1999-09-283914SENATE901101999-09-28The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice901190119011Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I refer the minister to comments of the head of ATSIC, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, who said recently:Despite the gains in indigenous education in the past three decades, indigenous students lag behind other Australians by almost any measure of participation or attainment.Why then is the government proceeding with changes to Abstudy, changes which will, one, result in more than $18 million being cut from the Abstudy budget and, two, significantly disadvantage more than 14,000 indigenous students in tertiary education?9011Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Bolkus for the question because Abstudy is a very serious issue. But, unfortunately, the content of Senator Bolkus's question is incorrect. The ATSIC report contains a number of incorrect assumptions and has, in many cases, extrapolated too much from insufficient data. The breakdown of affected populations is inaccurate and the calculation of financial gain or loss resulting from the changes for certain student population groups is not correct.Conclusions about financial impact—for example, that the Abstudy budget could be reduced in 2000 by as much as $18.1 million—are flawed largely because of the premise that all students currently enrolled in courses will continue into 2000 and a significant overestimation of the number of pensioner education supplement beneficiaries. Over 80 per cent of Abstudy beneficiaries should experience no or minimal change—and by that I mean less than 7c a week—to Abstudy benefits.There are changes to Abstudy for 2000 to align benefits payable to indigenous students with those payments to non-indigenous students, unless the disadvantage addressed by the benefit is unique to or disproportionately concentrated upon indigenous students. Abstudy supplementary benefits have been retained. Abstudy students will have their pensioner education allowance aligned with those payable to non-indigenous students. Of those tertiary students who will experience a decrease in the Abstudy living allowance, up to 60 per cent may gain access for the first time to mainstream related entitlements such as rent assistance, remote area allowance and pharmaceutical allowance.In recognition of their particular circumstances, tertiary Abstudy students of 21 years or older receive a higher rate of living allowance than Austudy recipients, can access mainstream related benefits which Austudy students cannot and retain access to supplementary Abstudy benefits which address specific advantages.9011Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the ATSIC study was actually conducted by independent organisations, unlike the minister's answer. Minister, why is the government proceeding with these socially irresponsible cuts to an area which, on any consideration, really needs extra assistance rather than reduced assistance?9011Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I do not think that Senator Bolkus listened to my answer. In the answer I gave, I said that the assumptions that he made in his question, and which were also made in the Abstudy paper, were based on false premises. I am happy to provide those. I think Senator Bolkus should await further developments.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I ask the minister to table the document from which he was reading.90119011Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister inform the Senate of what further measures the government is proposing to generate real jobs growth and to tackle the legacy of Labor's unacceptably high level of unemployment? Also, is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals, and what would be the impact if these proposals were implemented?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Can I ask you if the second part of Senator Tchen's question is in order in your view, given previous rulings you have made about these sorts of matters?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I do not know whether there is any need to pursue this point. I cannot believe Senator Faulkner is serious. It is a longstanding practice in this chamber to invite government ministers to comment on alternative approaches and to explore whether they might be suitable for adoption as government policy. The whole nature of the exercise in canvassing these issues is to invite the minister to state the government's approach to a range of issues. Clearly, if there are alternatives around in the marketplace, they ought to be properly examined and commented upon.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is not appropriate to ask about Labor Party policies and identified policies in that fashion, but it is possible to ask to identify any other proposals.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President: does that mean you are ruling out the second part of the question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am not ruling out the second part of the question as I heard it, but I shall check the precise wording of it later, and I shall certainly listen to the minister's answer. I call Senator Alston.9012Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Certainly we regard the level of unemployment in this country as still being too high, but it is trending in the right direction. It is down to 7.1 per cent—the lowest it has been since 1990, which was about the time when Mr Beazley was the minister for unemployment. Quite clearly, we are determined to go further and faster if we possibly can. We certainly think that strong economic growth is a prerequisite to improving the employment outlook, and that is why the Ralph initiatives, along with taxation reform, are very much designed to assist small business and to promote employment opportunities wherever possible.The highly successful Work for the Dole Program, which we are now improving and expanding upon, is yet another indication of the sensible approach being taken by the government to tackling these issues. There is no point in having people sitting on the sidelines wishing that they had jobs but not having the skills or the opportunities to pursue them. That is why doubling places for the Work for the Dole Program by 2001 and making it available to year 12 school leavers still unemployed after three months and to those aged 25 to 34 years still unemployed after 12 months or more is again a very positive initiative. It is very much welcomed by those who are out of work. That is what mutual obligation is all about. They understand that it is very much in their own interests not just to put their hands out and get a welfare payment but to have the opportunity to at least practise. If you are not able to get the full-time job that you are looking for, you have the opportunity in on-the-job training programs to hone the skills that will be required down the track.Apprenticeships and traineeships were just run into the ground by the Labor Party, who had absolutely no interest in them, for the simple reason that the unions did not like them. We have now managed to get the numbers for those schemes up above 200,000. We are aiming for 500,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships, and we have allocated $1.6 billion over four years. Schools funding continues to increase, with $131 million for the vital job skills of literacy and numeracy. So on a whole range of fronts, we are making progress. But we need to go further and we need to accept that ongoing structural change, properly tempered, will be an important ingredient, together with sound economic management.I was asked whether there are any alternatives in the marketplace; I have to say, tragically for the people of Australia, that there are not. We simply do not have any policy proposals being put forward by the other major party in this place. Mr Beazley, the current Leader of the Opposition, in the one seminar that he went to on unemployment—he wandered down to RMIT for about a five minute burst—came out saying that the options canvassed had no formal status. So clearly there is not any alternative in the whole area of unemployment. But he did say that he would be launching a more detailed policy discussion paper in September. Today is the 28th, so we have not got long to go.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—You want our policies again, Richard?LD4Senator ALSTON—You have put the media on red alert, have you? We are going to get something released in the next day or two? Instead of announcing Gareth Evans's resignation, you could go down to the Press Club and make a substantial policy statement. But, of course we know that that is not going to happen. Presumably all we will get is the Cheryl Kernot defence: `I am overworked and under-resourced and I am basically too lazy to do anything about it until we get much closer to the next election.'In talking to the Evatt Foundation only a couple of weeks ago, what did we hear: `Labor must avoid rushing into releasing policy.' That is one thing they have delivered on in spades; they have made it perfectly obvious that they are basically going to sit back and do nothing for the next couple of years and hope that the low cost, low risk alternative will somehow get them there—and it will not. (Time expired)90139013Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Can the minister explain why the daily media briefings by Colonel Lewis at the Australian Defence Headquarters in Russell on the East Timor deployment were abruptly cancelled last Thursday? Were these important information sessions for the media and the Australian public cancelled because the Canberra based media were getting information directly from Defence on issues such as troop rotation difficulties, shortages of specialist staff and reserve recruitment problems? Wasn't this information proving to be severely embarrassing to the Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, by contradicting his statements on these issues and making him look just plain foolish? Who ordered the cancellation of these briefings, and what role did the minister play in the cancellation of the briefings?9013Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have no brief on this matter from the Minister for Defence. I would have thought that the Australian people would have had a great deal of information on the deployment to East Timor of the INTERFET force. Night after night, day after day, morning after morning, evening after evening, we have had updates on the work of the force. I do not know if there is any change in the briefing arrangements; I will certainly see whether there is any further information I can get for the senator.9013Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I would appreciate the minister taking that question on notice and providing an urgent answer to the Senate. I ask as a supplementary question: is it not the fact that there is a clear and a continuing need for accurate information