs Gallus, it is a working group of the government and there is no involvement of the parliament, as such, in its work. I am sure that Mrs Gallus will do a very thorough job of it, but it is a task that probably could have been undertaken by the committee as a whole. Others in the parliament would then be able to have an input into the work that is being done. I would hope that, when that report and Mr Hicks's report are completed and presented to the minister, they will be made public—or, at least, presented to the parliament in order that they can be made public—so that others who have a big interest in this area will be able to give some scrutiny to the work that was undertaken and to any recommendations that may develop from that work.18:13:008852Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would also like to speak briefly on the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration report on working holiday makers. As Senator McKiernan noted, the response has been a long time coming. Like Senator McKiernan, I am also a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, but I was not involved in the preparation of this report because it was brought down before I came into this place. While it feels like I have been here for an eternity, it is slightly less than two years—but that is still a fair while. I think that is more than adequate time for a government response. While it was a fairly comprehensive report, it was not a set of encyclopedia, and I think it should have been able to be responded to more promptly.Not having been part of the initial inquiry, I would not seek to say I have extensive knowledge in this area of working holiday makers. But an important and often overlooked part of our migration program is not just working holiday visa holders but temporary visitors of all sorts. Whilst tourists are often not seen as migrants—and in a technical sense they are not—people applying for visitor visas are part of the operation of our laws that relate to enabling people to enter and leave the country and the restrictions and requirements applying to that. Working holiday makers are no different in that regard. There are some areas of overlap in terms of principles and issues that apply across the board. Whilst oftentimes in this place, the Democrats and I focus a lot on refugee and humanitarian issues, which seem a long way removed from working holiday visas, some of those principles do have similarities across the board in terms of fairness of process.One of the recommendations that was not accepted—and I can understand the rationale, but I think it is still worth highlighting—was that nationals of non-agreement countries involved in the working holiday program be eligible for a working holiday visa if they can satisfy appropriate bona fide checks and are aged between 18 and 25. There was also a recommendation that a cap be introduced on the number of working holiday visas to be granted to nationals of non-agreement countries, with the cap set at five per cent of the overall program number.Not having been part of the committee's deliberations, I would not want to completely speak on what the motivation for those recommendations was. But from my point of view from reading them, it seemed like a very sensible approach of trying to ensure there is at least some small amount of input from non-agreement countries. The agreement countries at present are limited to Canada, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Japan, Korea and Malta. The committee felt there are a lot of other countries in the world outside that group of seven whose people would benefit—and so would Australia—if a wider range of people were able to come to this country under this program.The feeling I get from the government's response is that not only do they not want to have a five per cent cap but they are moving further away from offering visas to non-agreement country nationals. They are trying to extend the program to other countries, which is a good thing, and they want to emphasise the issue of reciprocity—where we allow people in from particular countries if those countries allow Australians in. That is a principle I would agree with as well.Nonetheless, I do believe that enabling a small number of people in from non-agreement countries is important. I have a small concern that some of the broader countries outside those agreement countries are developing countries. It is beneficial for Australia and for the individual person to come here on those sorts of visas, and it is also beneficial for them to be able to go back to developing countries and take part of what they have learnt from Australia, which could be of assistance to those countries.I have expressed in this place before some concern about what appears to be an approach which makes it harder for people from particular countries to get visitor visas of any type into Australia because of a heightened level of suspicion on the part of the department that those people are more likely to overstay, breach the terms of their conditions, come here and seek a protection visa or things such as that. Whilst I do not suggest those concerns should not occupy the thoughts of the department at all, I do feel they have been overemphasised in recent times. I wonder if a bit of that feeling is spilling over into the government's response in relation to people from non-agreement countries getting working holiday visas. I do not know if that is the case; I simply flag it as a hope that it is not and a concern that we ensure it is not. People on working holiday visas from developing countries can offer just as much to Australia as people from the UK, Canada and Ireland, and I think it would be beneficial to Australia to have a broader range of people from different nationalities able to access this program.The government, I suppose, would argue it is going down that track somewhat more slowly but more coherently by trying to expand the number of agreement countries. I recognise that and do not have a problem with it, but I do express a bit of disappointment that, if anything, a further reduction in the number of people from non-agreement countries is going to occur. Potentially, eventually, not allowing any at all appears to be a possible implication one could draw from the government's response here, which I think would be a shame. Nonetheless, it is pleasing to see the government has responded positively to many recommendations, but it would be better if it had responded positively somewhat quicker.Question resolved in the affirmative.88538853Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Senator Carr:That the Senate take note of the document.18:20:008853McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I should start this speech by commending the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for responding much more rapidly to the Immigration detention centres report than the previous report. This report was presented to the parliament in August 1998, and here we are 13 months later and we get a response to it. Part of the reason for such a speedy response might be that this report was only 41 pages in length and made only two recommendations. So maybe the commendations I am giving to the minister and his department are not quite as fulsome as they ought to be. I think the report could have been responded to much quicker than it has been.There were only two recommendations made in this report and I want to address both of them. I will deal with the second one first. The second recommendation stated:The Committee further recommends that during