about the Timor deployment to be provided to the Australian people using as many means as possible, including the Canberra press gallery? Given the Minister for Defence's own incapacity to provide accurate and detailed information on the East Timor deployment, will the minister reconsider his decision to cancel these important briefings?9013Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have no way of knowing at this point as to whether the minister did or did not have anything to do with any change in the briefing arrangements. I have said to you that I will get what information I can for you. I have also said that there is a great deal of information flowing, so quite clearly there is not a clampdown on information coming from the force. I think the allegations made by Senator Faulkner are not justified.I think that Australians are very proud of what their people are doing. They are very proud of the fact that we are leading a regional force. We are delighted at the ability that they have had already to secure airfields and also to make so much of Dili safe for East Timorese to walk around in. I am not accepting the allegations made by Senator Faulkner, because I do not know whether they are correct, but I would point out that sometimes when people are on operations some details cannot be made available to the media, for the protection of our own forces. (Time expired)90149014Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—The popular senator.WP6Senator LIGHTFOOT—The popular senator, indeed. Will the minister outline to the Senate the particular benefits to small businesses and job creation in regional Australia of the government's major tax reform announcements? How has the government consulted to deliver these outcomes?9014Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Lightfoot again raises a very important question for the government, for the Liberal and National parties—that is, the people of regional Australia and how the government can assist them in adding to the good things that have come out of regional Australia. The tax package that Senator Lightfoot speaks about is yet another of the government's initiatives in this particular area. It follows on a number of other initiatives that we think have been good news for country Australia. We still have a long way to go, but we have started on it.Senator Lightfoot asked me how we have consulted to deliver these outcomes. You do that by going out and listening to the people of regional Australia. I and my colleagues do that regularly—Mr Anderson, as the senior minister, Senator Boswell, Senator Troeth. Ministers in this area go out and listen to people. I can only urge the Labor Party to do the same. Regrettably, their spokesman, Ms Kernot, seems to be too busy to get out and listen to what regional Australians are saying. She says she is too busy looking after her marginal seat. She says she is looking after aviation matters. Former Senator Graham Richardson said, `If Ms Kernot is looking after aviation matters, it is the best kept secret in town.' I would have thought that Senator Woodley was the opposition spokesman on aviation. At least he asks some questions.But Madam Kernot—I do apologise for that, Madam President. Fancy confusing you with Ms Kernot! You are visible, you do great work in Canberra; Ms Kernot has simply disappeared from the screen. She certainly has not been out in regional Australia. I know that there are many Labor senators from Western Australia, from the Northern Territory, from North Queensland, who have asked Ms Kernot to come up and speak to them and she has not gone there. When was she last in the Northern Territory? When was she last in regional Australia? She blew into Rockhampton. She would not even know where it is. She thinks she is too busy looking after a marginal electorate.I have to say that Mr Anderson, the senior minister, is in a very marginal electorate but he seems to manage to get out and consult. We all do. I have driven throughout western Queensland, stopping at every little town and speaking to people. But you do not see Ms Kernot. You might remember that when Senator Faulkner immortalised the coffee pot in getting Ms Kernot to rat on the Democrats and join the Labor Party there were great things in store for Ms Kernot, but she has simply disappeared from the scene.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise. We are waiting for some silence in the chamber so that we can proceed with question time. There are far too many senators interjecting.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, Madam President. Senator Woodley was right when he let the cat out of the bag. When Ms Kernot was Leader of the Democrats she said, `Don't go near the bush. There aren't votes for us there.' I think she is following that philosophy now. When asked why she does not go there, do you know what she does? She blames her colleague, Lindsay Tanner. She says it is all his fault that they do not have a regional policy. Then when she was pressed on it she spent three-quarters of her interview with Carolyn Tucker on ABC this morning blaming the media for the fact that she has not got out into regional Australia and consulted.This is not good enough for regional Australia. The Labor Party has not got much to contribute. As well as Mr Anderson, me, Senator Boswell, Senator Troeth and other ministers going out into the field, we would like the opposition to show some interest, to get out there. We do plead with Ms Kernot that, if she cannot handle the job, if it is too big a job for her, she should resign and let someone else do it. (Time expired)90159015Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware of the phenomenon in the housing industry, as reported by the National Architect's Advisory Centre, Archicentre, that house building prices are being pushed up by as much as 20 per cent in anticipation of a GST? How widespread is this problem? Is Archicentre correct in saying it is happening in `most parts of Australia'?9015Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—One thing this government has done is make housing very affordable for Australians. I remind the Senate that under the Labor government, home mortgage rates in some areas went as high as 17 per cent and heading north, whereas under this government we have brought housing rates way, way down to around 6.5 per cent, and some can even strike a lower rate. We have been able to make housing far more affordable for the majority of Australians.I am aware that some people are saying that there is a boom in the housing area. Of course, this means that more Australians are buying houses, which is a good thing. More Australians can presumably afford to buy housing, which is a good thing. Australians are able to make that choice because we are in a situation where unemployment levels have come down and real incomes are rising. As I said, I am aware that in some areas there is a boom in housing. It shows that there is strong demand.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. In response to what I think was a pretty specific question from Senator Gibbs—asking about the report of the National Architect's Advisory Centre that house building prices are going up by as much as 20 per cent, how widespread that is and whether the centre was correct in saying that this was happening in most parts of Australia—Senator Kemp is only able to tell us at this stage that there is a boom in housing in Australia. This was a pretty specific question. Even Senator Kemp, I would have thought, might be able to have a crack at answering it, and I wonder whether you can direct him to do so.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, the answer is relevant to the question that was asked. It may not be the answer you are wishing to hear, but I do not believe that you could say that the minister is not dealing with the matters raised by the question. I call Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. That ruling is completely correct. I was asked about housing prices. I was asked why people were buying houses. I said that one of the reasons is that we have made housing more affordable. If Senator Faulkner does not—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. It is quite clear, Madam President, that obviously Senator Kemp did not understand the question. He has just reported to us that he was asked why people are buying houses. He was in fact asked about house building prices being pushed up 20 per cent and how widespread the problem is. He obviously did not hear the question, or if he did hear it he did not understand it. I ask you again to direct him to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, there is no point of order. I call Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Senator Faulkner is refusing to listen to the answer. If he had done so he would have understood that the question is being answered in great detail. Housing prices reflect—as, indeed, many prices do—supply and demand conditions. Clearly, what we are seeing in some areas is very strong demand for housing. I am explaining to the Senate why that could be occurring. I am proposing that there could be a number of reasons which are causing a demand for housing. One is the affordability of housing. Another is the fact that we have been able to bring interest rates down. Another factor is that this government has been able to preside over real wages rising. Another factor is that this government is managing to engender confidence in the community, which is a very big plus.There may well be some people who are looking forward to 1 July next year and very substantial tax cuts. I would point out that we are about to deliver the largest tax cuts in Australian history. This will be on 1 July. Senator Gibbs, that would be another reason why we are seeing very strong consumer confidence in this economy. The fact of the matter is that Australia has a well managed economy. Certainly, with the way this economy has been managed—it is the envy of many countries around the world—it is not surprising that many people are showing a lot of confidence and wanting to purchase houses.9016Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, my question was about a 20 per cent increase on building costs. Could you please look into that. Also, what is the government doing to prevent this practice in the building industry to protect people who are wanting to build or renovate in advance of the around $7,000 coalition-Democrat housing cost price hike on 1 July next year? Will the GST be applied to the artificially inflated prices that are occurring now?9016Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The senator does not seem to have realised that housing construction costs as a result of the GST may rise by about five per cent. That, of course, applies from 1 July next year. There are many reasons why housing prices rise and fall.