the next parliament the JSCM consider conducting an inquiry into the immigration policy aspects of the detention of illegal fishermen.The brief government response, which is well worth reading into the record, states:The Commonwealth Ombudsman released a comprehensive report concerning the role of the department in the detention and removal of illegal fishermen in 1998. In August 1998 the government announced proposed improvements to current fisheries and detention arrangements to address the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman's Report. These improvements include changes to legislative and administrative arrangements for the detention of illegal fishermen and the implementation of some of the Ombudsman's recommendations including substantial improvements to the facilities for detained fishers at Broome and Darwin.The developments announced by the government substantially address the concerns expressed by the JSCM in their current report. It is not appropriate for the Committee to duplicate work already undertaken by the government.I do not accept that response. I think it is highly appropriate that the parliament oversee, view, examine and scrutinise the work of government, particularly the work of government in this area.For my state of Western Australia, the state I represent in this place, it is a real problem. Only last week the Attorney-General, Mr Peter Foss, announced that the prison in Broome was overcrowded with illegal fishers. The repercussions of that were that local offenders or offenders from the region who were sentenced to imprisonment had to be incarcerated in detention facilities away from Broome. Sure, they have to be detained somewhere, but that meant their relatives, the people who wanted to visit them while they were in detention, had to embark on long journeys. Why? Because the detention facility in Broome was overcrowded.Another reason why the committee ought to consider having a look at this particular aspect is a matter that was reported on the ABC Four Corners program very recently—on 23 August, I believe. Some persons who had come to Australia to fish illegally had been apprehended, detained and sentenced. One of them said that he did not have a problem with being detained in Australia because it was rather like being treated to a hotel—one got steaks, one got ice-cream, one was very well treated; and I have made some comments on this matter before.The matters remain with us, and they are of great concern if others can profit from coming to Australia, breaking our laws and being detained but being paid while they are in our detention facilities. I am certainly sure the joint standing committee will consider the government's response and will seek to address what is in here. They might encourage the minister to give the committee a reference on this matter.The other recommendation the committee made was about monitoring, and it states:The Committee recommends that the JSCM continue to monitor detention practices and suggests that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs request that the Committee again inspect the facilities during the next parliament.The minister has agreed to this, and there obviously is a great need for the committee to do this. The great need is what is occurring in our detention facilities currently. At the time the joint standing committee visited the detention facilities, on 17 June 1998, there were 394 people in detention. Currently, there are over 600 people incarcerated in the Port Hedland facility on its own. Quite recently, that facility was very close to capacity with only a few spare beds. It was virtually overcrowded. At that stage, the department was looking for another facility where other illegal arrivals might be detained. The circumstances have changed dramatically from the time the committee visited the facilities in order to prepare this particular report.Other things have happened as well. In all detention facilities around Australia, there have been big problems, problems that have led to dramatic headlines. I will quote just a few of them: the Australian of 23 July: `Ombudsman to investigate refugee mistreatment claims', and it was referring to the facility at Perth airport; the Perth Sunday Times of 25 July: `Detainees riot for four hours'; the West Australian of 26 July this year: `Police end barricade protest by detainees'; the Australian of the same date: `Detention centre escape in spotlight'; the West Australian of 27 July: `Mass breakout from Port Hedland'; the West Australian of 28 June—which is actually going back a bit earlier—`Break-out at Port Hedland'; the Age of Saturday, 31 July: `Fear grips Refugee City, WA'; and the Australian of 28 July: `Illegal immigrants run wild—and free'.They are mainly talking about Port Hedland, where there was some real difficulty, but there were also some problems at the Maribyrnong facility in Victoria, where quite a substantial amount of damage was done. The matters there are subject to an inquiry by the Commonwealth Ombudsman because some people were removed from that detention facility and incarcerated in other places. The matter is still under investigation. There was also a very large escape from the Villawood detention centre in Sydney. I think 11 persons escaped from that particular facility, not all of whom have been apprehended and returned to custody—or, to use the department's term, recamped. There are some difficulties with the detention centres.The Senate Standing Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair, has not reached any conclusions on this current inquiry, but it has been diverted from the work that was given to it because of very serious complaints that were made to the committee by detainees at certain centres. The complaints were so serious that we could not overlook them. We had to divert from the 13 terms of reference that were specifically given to us by the department to investigate those complaints ourselves.On one particular instance I, as chair of the committee, referred one particular complaint to the relevant police forces for their inquiry. It was something that I felt at the time was much bigger than the committee itself. It was not our role to investigate possible criminal conduct. The committee will further deliberate on these matters and will reach conclusions. Incidentally, on that activity I undertook as chair, the committee endorsed my actions in referring the matters to the police. The detention policy and regime of the government is something that has to be constantly kept under scrutiny by the parliament of Australia and indeed by the community of Australia.18:30:008855Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would also like to speak to the government response to the Immigration detention centres report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which, as I said in my previous contribution, I am a member of. I was here at the time this report was presented and was part of the preparation of the initial report. I again echo Senator McKiernan's comments that, whilst there was only one year for this response to be done, one year seems a pretty long time to respond to two recommendations, neither of which, I would have thought, are particularly complex. They are pretty straightforward recommendations. It does not send the most positive signal for the government to take over 12 months to respond to such basic recommendations.I would mainly like to address the recommendation which relates to the need for ongoing monitoring of the operation of our detention centres. As part of the preparation for the initial report, I visited the Port Hedland detention centre, the Perth airport detention centre and the Villawood detention centre in Sydney. Unfortunately, I missed the one in Melbourne. One of the things that highlights how quickly things can change in this area is that when I undertook those visits, which were probably in the first half of 1998, the Perth airport detention centre, which is quite a small establishment, was, in my view, unsatisfactorily crowded with quite small and inadequate facilities, particularly for such a large number of people, some of whom were there for more than 12 months. The Port Hedland facility at that time was pretty damn empty, as I recall.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—It had 25.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—It had some 25 people in it. It was almost a ghost town, yet now it is bursting at the seams again. These things can change quickly. Obviously, the types of services, the ability of service delivery and some of the factors that need to be addressed in terms of managing the population of detention centres can vary a lot. There are lots of problems that can arise when you have large numbers of people in a facility. There are very different but nonetheless very real problems when you have very small numbers as well. For that reason, it is important to have fairly regular monitoring of these facilities.The whole issue of detention centres for illegal non-citizens is a vexed one. The Democrats have often expressed the view that we need to work more diligently and put a bit more effort into increasing the number of people that we allow to enter the community. It would be cheaper for the taxpayer, except where people pose an unacceptable risk, and more appropriate for the people involved as well. Nonetheless, the government does not take that approach. It takes a much more hard line in the number of people it believes should be kept in immigration detention. For that reason, we do have facilities that do get overcrowded at times and we do have people in them for exceptional periods of time.The Senate committee has been looking recently at the onshore humanitarian program and people applying for protection visas in Australia, many of whom spend time in these detention centres while they are applying. They are not convicted of any crime; the only act that has led them to be in these detention centres is that they are an illegal entrant or an illegal non-citizen. But many of them end up accessing and being granted a protection visa, and Australia has an international obligation to provide that protection visa.Many of those people have obviously undergone a fair bit of ordeal in their countries of origin. It is often not the best experi ence for them to have the continued ordeal of spending an extended period of time in a detention centre which, for all intents and purposes, could be equated with a jail—not a maximum security jail by any sense of the imagination, but nonetheless pretty similar to imprisonment. There is not much of a difference between imprisonment and detention. You are kept in these places and are basically not allowed out. There is a lot of similarity between them in terms of atmosphere. So it is an important issue because it affects people. It is not just a matter of public policy. It is public policy that impacts on real people, many of whom have already undergone quite an extensive degree of suffering.As I said, it is a vexed issue. I am not trying to paint it too much as a black and white picture, but I do think that, again, as I have said on a number of times recently, including in this chamber, when we are balancing all the factors in our humanitarian program and immigration program, one of the factors that has somewhat moved into the background in recent years which does not have a strong enough weight in the equation of balancing all those competing issues has been the issue of compassion and a humanitarian approach. Detention centres provide one example of that. I do believe that there is room for a bit more compassion in relation to this issue.Nonetheless, I welcome the government's response to the recommendation and its agreement that the committee should be enabled to conduct further inspections of the facilities. Even with the brief visit I had at Villawood with the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee a couple of months ago I could clearly see a few changes that had occurred in the 12 months since my previous visit, the most obvious of which was an increased amount of razor wire around the place, which does not necessarily add to the cuddly feeling of the place.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—They're trying to keep them in.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—It does try to keep them in. I could clearly see what the purpose of it was and no doubt it is believed there was a justification for it. But, again, that is an indication of the way these centres have changed over time. Detention centres have changed a lot over time, as I understand it. When places like Villawood were first used for this purpose I do not think there were any fences at all. Clearly the need to increase security has occurred, and I would not necessarily argue with that, although I do not resile from my comments before that I believe there is more room for enabling a greater proportion of these people out into the community. Be that as it may, we are addressing the reality of government policy at the moment in the operation of detention centres. I am pleased to see that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration will be able to continue to conduct that role. That committee is one that I believe operates in quite a constructive way across different party lines and it does try to address what all parties agree is a difficult issue in a constructive way.I would hope that the government also takes a constructive approach to deliberations and recommendations of all parliamentary committees in this area because I do believe it is one where we do try to operate constructively and try to avoid some of the more inflammatory aspects that can easily be followed if one was of such a mind in this area. I do think there is a bit more room for the government, recognising that there is actually the possibility of room for improvement in some areas, to be a bit more open to suggestions from parliamentary committees such as this one in that regard.18:38:008856Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The government's response to this report has been a very praising one. In its overview of the report, the government says:The focus of the report is on providing a description of the physical conditions at immigration detention centres and the services currently provided to immigration detainees. In contrast to the reports issued by other agencies, the Committee's report is overwhelmingly positive. The report comments favourably on the conditions in immigration detention centres and the efforts made by the detention services provider, ACM, to provide appropriate services to detainees.The reading of that brought to my mind that something has to be addressed—that is, how can there be such a stark difference between the reports from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, made up as it is of good people in the parliament, and the report of the Australian National Audit Office and the report from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission entitled Those who've come across the sea ?It is difficult to see what the situation really is, not