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—It's called supply and demand.WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, it is called supply and demand. I do not think I am breaking any secrets in saying that. I think that is pretty well known. Housing prices do vary, as you will be aware. What we are seeing in the economy is an underlying confidence. We are seeing a government going about a major reform agenda. People are looking forward to tax cuts. People are seeing very good figures on the employment front and good figures on the inflation front. (Time expired)90169016Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill. The minister will recall my question yesterday about Radio Australia and the current lack of reliable, independent news and information about Australia going into Indonesia. My question today is: has the minister seen reports that Indonesian media are repeating the obvious lie that Australian troops are carrying out torture and other barbaric acts in East Timor? Is the minister aware that even with the leased Taiwanese transmission facility, which he mentioned yesterday in his answer, Radio Australia is still only able to broadcast one hour of English language news and current affairs and one hour of Indonesian language news and current affairs each day into most of Indonesia, both of them time delayed? Does the minister agree that this is thoroughly inadequate if Australian attitudes and policy are to be reported and heard in a reputable and accurate way by our Indonesian neighbours? Finally, when will the government reopen Cox Peninsula to allow Australia's voice to be heard throughout Indonesia?9016Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The point I made yesterday, which I do not think is disputed by the honourable senator, is that Cox Peninsula is not a reliable source for broadcasting into the Timor area.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—I'm not talking about Timor; I'm talking about Indonesia.BH4Senator HILL—Timor is still part of Indonesia.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections.BH4Senator HILL—I am sorry, Madam President, but I thought that most Australians were focusing on the horrible acts that have been occurring in East Timor. In relation to East Timor, the Cox Peninsula site is unsuitable. Therefore, alternative, better suited sites are being used.In relation to the balance of Indonesia, as I said yesterday, another offshore site is being leased to provide the broadcasts. Senator Bourne suggests that Cox Peninsula might be a better source, but in actual fact, according to my advice, not only is it not a good source to broadcast into East Timor but also it is not suitable for broadcasting into other parts of Indonesia. Therefore, I am instructed that the mix that is now being provided for Radio Australia leads to a better outcome for the people of Indonesia, and that is what I would have thought Senator Bourne would want to hear.9017Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I would love to hear that, Senator Hill, if it were correct but unfortunately, according to my sources, it is not. The fact is that there is one hour of Radio Australia in English going into Indonesia. Do you dispute this? There is one hour of Radio Australia in Bahasa Indonesia going into most of Indonesia.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—What is your question?TW4Senator BOURNE—I have asked the question `Do you dispute this?' Thank you very much, Senator. I do not need your help.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—What is your question?TW4Senator BOURNE—That is the question!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lightfoot, cease interjecting.TW4Senator BOURNE—Furthermore, does the minister believe—this is all in my first question—that one hour in English and that one hour in Indonesian is adequate to get Australia's point of view across to the Indonesian people?9017Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—One hour does not strike me as inadequate. I made the point yesterday that, from Shepparton, 23 hours were being broadcast, and I said that that sounded like a desirable outcome. If only one hour is being transmitted from the other site, I will make inquiries and find out why that is the case because I think Senator Bourne is making a good point in that regard if she is correct. In relation to Cox Peninsula, I understand that the dead zone covers an area of approximately 1,000 kilometres from the Cox Peninsula site and therefore includes some other areas of Indonesia as well as Timor.90179017Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Is the minister aware of the statements made yesterday by Professor David Flint in respect of media coverage of the republic referendum? Does the minister see any conflict between Professor Flint's role as Convener of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy and his role as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority? Given that the Australian Broadcasting Authority has relevant responsibilities under the Broadcasting Services Act and may be called upon to make determinations in respect of disputes arising from media coverage of the republic referendum, will the government ask Professor Flint to disqualify himself from ABA consideration of such issues?9017Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I did see newspaper reports of comments attributed to Professor Flint. They essentially fell into two categories. The first, it seemed to me, was his taking issue with Lachlan Murdoch in particular about his views on the republic. I think it is legitimate for Professor Flint, particularly given his official position in representing the no case, to have views on that and to contribute to the policy debate. I did, however, notice that he was also reported as having criticised some News Ltd press coverage, although the article in which that was contained was in indirect speech, and there were no quotes to support that statement. It was also said that he said that the model to go to the 6 November referendum could jeopardise freedom of the press. I think those comments do fall into a different category, because they tend to reflect upon the motives of players in the game, be they Mr Murdoch or his newspaper group. They also constitute a comment on the behaviour of those players and the roles they play as members of the media.It is fair to point out that Professor Flint does not have responsibility for print. That is a matter for the Press Council. If issues were to arise in relation to radio and television, it could well be the responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, as the independent regulator of the industry, to take a position. In those circumstances, Professor Flint would need to be very careful that he did not prejudge the issues. To the extent that the comments do suggest that he has views on those matters, I think he should be very careful not to repeat them and certainly to confine his remarks to the merits of the issue, on which he does have strong views.9018Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that considered response. I draw the minister's attention to the actual statement made by Professor Flint yesterday, where he said in respect of the proposed republic: `It would smooth the path for a power grab by the desperate man and the rogue' and `no editor or journalist could support that proposition'. Does the minister deny that this constitutes a clear conflict of interest with Professor Flint's responsibilities as Chairman of the ABA? I ask again: will the minister ask Professor Flint to disqualify himself from adjudicating on any disputes which may arise from media coverage of the republic referendum?9018Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is entirely hypothetical to suggest that Professor Flint should disqualify himself in advance from participating.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Why?LD4Senator ALSTON—Because there is no issue—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—He has made up his mind.LD4Senator ALSTON—Listen, clown, you would not have the faintest idea.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, you are out of order speaking across the chamber to another senator in that fashion.LD4Senator ALSTON—However, I do not believe the remarks that Senator Bishop quoted at the start of his supplementary question fall into the category of expressing an opinion about bias or would constitute a conflict of interest. They go much more to the merits of the debate, although expressed in—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Of course they do! You're just protecting a mate!LD4Senator ALSTON—Have you had enough? I have had more than enough of you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston!LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, as I was saying, the comments that Senator Bishop referred to go to the merits of the debate—in other words, whether or not editors ought to be concerned and whether or not rogues or other categories of individuals might come to the fore; but that is all part of the to and fro of the controversy. I think it is legitimate for people who are participating to express themselves in strong language, but that is not in the same category as the other remarks that I spoke about. (Time expired)90189018Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Is the government aware that major oil companies are engaging in the practice of multi-site franchising and that this is allowing them to effectively control a potentially unlimited number of retail sites in contravention of the purposes of the sites act? What is the government going to do to protect consumers and franchise holders against excessive vertical integration by major oil companies and the reduction in competition that will occur as a result of multi-site franchising?9018Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am a little surprised if the honourable senator is suggesting that the oil companies are acting in contradiction to the franchise legislation. I would have thought that it would have been unwise for them to do so. I will therefore ask for clarification of that, but I do not think it would be the case. It is obviously the government's wish to ensure that the retailing of petrol is conducted in this country in a competitive environment, which can give consumers and businesses the best chance of prices that reflect real competition, and also service that reflects that competition.I concede that this has been an ongoing challenge for governments within this country. But the honourable senator would know of not only the role that this government has taken to address the legislation in terms of what we believed would be a better outcome in relation to an industry code but, generally, our efforts to ensure that people, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, can access a product at a competitive price and, as I said, that is provided pursuant to good service. I will seek further advice on the issue of multiple franchises, which the honourable senator suggests are in conflict with the act.9019Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government investigated whether multi-site franchising is being carried out through blind trusts?9019Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Not that I am aware of, but I will seek advice on that.90199019McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that, only yesterday, Qantas announced that domestic airfares would increase by 7.5 per cent from 1 July 2000 and that this increase is directly due to the Howard/Lees GST? How is this possible when the government's own estimates, as contained in the ANTS package, predicted a 0.8 per cent decrease in the price effect for `air and space transport'? Given that the ACCC has considered this increase within its exploitation powers and has ticked off on this price increase, does this mean that each and every industry is able to get ticks from the ACCC for increases, even when the actual price increase is 1000 per cent more than that calculated by the Howard government?9019Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator McLucas for that question. I do not know whether there is some lack of coordination between the two chambers and the questions committee, but a very similar question was asked in the other place.