because of the lack of goodwill on the part of the people who have written these various reports but because of the lack of the sort of material that one would hope to find in the reports. The report from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration says that the committee considered that the `facilities were adequate' and the `services were of an appropriate standard'. What does that mean? What is adequate? I would have hoped that the committee would have set itself some criteria against which it could make its measurements. What do I mean by that? Well, how big are the rooms in which these people are held? There are some photographs in the joint committee's report and one of the photographs shows that there are four people to a room. That might be good or bad. What is the size of the room? You can see bunks one on top of the other. They seem to be in a very confined space. What was the measurement of the space they were in? What was the measurement of the beds? How high were the beds? These are the sorts of questions that you would ask about any prison.I often have a discussion with people from DIMA about whether or not these people are imprisoned or detained. I am always assured that they are not imprisoned. Clearly, I would have thought it was contemplated that these people would be at least as well off as those who are in prison. If you want a report on prisons you would want to know what the size of the various facilities were. I hope that when the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, a very eminent committee, goes to visit these places of detention in the future it sets itself some criteria against which it advises us as members of parliament what the situation is so that we can work out for ourselves why the committee should come to such a different conclusion from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and from the Australian National Audit Office.My other concern is that these people are detained by private contractors. I have to confess to a prejudice here. I have always considered that if the state is going to lock people up then the state should take responsibility for that, and to allow private profit to arise out of imprisoning people or detaining people is always a matter of some concern. I hope that when the committee comes back to us again on the next report it says something about that. I notice that it considers that the making of profit is not a bad thing even if it is made out of detaining people. I can understand its point of view, but perhaps there is another alternative to that. In paragraph 2.32 the committee states:The centre represents the third largest enterprise in the community, generating as much as $1 million per annum for the local economy.Does the committee mean that we should have these people detained to increase the local economy or is there some other reason? How much do these private detainers make out of this contract? I would have thought that was of some importance because it gives us an idea of how many people are likely to be in there.As I said the other day, I have discussed these issues by letter with the minister. He says that, in the interests of peace and good order, the details of the contract should be kept confidential. That is the approach taken. I think, on the other hand, that we as members of the public are entitled to know what Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd and Australasian Correctional Management—they call themselves ACS and ACM—are charging. From that, we can get an idea of what sorts of staff numbers they might maintain. How many people are looking after these detainees? If you were looking at prisons—and there has been an attempt to find out about details of prisons in Victoria—you would want to know the economy of the place so that you could estimate whether there were enough people to ensure security. The previous speakers have talked about people escaping from these places. How many people were there when they escaped? What was the quality of their training? Were they trained properly? Were they employed on a part-time or full-time basis? What is the state of the staff at these places?I hope when the committee goes out again it gathers us some details of these quite important points so that we, as members of parliament representing the people of Australia, are able to tell them how their money is being spent in terms of these prisons. People are coming from overseas. That is another issue. We have decided as a parliament that these people should be detained but, as Senator Bartlett says, we have to remember at the same time that these people are not even charged with an offence—they are absolutely innocent people—and they will not be charged with an offence. They will be sent back. It is a very serious matter to lock anybody up, whether it is a local person or a person from overseas. It is a great violation of people's bodily and mental integrity and should not be done lightly. If it is done, it should be done so that the public generally know how it is being done and on what basis.I invite the committee in future visits to look at these issues: the size of the cells; the amount of money that is being spent there; the level of the staff, particularly when we have these people escaping as they seem to; the qualifications of the people who are in charge; and just what relationship there is between those people and the people who plan these things at the top.Question resolved in the affirmative.8858The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:Privileges—Standing Committee—78th report—Possible improper use of proceedings of Community Affairs References Committee. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Ray)—That the Senate endorse the findings contained in paragraph 34 of the 78th report of the Committee of Privileges—agreed to.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Supplementary estimates report, June 1999.Reference to committee: Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Crane)—That the recom mendation contained in the committee's report, to refer issues raised in the report to the Procedure Committee, be adopted agreed to.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Report—Commonwealth environment powers. Motion of Senator Bolkus to take note of report—agreed to.Adjournment885810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator George Campbell)—Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.885818:50:008858Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Honourable senators will recall my addressing the Senate on Wednesday, 1 September with regard to a very large predicament in the potato industry in Tasmania as a consequence of a potato disease scare raised by Western Australian quarantine offices. Three russet burbank potatoes, part of a small consignment from Tasmanian to Western Australia, had been identified as possibly carrying the exotic disease bacterial ring rot. I am pleased to report that the outcome, after extensive tests and investigations, proved that there was no substance to the allegation. In fact, tests on DNA of the disease, specifically brought in from Canada for matching, proved beyond any doubt that the disease was not bacterial ring rot. The good news, unfortunately, was tainted. The massive overreaction has sinister political overtones.I have already brought to the Senate's attention the transfer of Simplot's potato tonnage from Western Australia to Tasmania and the trouble with quarantine documents for potatoes from Tasmania entering Western Australia since that date. It also appears that Western Australians became very angry when potato cyst nematode, or PCN, was found to exist in their state because this put the lid on them selling potatoes to other states which do not have the disease. I inform the Senate that Tasmania does not have potato cyst nematode, but Tasmanian potato growers have unfortunately been victimised.This very foolish exercise by Western Australian quarantine officers has brought the possibility of an exotic potato disease existing in Australia to the world's attention. How absolutely stupid! The damage done by this exercise will be absolutely enormous. Now producers from all over Australia wishing to export will have to try to explain the situation to likely buyers. It is extremely difficult to undo this type of damage and along the way it costs the industry very dearly. All Western Australian quarantine officers involved in this scam should hang their heads in shame.The officer who found the first potato was inexperienced in the identification of potato diseases and, without a sound second or even third opinion, the Western Australian media were notified. The whistle was blown loud and clear, far and wide. ABC radio in Tasmania was advised by ABC Western Australia that a consignment of Tasmanian potatoes was suspected of carrying or having bacterial ring rot. In the absence of any positive identification of the disease, this action was totally irresponsible. The Tasmanian farmers are not amused. In fact, they are hurt and they are angry.Both the farmer who grew the potatoes and the packer who shipped the potatoes have been disadvantaged financially. The packer has been affected considerably because the two containers that landed in Western Australia, the two containers on the water and 200 tonnes of potatoes in his warehouse were all quarantined. The two containers on the land and the two on the water could not be used until the whole mess was cleared, but by that time the potatoes, having been stored inappropriately, went soft and they sprouted. They were wasted and thrown out. Some of them were unusable before that time anyway because, after finding one suspect potato, quarantine officers in Western Australia cut two tonnes of potatoes in half trying to find further evidence. But no further evidence was found.The farmer not only suffered financially but also suffered health wise. The stress was enormous, and he became stricken with shingles. As well as farming he has a contracting business, and the machinery that was not on his farm at the time was being used on other farms. Owners of those farms became paranoid—not surprisingly—that their property could catch the alleged disease, even though nothing had been proven.The disease had never before existed in Australia. I repeat: never before! And one inexperienced quarantine officer caused this monumental problem with immeasurable damage. I say: that person should be sacked. But what about compensation? You can bet the Western Australian department involved will not pay for it. There is no precedent for compensation being paid and probably no likelihood of it being paid. The irony is that if the disease had been found, then compensation would have been paid. Approaches by the packer to the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries, David Llewellyn, were unanswered until an assistant returned his call—not the minister himself. This is an insult to one who has suffered so much, and none of it from his own wrongdoing. The Tasmanian Premier's department was also contacted, but it has not even bothered to return the call. The national body must closely investigate this case. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia is responsible for export controls on primary industries products.There are many questions to be answered: why was a very loud panic button pressed after only one suspected potato was found in a consignment of two shipping containers, especially when the disease was not known to exist in Australia? Why weren't experienced quarantine officers called in to check the suspect find? Why was such a hasty decision taken? Why weren't the Tasmanian quarantine officials given the opportunity to comment on whether or not it was likely for bacterial ring rot to have been found? Why was the packer in Tasmania notified of the problem by his buyer, not the department of primary industries in Western Australia or even the department in Tasmania? Why did it take five days for a sample of the suspect potato to reach the Tasmanian laboratory for testing? Why were the results of the first test inconclusive—indeed, what were the testing procedures? Is there a need for a better and more rapid identification system? Precisely so.Why did it take exactly three weeks from the time of the quarantine being implemented to it being lifted—and that was the day after I raised it in the Senate, incidentally; three agonising weeks for the Tasmanian potato industry? Why all along the way did Western Australian quarantine officers and department officials frustrate the situation? Those involved in Western Australia knew what they were doing. The issue is very political from an agricultural point of view, with Western Australia trying to protect its own industry. I believe the whole issue was quite disgraceful. I thank the Senate.886018:57:008860McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I have listened very carefully to what Senator Watson had to say and I am concerned about the matters that he has raised. It is very serious when you get sick spuds in the community, and the actions of the various officials in the different states are a real cause for concern. So I join with you on that. But that was not the subject matter of what I wanted to talk about tonight.I want to pay tribute to a very dear friend who has passed away and whose funeral took place in Perth today. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present. Dick Keegan was a mentor of mine when I first became active in the trade union movement in the first instance and in the Australian Labor Party in the second instance. Dick was one of nature's gentleman who was much respected within the trade union movement but he also earned the respect of the various employers that he had to negotiate with on behalf of the people who employed him as a member of the then federated engine drivers union.Dick was a member of the Australian Labor Party since 1946. So well over five decades of service was contributed to the Labor Party in Western Australia by this wonderful gentleman. He was a full-time union official with a variety of unions including the FEDFA—the union I met him in in the first instance—for other 20 years, having previously served as a shop steward at the Bunbury power station. By his efforts on behalf of workers not only in his own union but also in many of the other unions—including the iron ore industry in which the FEDFA was a prominent organisation—he earned the respect of all those that he met.When he gave his word on some matter in negotiations, everybody—the other unions, the convenors, the shop stewards, the employers, the industrial officers and the industrial relations commissioners—knew that his word would stick. It was very dear to Dick that when he gave his word it meant something. That was something that did not apply to all the industrial officers and employer representatives—and, indeed, some union officials—that I met during his lifetime.I developed a very close relationship with him, particularly in 1979 during the time the then Court government instigated and used that infamous section of the Police Act, 54B, to