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—Good, you have a chance to answer it then.WW4Senator KEMP—I am not quite sure. I have actually got the same answer here, Senator, so I am very happy to relate it, but I would just urge the questions committee of the Labor Party to get its act together.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I draw your attention to the question.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I was just saying that this question has been answered in the other place. On 28 September, Qantas announced increases of 7.5 per cent in domestic airfares for travel undertaken after 1 July 2000, reflecting the impact of the GST. The decision is a commercial issue for the domestic airlines. If the increase is not justified, the ACCC has been given powers to take action. These price increases affect only domestic air travel. International air travel and the domestic legs of international flights are GST free and the prices of these should fall as a result of tax reform. So the senator can see that there are a variety of impacts from the GST.The different treatment of domestic and international air travel is in line with standard international practice in value added taxes. Making international air travel taxable would simply encourage the purchase of travel offshore, denying Australian businesses market share. As the senator indicated, estimates of changes in industry prices as a result of tax reform were published in a new tax system statement. The change for the air and space transport industry, which includes domestic air passenger transport, was a decline of 0.8 per cent by 2001-02. The air and space transport industry also includes international air travel and the domestic legs of international travel, which are GST free, as well as general aviation and domestic GST-free international air freight. The expected overall industry price reduction reflects the substantial GST-free international transport component of the industry.So I think that answers directly each of the points that were raised by the senator. I hope, before I receive the supplementary question, that this answer was carefully listened to, because we have had the experience in the past where questions are asked and answered and then the supplementary question does not reflect that.In conclusion, as I have a bit of time, I will make two brief points. One of the great things about the ANTS tax package is the massive tax cuts which people will be receiving. Those tax cuts for an average family, I am reminded by my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald, may well be in the area of $40 to $50 a week, possibly more. So I think, in order to look at this equation, we have also to look at the massive tax cuts which, if my memory serves me correct, Labor opposes. I think that is an important point. The point I am making it is that the airfare rise reflects the GST. I have explained to you the estimate in the ANTS package, and I look forward to your supplementary question.9020McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that you have actually supported those two pieces of information, given that the government's GST price estimate on plane travel has been shown to be so wildly erroneous, how many more Howard price estimates are also wrong? If there are more errors in the government's price estimates, doesn't this mean that the Howard government's broad inflation estimate is also wrong and will need to be adjusted upwards?9020Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Dear, oh dear! We are seeing that same problem, which I actually warned against. I said, `Don't prepare the supplementary question until you've heard the answer.' That is what you did. I very carefully explained to you—Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, it is a bit hard to answer the question with Senator Faulkner lurching from side to side.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should direct your answer to the chair and not directly across the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I invite the senator to read the answer I gave and then she will see that the supplementary question did not actually follow from that response.90209020Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. In recent years, there have been significant improvements in the government's indigenous priority areas of health, housing, education, employment and, importantly, economic empowerment. Will the minister outline our government's role in these areas? How is it creating a better future for indigenous Australians?9020Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for her question and for her continuing interest in the portfolio. There are a number of recent exciting developments in indigenous affairs which the Labor Party on the other side is obviously oblivious to, but it is important that the people of Australia, and the Senate in particular, hear about them. Recently, I had great pleasure in being part of the official launch of two indigenous businesses which are providing indigenous Australians with jobs, income and a future. The first was the opening of the new transport depot of Queensland Bulk Haulage at Cloncurry in north-western Queensland. Queensland Bulk Haulage is a joint venture partnership between Koutha Aboriginal Development Corporation, McIver Transport and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation. Queensland Bulk Haulage was awarded the road haulage contract by Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd by open tender to transport copper-gold concentrate from the Ernest Henry mine near Clonclurry to Mt Isa, 160 kilometres away. The joint venture is providing an income stream to local indigenous communities as well as employment and training opportunities—initially for five local Aboriginal people but more will follow.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are senators conversing across the chamber and their behaviour is disorderly.VW4Senator HERRON—The other new business launch I attended was for Harbour Dreaming, an indigenous tourist venture on Sydney Harbour which is operated by the Redfern Aboriginal Corporation. Harbour Dreaming offers cruises and charters for around 40 people and is well placed to take advantage of the great demand for indigenous culture during the Sydney 2000 Olympics. But it also gives the opportunity for schools and educational institutions to partake of and learn about indigenous culture. The business employs around eight Aboriginal people and will offer tourists local knowledge of Sydney's Aboriginal sites, bush tucker and traditional dance and music. Harbour Dreaming is a symbol of the sea change in indigenous affairs. Redfern Aboriginal Corporation also owns a successful construction company, a design, screen-printing and sewing workshop and other ventures.For the past three years, the Howard government has sought to change direction in indigenous affairs. We have sought to foster economic empowerment among indigenous Australians through education, training, the creation of jobs and the development of successful indigenous businesses. I am pleased to say that the government has assisted in the creation of many indigenous enterprises over those past three years, including the two that I have mentioned, Queensland Bulk Haulage and Harbour Dreaming. Through ATSIC, this government has provided loans and grants to more than 700 indigenous individuals, businesses and partnerships. Funding for indigenous specific programs has increased substantially in real terms under this government, from $350 million in 1979-80 to a record $2.2 billion this year—a substantial improvement.There have been dramatic improvements in the number of indigenous Australians attending university, from 1,600 in 1990 to almost 8,000 now. Four years ago there were just 800 indigenous Australians learning trades through apprenticeships and the like, and today, through active government participation, there are 4,800. I am pleased to announce today that there are now 44,000 indigenous people enrolled in vocational education and training courses, representing one in five indigenous adults. That is what I want the opposition to hear about and the Australian public to learn about. The government has also established a $115 million indigenous employment package to encourage the full-time employment of indigenous Australians in mainstream commerce and businesses. The key to the future for indigenous economic development is independence from the welfare system, so fostered by the Labor Party in their 13 wasted years. As a government, we have sought to change direction in indigenous affairs away from welfare dependency. (Time expired)9021Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I find the statistics that he is giving very interesting, and I wonder if he has any further statistics on economic independence?9021Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris. We have not just focused on education, training, employment and economic development; the government's other priorities are health and housing. Today, the principal threats to Aboriginal health, especially adult health, come less from infectious diseases associated with environmental or living conditions than from contemporary lifestyle influences such as tobacco and substance misuse and resultant behavioural problems, including violence and injury. Twenty years ago the indigenous infant mortality rate was twenty times the non-indigenous rate, and today it has been slashed by over 75 per cent to a level equivalent to that of non-indigenous Australians in the early 1960s.There are many more statistics that I can provide. I would invite anybody who is listening today—particularly the Labor Party, but anybody who is listening today—and who wishes to be further informed on this subject to ring, as I would be happy to provide that information.90219021Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware of comments by Professor Krever, professor of tax law at Deakin University and one of the five independent consultants who advised John Ralph, that the Ralph review found two main groups of winners from changes in the capital gains tax, one being the very rich and the other being the wives or husbands of the very rich? Is this true? Will the government release the specific capital gains tax research which shows this to be a fact?9021Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If my memory serves me correctly—and maybe the Labor Party will correct me—I thought that in the first 24 hours after its release the shadow Treasurer, Simon Crean, broadly endorsed the Ralph committee report and also the capital gains measures. If that is not correct, I would appreciate it if Senator Cook would get up and clarify in his supplementary question the Labor Party's position. Are they for the capital gains tax measures which we have announced in the Ralph report, or are they opposed to the capital gains tax measures? I think it is a very big issue in the business community. The behaviour of the Labor Party in relation to the Ralph committee is causing some concern. The Labor Party are all over the place. I have received questions from people who have been worried about the very substantial concessions which have been given in relation to capital gains tax, where other Labor senators worry that the new measures are too harsh.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I draw your attention to Senator Cook's particular worries today.WW4Senator KEMP—That is what I am saying. Madam President, my view is that the measures that were announced in the Ralph committee report on capital gains were developed after a very long period of consultation with the industry, with experts. They were designed to give Australia an internationally competitive tax system and to simplify our tax system. My understanding is that a fair summary of the newspaper reports indicate that the measures have been very widely welcomed.There may be certain people who are unhappy about particular aspects of this. They are entitled to their views. But, in considering the Ralph committee report, the government was considering a report in respect of which an enormous amount of work had been done to consult with the community. Unlike the former Labor government, we are a consultative government. When this government brings about big reforms, we go out and talk to people, we listen to people, we release discussion papers and we consult. As a result we produced a report. The government has announced its response to the report, which I think has been extremely widely welcomed in the community—and, I might say, initially by the Labor Party.Now I am going to sit down, Madam President. We on this side of the chamber and, even more importantly, the business community are waiting on Senator Cook to stand up and say whether the Labor Party supports the capital gains measures announced in the Ralph report or whether it does not. It is a very important question, Senator Cook. The community is waiting for you to stand up and give us a clear response.9022Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, the initial question that you dodged was: will you confirm that the Ralph review found two main groups of winners from changes in the capital gains tax, one being the very rich and the other being the wives or husbands of the very rich? That was the question.Minister, while you are at it, are you further aware of statements by Professor Krever that he is sceptical of US studies suggesting that a cut in capital gains tax will lead to more tax being paid overall when other US studies suggest the opposite? Did the government consider alternative US studies that suggest the opposite to what the government has claimed, or was the government only interested in a predetermined outcome and just went looking for a study—any study—which supported its predetermined outcome?9022Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have to say that I think everybody noticed that Senator Cook ducked the challenge. Senator Cook had the challenge—a few simple words, and all that confusion would be gone. As usual with hard public policy issues, the Labor party goes missing in action.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I have repeated the first question twice now. This is question time, in which questions are asked of the government; it is not an occasion on which the government asks questions of everyone else. I would be grateful if the government would actually attend to answering the question put. My point of order is that the minister is not answering the question. He is filling up the time with needless bravado, but he is not answering the question. Madam President, will you please direct him to answer the question put to him?WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, on the point of order: I was asked about the capital gains tax. I explained in detail the government's response on the capital gains tax and why we supported the Ralph committee proposals in relation to capital gains tax. I simply asked whether the Labor Party could clarify its very confused position on it. I do not think that was a big task, and Senator Cook refused to do it. I submit to you that my answer was particularly relevant to the question. But, even more importantly, it was relevant to public debate. Everyone is just waiting to see where the Labor Party stands on this important issue.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, it is not appropriate for you to ask the opposition questions at this time. There is another time to do that. Do you have anything further to say on the answer?WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, Madam President. I think it is true that Senator Cook needs to be protected from these sorts of issues. Ralph estimates that, notwithstanding the reduction in the CGT rate, the CGT reforms will be revenue positive. Contrary to what Senator Cook just said, we believe that overseas experience supports the conclusion that a lower CGT rate increases realisations and reduces the lock-in effect—that is, people's reluctance to sell because of the tax. A strong short-term response effect of a lower CGT rate is expected. (Time expired)90239023Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. I note the minister's response to my question yesterday as well as the comments made by the Prime Minister in question time expressing the government's commitment to a strong and compassionate safety net. I also note the Prime Minister's comments that your seminal speech on welfare policy tomorrow will not contain any specific proposals regarding individual income support measures. In light of these statements, can the minister clearly reassure the Aus tralian people that her speech tomorrow will not contain any proposals which would result in an overall reduction in total expenditure on income support payments?9023Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I answered Senator Bartlett yesterday when he asked me a question. I reiterate that our government is committed to an effective social security safety net and a compassionate social security system. I think the speculation of recent days should be seen in that context. I said that to you yesterday and I repeat it again in case you had a problem with hearing it, because it was pretty loud in the chamber yesterday. The processes and way forward will be outlined tomorrow in my speech. You would be very welcome to come along and listen, as I invited you to do yesterday.9023Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for repeating her invitation to lunch. However, I note that question time is free whereas lunch costs about $42. The government has frequently stated its support for the principle of mutual obligation. Can the minister give an indication to the parliament, rather than just to the Press Club—given that most of the public debate on this issue has focused on increasing the obligations for welfare recipients—of what the government sees as its own obligations to Australians in receipt of welfare payments?9023Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—A number of the reforms which this government has already introduced into the welfare system, including those which would loosely come under the heading of mutual obligation, are in place and demonstrate the government's commitment to give support where it is needed, to expect people to rely on their own resources, where they have resources, and to make sure that people do not become long-term welfare dependent.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Questions Without Notice9024902415:02:009024Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have a little further information for Senate Bourne but I suspect that it is not any more than she already has. Radio Australia's coverage via transmitters in Taiwan and Singapore cover central and western Indonesia for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening. The morning broadcast is in Bahasa Indonesian and the evening broadcast is in English. I have also been looking at the broadcasting schedule from Shepparton and it seems, from my calculations, that 3½ hours a day, to its areas of coverage, are in Bahasa Indonesian. The balance of Indonesia is intended to be covered, as I said, from the Taiwan and Singapore sources. That is for the more limited periods that I have outlined—an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening. If I can get some further information that might be useful to her, I will do so.902415:03:009024Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have some further information for Senator Faulkner from the Minister for Defence. The daily media briefings by Colonel Lewis were cancelled on 24 September, the decision being announced at that last briefing. The reason is that daily joint briefings are being run in Dili by Major General Cosgrove and UNAMET representatives and no need was seen to restate the same information in Canberra.Questions Without Notice9024902415:03:009024Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 1361, which I asked 33 days ago.15:04:009024Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This question, as Senator Carr said, was put on notice 33 days ago. The department is currently waiting for information from another agency. The parts of the question placed on notice by Senator Carr involve information which is not within the possession of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I anticipate that an answer will be provided to Senator Carr in the very near future.15:04:009024Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate takes note of the explanation.I think I have to formally move this motion so that I can ask other questions relating to this matter. The minister has responded by suggesting that he has been waiting on