incarcerate workers in Western Australia to halt union meetings. It was an effort to destroy the trade union movement in that state at the time. Dick was one of the stalwarts in that very inflammatory situation where there was direct confrontation between the trade union movement of the day and the then state government, aided and abetted by the Fraser government, which was in power in Canberra at the time. Running alongside those infamous 54B battles was a very large dispute that was occurring with Hamersley Iron at three sites right across the Pilbara—at Dampier, Tom Price and Paraburdoo. It was a strike of some 10 weeks in duration which cost the company enormous amounts of money but cost the community, the state of Western Australia and the export sector of Western Australia even more. All through the course of that particular dispute Dick maintained his integrity and maintained a commitment to those that employed him. He did that with very great integrity, despite the fact that there was much provocation from all sides. He was one of the stabilising forces during that particular time.He is survived by his wife, Lily, and other members of his family, who will, I am sure, miss him dearly. We in the trade union movement and in the Australian Labor Party were privileged to know Dick and to work with him, but his family got the better of the job—they had his love in a way that none of us can match. Obviously they will miss him a great deal more than we do. On behalf of my Western Australian Labor Party colleagues, I express condolences to Lily and other members of the family on his sad passing, and our regrets that we were not there at the funeral today to pay our last respects to him.Another matter I want to very briefly mention during this adjournment debate is the decision of the Senate today to agree to the motion moved by Senator Calvert:(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.I think it is appropriate that the Senate did pass that resolution today and that it be conveyed to our very dear friends in the Republic of China that Australia as a nation is standing by them.I omitted in my very brief contribution—by leave of the Senate—together with Senator Knowles, to record the fact that Australia is also contributing to the relief effort. A number of members of various emergency organisations around the country are going up there to assist: Gary Littlewood, from Queensland Fire and Rescue; Wayne Staples, from New South Wales Fire and Rescue; Martin Vandersanden, from the ACT Fire Brigade; Mark O'Connor, from the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board of Victoria; and David Kemp, from the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service. I got excited when I saw the name `David Kemp' in the first instance; I thought it might be somebody else. But I am very pleased that Australia is making a contribution to this great tragedy that has beset the country. As I said in my brief contribution this morning, it is not just one earthquake that has occurred; two other earthquakes have happened since. The full extent of the damage is not yet properly realised, and probably will not be for many weeks to come until the outlying and rural areas are able to report in, because of course communications have been damaged in some areas. I was told last evening that it was known that 300 people were trapped in buildings at the time and tremors continued to occur. The figures that Senator Calvert put in his motion this morning had, even before the motion had passed the Senate, grown in number, and I am certain that they continued to grow throughout the day and will do so in the immediate weeks to come.I think it is pleasing that Australia is standing by our neighbour in this tragedy, as we have in other recent tragedies in Turkey and Greece as well. I expressed the sympathy of the opposition parties in joining with the government this morning.886119:06:008861Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate the determined work of a small group of volunteers based in the western Queensland township of Charleville. The Save the Bilby Fund has embarked on a project that is attempting to halt the decline of the bilby by establishing a protected breeding colony in the Currawinya National Park near Hungerford in western Queensland.Bilbies are a desert dwelling bandicoot about the size of a rabbit, with a coat of soft grey and tan hair. However, the bilby's most distinctive feature is their very long ears. Many in the house may remember this feature from the Easter Bilby campaign, which attempted to raise the awareness of Australians to the plight of this unique creature. Of the six bandicoot species that once lived in the arid to semi-arid areas of Australia the bilby is the only species remaining. However, it too is in decline. The bilby formerly occupied much of eastern Australia west of the Great Dividing Range. Sadly, it has now vanished from New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Bilbies are now found only in sparse populations in isolated desert areas in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland.In Queensland the bilby population has dwindled to a mere 300 to 700 in an area stretching across some 100,000 square kilometres from Birdsville to Boulia. This vast area once supported a much larger and healthier bilby population. Mature breeding female bilbies usually produce only one to two young at a time. Unfortunately, this relatively low birth rate has been no match for losses inflicted by introduced predators such as the red fox, feral cats and wild dogs. Competition for food between introduced and native species in these harsh arid areas has added further pressures on the bilby population.The Save the Bilby Fund has developed a plan which it hopes will halt the decline of bilby numbers and result in renewed bilby populations once again spreading throughout their previous natural habitats. The Save the Bilby Fund, with Frank Manthey and Peter McRae at its heart, plans to take a small breeding colony of bilbies based at Charleville and place them in a purpose-built enclosure designed to protect the colony from predators and reduce competition from other species. Once bilby numbers have reached a satisfactory level within the enclosure, it is intended to gradually allow some of them to return to the wild. This will boost the wild population, while securing the nucleus of the breeding colony.Frank Manthey and his helpers in undertaking this project clearly demonstrate the determination and perseverance that is at the heart of those who live in rural and western Queensland. The sheer scale of the project would deter most people. The enclosure which will protect the bilbies at Currawinya will consist of a 25 square kilometre, two-metre high fence that is predator and feral animal proof. The size of the project is daunting and so is the cost. The total cost of this project is expected to be about $300,000. To ensure that this project is successfully completed Frank Manthey and the Save the Bilby Fund will need more than just determination and perseverance; they will require the financial assistance of all of those who claim they are committed to saving our endangered wildlife and of all of those who claim they are friends of the bush.When I visited Charleville recently I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Manthey and some of his helpers. I saw first-hand how Mr Manthey has gone about raising approximately $60,000 for this project so far. He has done this by running bilby information nights, encouraging donations and actively seeking the