a response from another agency—I presume it is the department of immigration—which concerns matters relating to colleges under the education services for overseas students act which are owned or managed by immigration agents. Other parts of the question, and there are six other parts, relate explicitly to the activities and administrative responsibilities of DETYA. Why is it that those other six parts of this question have not been answered?I also note that the minister was similarly asked questions by me concerning the apparent disappearance of some 400 students at a college in Sydney, the National Colleges of Australia, and that the minister undertook at that time to come back to me with an answer. That equally took about a month, about the same as for this original question. I am concerned that the minister has to rely upon a department which, first, has a history of not being able to answer parliamentary questions; second, has failed to respond to questions asked in this session concerning this matter in a prompt and timely matter; and, third, relies upon advice from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs concerning the operations of registered migration agents, which I note are included on a publicly available registry of agents. Why is it that it takes so long, 33 days, to secure information from another department?Is this not itself further evidence of the failure of the government to administer this legislation in an effective manner and to provide a whole of government approach to this very serious issue concerning the abuses of student visas and the use of these colleges for people smuggling? And is this not evidence of the ineffectual manner in which this government has responded to a series of questions that have now been raised by the opposition and by the industry? In that context, while I note that the minister has said that he will get back promptly I would seek from him an assurance that promptly means that and that answers will be provided. I seek some assurance from him as to specific times by which answers can be provided.15:07:009025Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The department is not in the practice of giving incomplete answers, and Senator Carr did not indicate in his question which parts he would like to have answered first. It was the department's approach to this that it would wait until it had all the information and could answer the question as a whole. So that is the answer to that part of Senator Carr's question.As to what was put to me a month ago in this chamber—I think that is what Senator Carr is referring to—I will have a look at that and see if there is anything further that I can give him. I can say to Senator Carr that I will use my best endeavours to make sure that this question is answered in full in the very near future.Question resolved in the affirmative.Questions Without Notice9025902515:08:009025Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have some further information in relation to detainees in East Timor for Senator Cooney that I wanted to put on the record. I seek leave to incorporate the information in Hansard .Leave granted.The information read as follows—DETENTION OF PERSONNEL IN EAST TIMORISSUE:SENATOR COONEY asked SENATOR HILL, representing the Prime Minister, on 27 September 1999:The Indonesian army and Indonesian police are now withdrawing from East Timor. How will INTERFET deal with the people it detains there? What authority and what capacity does INTERFET have to hold detainees? Will anybody be responsible for keeping those suspected of perpetrating atrocities held secure until their position—that is, the detainees' position—is ultimately resolved, and who will determine what that position is to be?TALKING POINTS:. Persons apprehended by members of INTERFET are delivered to a Force Detention Centre, temporarily located at Dili airfield, to which the International Committee of the Red Cross is allowed full access. All detainees will be treated in accordance with fundamental humanitarian standards.. INTERFET's detention authority is derived from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1264 and is necessary and incidental to the accomplishment of the mandate. It is not possible to restore peace and security in East Timor without having the power to detain persons who commit serious crimes or who obstruct the accomplishment of INTERFET's mission. INTERFET has established a Force Detention Centre in Dili which currently has a capacity to hold 15 detainees.. INTERFET detention policy is predicated on the continued functioning of Indonesian law enforcement authorities in East Timor.. Future arrangements for the administration of justice in East Timor have been raised with the United Nations. We await their detailed response.Supplementary. The Force Detention Centre has held a total of 43 people so far, including Pro-Independence and Militia.. 37 have been released:- 2 to Indonesian Police;- 9 to Indonesian Armed Forces;- 7 to UNAMET CIVPOL;- 18 released under their own recognisance; and- 1 has elected to stay of his own free will.BACKGROUNDUnder the mandate of UN security Council Resolution, INTERFET military personnel are authorised to apprehend any person who has committed, is committing or is about to commit a serious offence, and any person interfering with the accomplishment of the mission. "Serious offence" includes, but is not limited to:. Murder. Manslaughter. Assault occasioning Grievous bodily harm. Rape. Possession of a weapon with intent to injure. Carrying a weapon with criminal intent. Causing explosions likely to endanger life or property. Kidnapping, and. Looting.Department of Defence28 September 1999902615:09:009026Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to questions without notice asked by Senator Cook today, relating to the goods and services tax.Today we witnessed yet again an inept and incompetent display by the Assistant Treasurer in answering questions in his own portfolio area. We know that the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, has the responsibility for taxation in the portfolio split between him and the Treasurer. During the whole GST debate we found Senator Kemp totally unable to answer questions of detail on how the GST would impact on ordinary Australians. Again today, when asked a specific question about the Ralph review and capital gains tax, Senator Kemp was once more unable to provide an answer. He filled the time with bluster and with counter-questions, and posed in terms of political point scoring rather than hew to the task of providing information to this chamber which, after all, is what question time is all about and what it is his job to deliver.There are two things that I want to touch on today: first, about the GST and, second, about capital gains tax. The opposition warned, when the GST came in, that the estimates about the price impact of the GST were wrong, that they would be a lot higher than what the government was alleging. Now we have the National Architects Advisory Centre saying that house prices are being artificially inflated across Australia by 20 per cent. So, with the price of housing artificially inflated by 20 per cent, the GST then comes along as another 10 per cent on top of that. Who gets slugged? The ordinary wage and salary earner who buys a house. And not all of them buy new houses, but the advantage that the government claims to have built into its package for new home buyers is eroded considerably as well.But it is not only home buyers that are getting slugged. We heard today that Qantas are increasing their airfares by 7.5 per cent, when the government estimated that in this category of travel the cost to ordinary Australians would in fact decrease by 0.8 per cent. And when are Qantas increasing their airfares? On 1 July next year, the very day the GST comes in. So it is on those increased airfare prices that you will pay the extra 10 per cent. Airfares for Australians will not decrease by 0.8 per cent; they will go up much more than 10 per cent across Australia. So despite all this bleating we hear from the government that says, `But don't worry. You'll get a tax cut and the tax cut will offset the price hikes', the price hikes are going to offset the tax cuts and there will be losers in middle Australia and in low income Australia right across the board with the introduction of the GST.If you do not believe me, just listen to the Reserve Bank of Australia. What did the government say? The government said, `Inflation in the second year after the GST will be 1.9 per cent.' You slug Australia with a 10 per cent GST and the government says, `Prices will only go up by 1.9 per cent.' What does the Reserve Bank of Australia, the independent banking authority in this nation, say? It says now that it will be about five per cent. Once again we find that the so-called tax cuts that are meant to compensate Australians for a price hike under a GST will not be adequate. The so-called `no-one loses' theory is pitched in the belief that inflation will be 1.9 per cent—not five per cent, as the Reserve Bank says—and that price increases in housing, as we now see, and in airfares, as we now see, will not occur.Today we also questioned the minister about the capital gains tax that is proposed in the Ralph report, the capital gains tax that the government is proposing to introduce. A noted Australian professor of taxation law, the Professor of Tax Law at Deakin University, Professor Krever, who was an independent consultant to the Ralph inquiry, says that the government has got it wrong; that the changes to capital gains tax will benefit only the very wealthy or the husbands or wives of the very wealthy. They are the only two categories that will benefit. If they benefit, someone loses. The question is: who loses? The rest of us lose because, if you cannot make these tax changes stack up, then wage and salary earners—who have to pay every red cent of taxation due—pick up the weight that the very wealthy in this country avoid through the proposed changes in capital gains tax. This is not the Labor Party asserting this; this is the independent consultant of the Ralph review, a distinguished professor of taxation law in Australia, Professor Krever, who is asserting this. (Time expired)15:14:009027Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—I rise to speak on the motion to take note of Senator Kemp's answer. In particular, I wish to talk about the capital gains tax regime for Australia, which is currently completely out of order with regard to the rest of the world. In our nation, which depends on capital flowing in and out of it efficiently and being invested here to create jobs and wealth for everyone and for governments to take their share of it to do whatever we need to do for education, health, safety et cetera, we need a successful business enterprise economy.There have been many complaints about the capital gains tax regime in Australia. The Ralph committee has looked at it in depth, and the government has accepted the recommendations from that committee and has announced its decision. Professor Krever is just one voice, one academic, complaining about the system. Perhaps he has a chip on his shoulder about his views about that.For Senator Cook's benefit, I refer to a book by Robert Barrow called Getting it right: markets and choices in society. On page 120 is a graph showing the share of income tax paid by the top 0.5 per cent of income distribution in the USA over the period from 1960 to 1990. The graph quite clearly shows that, when the rates were put up in the USA in the 1980s, the total amount of tax paid by the rich 0.5 per cent went down in the USA but, when the rates were reduced in the 1990s, the tax paid by those people basically went up. The same thing happened in Ireland, I might add. I will quote from an article in the Irish Times of 28 July this year:In the same budget the Government slashed the basic rate of capital gains tax from 40 per cent to 20 per cent. Again, we were told that this would cost the Exchequer money; in fact, receipts from capital gains tax jumped by more than 75 per cent.I repeat: `receipts from capital gains tax jumped by more than 75 per cent'. That is the important thing. This is not being driven by envy, which is something that seems to drive the Labor Party.We are on about the practicalities of how the economy actually works and what can be done to make it work. I am quoting US examples and again the Irish example: reduce the tax rates and you will get more income. I will also quote from the Australian of 21 September, on capital gains tax:The Centre for Policy Research of the American Council for Capital Formation in July completed a macro-economic analysis of the 1997 cuts to the US capital gains tax.I might add that the Clinton administration reduced capital gains tax from 28 per cent to 20 per cent in order to be competitive, and it was matched by the Blair government doing a similar thing in the UK, so that their economies were competitive with regard to capital. We have no choice: we have got to be competitive. The article continues:The most important conclusions were that the reduction in the individual CGT top rate, from 28 per cent to 20 per cent, reduced the net cost of capital for new investment by about 3 per cent.That is a staggering result for the USA. Further on, the same article says:Rather than reduce the US federal revenues, the study shows that the stimulus to economic growth as a result of the lower CGT has added $US5 billion to federal tax receipts. I repeat: `$US5 billion to federal tax receipts'.Another study referred to in the same article shows that:. . . despite the 1997 cuts to the US CGT tax rate, and the corresponding boost to economic growth, most countries still tax individual and corporate capital gains more lightly than the US.A total of 24 industrial and developed countries were surveyed. Prepared by Arthur Andersen, the study shows that short-term individual gains are taxed at 39.6 per cent in the US compared with an average of 19.4 per cent for the sample as a whole.The same article quotes again the US rates for capital gains tax, even though they have been reduced down to basically 20 per cent, and says that the survey showed:. . . that individual Australians have the highest CGT of the countries surveyed—48.5 per cent both short and long term, the same as the maximum individual tax rate.Everyone knows that this has got to be changed. The Labor Party has been saying for some years that we need to encourage venture capital and that we need investment in this country in IT, venture capital and the other growth industries. This cannot be done unless the capital gains tax regime is changed, and that is what the government proposes to do. It is fair; it is sensible; and the economy and the government will be better off. (Time expired)15:19:009028Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I also wish to take note of the answer from Senator Kemp today when I asked whether the government was aware that house building prices were being pushed up by as much as 20 per cent in anticipation of the GST. Senator Kemp waffled on and waffled on and never really answered my question at all. This is an extremely serious question. He went on about how the house building sector is booming and how more Australians are able to buy homes.Of course, what is happening is that people who want to buy, build or renovate homes are doing it now before the GST comes in so that they do not have to pay the GST, because they think it is going to be cheaper to do it now rather than later. What is happening is that some building companies are apparently lifting charges to take advantage of this high demand. It is not a normal boom in building. It is a boom because people want to avoid the GST—which seems to be beyond the comprehension of Senator Kemp. Apparently, Archicentre have reported that some bricklayers have reportedly already lifted their fees from $450 per 1,000 bricks to $1,000 per 1,000 bricks, an increase of more than 100 per cent. Of course, in the rural and regional areas, this is devastating for people. It is much harder for them and they have to wait much longer to build or renovate, and so of course they are being disadvantaged unreasonably.We also heard that Qantas have confirmed that their airfares are going up by 7.5 per cent from 1 July next year. As my colleague Senator Cook said, the government declared that the cost of an airline ticket would decrease by 0.8 per cent. Of course, as everybody in this chamber knows, I come from the most beautiful state in Australia, and that is Queensland. Queensland happens to be a tourist state. We depend on tourism for our economy and our jobs and we love to share our state with other people. Of course, if the cost of airline tickets goes up—and it will—this will disadvantage Queensland. Queensland tourism will be disadvantaged; fewer people will come and they will have less money to spend. This will also affect jobs. The building sector in Queensland is in dire straits with building costs going up and, if the price of airline tickets goes up, this will be devastating for Queensland.I have to ask: why is this happening? Does this government have something against Queensland? Does this government have something against the tourist states? It is absolutely diabolical. As far as I am concerned, this is an attack on Queensland as a tourist state, and I am sure it will affect tourism in the other states. I do not think the premiers of these states will be too happy at all.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What about Tasmania?6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—Absolutely. I must say, Senator Sherry, that I regard Tasmania as the second most beautiful state in Australia. I love going to Tasmania. Tasmania has so much to offer the tourist industry. Tasmania is in dire need of jobs and a boost in the economy. Not only will this disadvantage Queensland tourism through lack of jobs and the increase in the cost of accommodation; it will also disadvantage states like Tasmania, from which so many of my colleagues here come and which, I must admit, is quite a beautiful state.When I ask Senator Kemp serious questions about housing and the GST, I would urge him to actually try to answer me instead of waffling on about how interest rates have gone down, how housing is far more affordable and how mortgage rates have gone down. He did not even try to answer. He obviously did not have a brief. That is fine. If he did not have a brief, he could have said that he would get back to me at a later date and that he would let this side of the chamber know what was going on. Obviously, once again he did not. (Time expired)15:24:009029Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Senator Gibbs has referred to the impact of the GST on house prices. Not only do the Labor Party have no policies on tax or just about anything else, but their level of knowledge about this topic in particular is also pretty patchy. The first thing to be said about this topic is that it needs to be put into perspective.Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill, Senator Carr and Senator Cook, would you like to conduct your conversation outside, so that Senator Coonan can actually address the chamber. I am interested in hearing what she has to say and not what the three of you have to say.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Very wise, too, Madam Deputy President. For instance, Senator Cook makes no mention at all of the broader implications for the construction industry. If you are going to talk about the cost of housing, put it into perspective and look at the cost of construction and where that falls. I actually have a bit of information about this. The effective level of work in the industry varies from economic modeller to economic modeller, but certainly it is accepted that house construction prices will rise by about five per cent. That seems to be correct. However, it must be said that the package, of course, contains measures to maintain affordability of a residential dwelling, and that is not only due to favourable interest rates—the best interest rate climate since the war—but the First Home Owners Scheme will assist first home buyers to make that first important purchase. And existing home owners will, of course, benefit from their homes increasing in value.A lot has been said about the net effect on demand. It must be expected that there will be a number of industry participants who might be concerned about the effect of GST on the business, but in both its implementation and subsequent changes to business practice, it is clear that there will be some changes to the industry. Of course, the most immediate effect is called the `pull forward of demand' pre-GST and overseas experience suggests that the prospect of higher costs in fact does that. Then, of course, there is a levelling out after the GST.In New Zealand there was a boost to new dwelling construction in the two quarters ahead of the introduction of the GST and there was a similar rise in the three and four quarters ahead of the GST's introduction in Canada. The Housing Industry Association estimates that, according to Australia's proposals, a pull forward of some 10 per cent of annual demand over 21 months is most likely, which equates to 13,000 new dwelling starts worth over $1.4 billion—a substantial boost to the construction industry.There is also the reciprocal effect of the `drop-off', which nobody has bothered to mention today, after the introduction of the GST, although it must be noted that the latest BIS Shrapnel report suggests that in fact there will be a quick recovery for the industry in 2001-02. In fact, the Econtech report in its conclusion expects `a positive outcome for the Australian economy and the building and construction sector as a result of the introduction of the GST, as a better economy leads to increased demand for new construction activity'.The news gets better. Nobody has mentioned the special concessions for the construction