support of the local community. Visitors to Charleville are invited to come to the National Parks and Wildlife station where the current bilby population is based. Mr Manthey then gives them an entertaining and informative talk on the bilby. He then shows these visitors the bilbies in their natural state under red floodlights which illuminate the bilbies' area without causing them any discomfort. After this display is over, he then sells various types of merchandise to raise funds, a particularly hard slog that he has to go through.Mr Manthey also asks for a $20 donation. Those who donate the $20 effectively pay for one panel of the enclosure fence. Each donor will be officially recognised on site at the Currawinya National Park in a leather bound book permanently housed at the site. Donors also receive a certificate of appreciation from the fund. Larger donations from corporate organisations are gratefully accepted by the Save the Bilby Fund. Indeed, during my visit to Charleville it was my great pleasure to be present when Mr Gary Ryan from the Queensland Branch of the Australian Workers Union presented Mr Manthey and the Save the Bilby Fund with a cheque for $500. This clearly demonstrated the AWU's support for the bush and our endangered wildlife.It is in the spirit of this donation that I invite all senators to also dig deep and make a substantial contribution to the Save the Bilby Fund. The burden of raising the funds and driving this project is too much to expect from a small group of people, no matter how determined. They certainly need our help in this endeavour. It is a worthwhile endeavour, and I encourage all to participate. So, as I stated earlier, this is a chance for all of those who claim they are committed to saving our endangered wildlife and for all of those who claim they are friends of the bush to stand and deliver.886319:12:008863Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—This afternoon under general business the Senate considered a motion by Senator Carr that the Senate notes the result of the Victorian state election. I sat in the chamber and listened to the debate because, as a senator for Victoria, I naturally have an interest both in the election itself and in what people say about it. I particularly note that in the course of the debate Senator Allison made some quite relevant comments and observations about the election. She said basically that there was a protest vote and the result of the election was a judgment by Victorians of the coalition government of Premier Kennett.She acknowledged that the Kennett government came into government in 1992, at a time when the Victorian economy and the society as a whole was in dire straits. But she said that the government had failed to recognise that it had caused hardship in the course of curing these ills and, therefore, had disappointed certain sections of the community that the good it had done had not been even and had ignored some parts of the community. Given the result of the election, obviously this view is shared by a number of people, particularly those in Victoria.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It was 51.5 per cent.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—I heard Senator Conroy's comment, but I think he ignored the fact that in this election there has been no winner. Although the coalition has not succeeded in regaining government in a straightforward manner, the result of the election is not yet settled. What is clear is that the Labor Party has not won. In Mildura, for example, which has been held up as one of the areas in which the Kennett government has failed, the Labor candidate polled eight per cent of the vote.The Kennett government was forced to carry out some quite drastic policies to restore the wealth of Victoria. Yes, it hurt. Surgery always hurts. Quite correctly, Senator Allison pointed out that it was Labor that was responsible for putting Victoria in that situation. But she was not generous enough to recognise the difficulties that the Kennett government had to overcome to put Victoria on its feet again. As I said before, she is obviously not alone in making this mistake. She was wrong to say that what you might call a shortcoming but what I would say was an inability to make sure that everyone recovered at the same rate was not recognised by the Kennett government or by the Liberal Party.The need to look after the part of Victoria which has not been treated as well in the recovery process is a matter which the Victorian Premier is well aware of. I would like to take this opportunity to read something to the Senate. It is a speech Mr Kennett gave on 5 September when launching the Liberal Party campaign:. . . I start today by thanking all Victorians for the opportunity and responsibility that you have given my colleagues and I over the past seven years to govern Victoria. . . This is a task which at times has required a firm but always a fair approach to meet the circumstances in order that we could restore Victoria's financial, economic and social foundations. . . The singular achievement of this period is that we now have a state and a people that are again confident and proud of our place within the Commonwealth of Australia. . . This is a state which we have all together created, and of which all I believe we can be truly proud. It is true that not everyone has agreed with everything we have done, or the speed of change, particularly in those early years. But the result is a revitalised and an employed state with great prospects for the future.He went on to list a number of things that he intends to do if he and his government are re-elected. One reads:Fourthly, to use the resources generated by Victoria's new found economic strength, to reach out to those who suffer insecurity or feel alienated and hurt.He said it was necessary to concentrate on those parts of Victoria that have not done as well, in particular rural and regional Victoria. Mr Kennett identified a particular thrust of his new government should he get re-elected, saying he would appoint a senior minister to drive rural and regional strategy with a whole of government focus and give rural towns due priority in terms of business development and employment growth objectives. He would also ensure that government services met the social needs of people in country areas and that there would be the necessary funding. It is not the case that Jeff Kennett or his government were not aware that some parts of Victoria had not done as well as others during the recovery process. I emphasise it is a recovery process. The Premier was well aware of it when he went into the election.In his speech during the debate, Senator Cooney very correctly pointed out that the focus of our consideration should be characterised, in terms of looking at this election, not by looking at the past but by looking to the future. On this point, I would like to quote the final section of Mr Kennett's speech. He said:On September the eighteenth we will ask all Victorians not simply to vote for the next government but to vote for Victoria's future for the next ten years.The election is over and the votes have been cast. We still do not know the result yet but, for the sake of Victoria and for the sake of Australia, I firmly hope that enough Victorians did get the message.886419:21:008864McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—I rise to make some comments this evening about the South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement which was recently announced in Queensland. Senators will have heard how well this agreement has been received by the community in general and, in particular, by the stakeholders involved. The agreement provides an outcome which provides protection to the forests of south-east Queensland and a strong economic future for the rural communities where timber milling is a significant industry. This agreement safeguards the jobs in the timber industry, not only for the immediate future but for many years to come.A total of 425,000 hectares will be added to the conservation reserve system. Importantly, much of this will be conserved in relatively large areas, which is a very important achievement for the protection of wildlife. Many fauna species require large areas of forest intact for their long-term survival. The key conservation areas that are being saved include the Conondale Ranges, the Mapleton Forest in the Sunshine Coast area and the Kroombit Tops area near Bundaberg. These areas contain magnificent forests, and their addition to the conservation estate will leave a lasting legacy to the individuals and groups who have played a part in this agreement.I would like to take a few minutes to share with you some of the comments of those people and to acknowledge the work of those individuals and groups who played a part in bringing this agreement to fruition. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Queensland Conservation Council for their goodwill and participation in the deliberations. I quote from a media release that they issued on that day:The Agreement, to which QCC is a signatory, represents the most important decision for the protection of Queensland's biodiversity for a decade.That is a pretty strong endorsement of the agreement. The Wilderness Society should also be congratulated for their very positive contributions. They said:Governments all around Australia should take a close look at the solution to the long running forest impasses developed here in Queensland. Too often the differences between the conservation movement and the timber industry are portrayed as irreconcilable. This agreement proves that this does not have to be the case.They also pay credit to the Queensland Timber Board:. . . for being the first Industry body in Australia to recognise that it is no longer environmentally or socially responsible to continue to log old growth and wilderness forests.I think those comments show a level of goodwill and appreciation of each player's contribution to the discussion. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Dr Aila Keto, who has patiently and forcefully represented the interests of the environment for many years in Queensland. Her comments were:It is not a compromise between industry and conservation but a path forward to positive outcomes to both. She is supporting the view that many have expressed, that the agreement is a win-win for all. I also congratulate the Australian Workers Union, the Aboriginal native title representatives—FAIRA, the Goolburri Land Council, and Gurang Land Council—the Forest Protection Society, local government in the area, and the managers and employees of local sawmills.All players have congratulated the Queensland government, and I add my congratulations to Premier Peter Beattie, Deputy Premier Jim Elder, and Minister for Environment Rod Welford, for the inclusive and cooperative manner in which they have steered this agreement. This style of decision making is characteristic of our government in Queensland, which is working towards bringing our community together, not tearing it apart.I also congratulate the Queensland Timber Board. I quote from their press release dated 20 September:It is worth repeating that this level of resource security is unprecedented in the history of the Queensland timber industry, and the communities, politicians and mill workers should realise that and give due recognition to this historic agreement.In that quote, the Queensland Timber Board called on politicians to realise and give due recognition to this historic agreement. I suggest that Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, take the advice of the Queensland Timber Board and, instead of writing mischievous letters to the timber millers of south-east Queensland as he has recently done, take his responsibilities seriously and start to work with the Queensland government, the conservation sector, the timber industry and our community.Mr Tuckey's letter is a letter of 2½ pages. At the outset he says that he is keen for a mutually agreed outcome for the forests of south-east Queensland which meets industry and conservation objectives. He says there would be a `considerable contribution' of federal funds for that agreement. He then says that he has not received advice from the Queensland government about the plan, so he is writing to the timber millers and requesting by return mail details of how the plan will affect their particular mills.His line of questioning is, at best, patronising; but in all probability his intent is to undermine the Queensland regional forestry agreement. He asks a range of questions about the proposed source of the timber, its size, quantity and quality. If I were a timber miller in south-east Queensland, I would be offended by what Mr Tuckey seems to be implying: as if the Queensland Timber Board and its constituent timber mills would have signed off on an agreement if these matters had not been assessed.Given that he himself advises that he has not seen the agreement, I find it interesting that he then spends most of his letter predicting what the agreement might include. He asks a range of questions about the legal implications of making such a decision. He wants to know how big the trees might grow in 25 years, and provides his personal expert advice—saying that the trees he saw in south-east Queensland on his last trip were not as big as the ones he has seen in WA that are 19 years old. I would respectfully suggest to Mr Tuckey that he wait until his government receives advice from the Queensland government and then request his department to make an assessment of the agreement.Unfortunately, the Queensland Deputy Premier is correct when he has to advise that the Queensland government is speaking directly to the Prime Minister because Mr Tuckey has marginalised himself, because Mr Tuckey ends his letter by saying that the agreement `is not a sustainable solution and not in the long term interests of the forest industry'. Given that he says that he has not seen the agreement, how can he come to this conclusion?Mr Tuckey's letter should be seen for what it is—a grubby attempt to undermine the agreement which has been welcomed by all of the stakeholders as a historic agreement. We have seen his achievements in Western Australia: his success in splitting the Liberal Party, pitting the state against the Commonwealth, playing an instrumental role in ensuring that the forests see violence, and pitting workers against their communities.Mr Tuckey's portfolio includes forestry and conservation. He may not be able to under stand that the two can co-exist, but Queensland can. We request that he work with our government and our community towards the outcome that we all agree is best for our state.Senate adjourned at 7.29 p.m.Documents88668866The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument No. CASA 979/99.Fisheries Management Act—Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan 1995—1999 SBT Final TAC Determination.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Asset-test Exempt Income Stream (Lifetime Income Stream Guidelines) Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 5).