industry in the package. There are number of special concessions that will benefit the construction industry from the implementation of the new tax system. I have mentioned the First Home Owners Scheme, but builders will, of course, benefit from a marginal tax scheme that has been described by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu's director, Ross Abbey, as `effectively reducing the GST liability on the taxable supply of freehold land, the sale of stratum units or the long-term lease of property'.Before we get excited about the construction industry, it is very important that Senator Gibbs, Senator Cook and all of those on the other side of the chamber actually put it in balance: don't put out to people listening that there are negatives in this package. It is an overwhelmingly positive package and one that is likely to finally deliver a competitive tax system for this country.15:29:009030Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise to take note of answers from Senator Kemp today, or perhaps we could refer to them as non-answers. Far be it from me to make any comments about Senator Kemp's competency in failing to give us an adequate answer, but why in fact would he want to relay to this chamber the truth of what is actually happening with this government's GST package? The house of GST cards is falling down around their feet probably sooner than most of us expected. The announcement yesterday by Qantas of a 7½ per cent increase in airfares from 1 July next year will have a major impact across this country in relation to tourism not only in Queensland and Tasmania but also in my constituency of the Northern Territory.One thing needs to be said about people who live in the Northern Territory and probably also in Far North Queensland and Western Australia—that is, by and large, Territorians rely on the airfares to keep in contact with their extended families. They rely on that airfare—and the dry season in Darwin is commonly known as the `granny' season when elderly relatives from interstate actually fly to the Northern Territory, and there are good reasons for that. It is very difficult to live in remote parts of this country away from close family and friends for long periods of time. Families spend most of their time saving up for airfares and for their holiday to go south. It is also common at Christmas time to talk about `going south'. There is a large exodus from Darwin and Alice Springs, and no doubt from places like Broome and even Weipa, as families in remote parts of this country fly south and have Christmas with their loved ones. This is another example of where the GST is going to impact on the 80 per cent of Australians who, of course, have an income of less than $50,000. It is another example of this GST package hitting families in this country.There was an estimated decrease in airfares of 0.8 per cent. That has gone by the by now. For example, a one-way Darwin to Sydney airfare currently on a 21-day advance purchase, which is what most families would actually aim for because it is known to be cheaper, costs $729, but on 1 July it will go up to $783. If you are just travelling from Darwin to Adelaide, you are looking at an increase of $44, from $579 to $623—so $44 one way and about $88 to $90 return. When you are talking about a family of four or five, it is a lot of money.The government opposite us would say, `Yes, but that's going to be offset by tax cuts.' If I am earning around $35,000, I probably will be about $20 a week better off. But, if you stood here day after day and listened to this government prattle on about these tax cuts, $20 is going to go an awful long way by their estimation. It is going to go, they believe, an awful long way in the increase in airfares, the increase in house insurance policies that we are now seeing happening, the increase in the building industry and the increase in some of the items that they will buy on a day-to-day basis such as clothing.But they will say, `What about the decrease we have seen as some of the wholesale sales tax has come off?' I put it to you that the number of times Territorians fly south far in excess outweigh the number of times they buy a washing machine or a television, which is probably only once or twice in the lifetime of their family. A lot of faith is being put in these illustrious tax cuts as opposed to the large increase in cost we are seeing on goods and services that are being provided—tax cuts that were based on an inflation rate of 1.9 per cent that, as Senator Cook has reminded the chamber today, is now up near five per cent.We do not get answers from Senator Kemp, not because, I believe, he is incompetent in giving us the answers—although some of my colleagues probably have that view—but because I do not think that, if I were in his shoes, I would want to reveal the true facts. The true facts are, as the Labor Party have said time and time again, that the GST is going to impact on families, impact on 80 per cent of the people in this country, not the top 20 per cent of high income earners. It is going to have a significant impact on their lifestyle.15:34:009031Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Today, we have seen a real scattergun approach from the Labor opposition in relation to the issues raised at question time, again basically to paper over their own lack of policy and the fact that they have not done any of the hard work in terms of alternative policy development to provide an alternative to the government's initiatives, particularly with regard to tax reform. We have heard them raise today the issue of the effect of the goods and services tax on airfares and on housing, and we have heard criticism of the government's new business tax system reforms in relation to capital gains tax.Let me just take up the issue of airfares. The Labor Party's criticism of the government in this regard has been based on an announcement by Australia's domestic airlines that airfares are going to increase by 7½ per cent after July next year when the goods and services tax comes into operation. The first point that needs to be made is that this is a commercial decision made by the airlines. If they cannot justify that price increase, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be investigating their price rises.But, more importantly, the point needs to be made that the government said that there would be a range of price effects as a result of the introduction of the goods and services tax. Overall, the average price effect of the goods and services tax in terms of the con sumer price index will be 1.9 per cent, but obviously some goods and services will rise by more than that overall 1.9 per cent inflation effect. Some goods and services will rise by 1.9 per cent, some will rise by less than that and some will actually fall in price. Most importantly, a wide range of manufactured goods will fall substantially in price, and that is a very important issue for my state of South Australia, which produces motor vehicles and white goods. The prices of those items will fall substantially.In addition to that, we have the substantial personal income tax cuts. Money in the pocket from those income tax cuts will be available to enable people to offset those items that rise in price by more than the 1.9 per cent. I put it to the Labor Party that, as was indicated in all of the work done on the new tax system—the research, the hearings that we conducted through the committees and so on when this policy was developed and when it was implemented through the legislation passed in this chamber—it is very clear that Australians overall will be better off as a result of the introduction of the new tax system, when you combine the effects of the personal income tax cuts with the price effect of the GST and, in particular, those items that will fall in price.In overall terms, people will have more money in their pockets as a result of the tax cuts. As a result of the fall in the price of a number of goods they will be able to meet effectively those price increases that do result from the GST—airfares being one of those that has been identified today. In that context, we need to remember, of course, that probably half or thereabouts of air travel is undertaken by business travellers. For them there will actually be a fall in the cost of travel. So for business purposes—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—That means that it is even worse for non-business travellers, does it not?FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—This shows how naive Senator Sherry is. He interjects that it will be even worse for non-business travellers. It will not be. Because the cost of business travel will actually fall, the overall operating costs of businesses required to undertake that travel will fall, and therefore the price of the goods and services that they provide to their customers will fall. Again that reinforces the very point I was making—that the price of a number of good and services will actually fall to offset any direct price increases that private individuals have to face. That is the case, Senator Sherry. That is the first point that needs to be made in relation to air travel, in addition to those points I have made about income tax cuts and the price of other goods and services falling.It is only domestic airfares to which the goods and services tax will be applied. International airfares are treated as export income and therefore those prices will not be affected by the introduction of a GST, because it is zero rated. That means, as was mentioned a moment ago, that overall the price of air passenger transport will rise by only 0.8 per cent in the year 2000 as a result of these changes. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.903210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:903215000WH4McGauran Sen JulianTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament of Australia.The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia requests that the Members of the Senate act to make it illegal for those who are openly homosexual to teach our children.Children are great imitators, with parents and teachers becoming role models. All normal children go through a latency period when they have no interest at all in the opposite sex. The presence of a teacher who is openly homosexual would cause a child in this stage to think he was also a homosexual, even if the teacher was not actively trying to influence the child.Homosexuality should never be presented to children as `normal'. If it was normal the human race could not have survived.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate act to protect our children.Senator McGauranWH4Senator McGauran(from 15,000 citizens)9032318O6O'Brien Sen KerryTo the Speaker and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the churches and charities for food and the necessities of life; and calls upon the federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned members of St Mathews Anglican Church, Mulgrave, Victoria 3170, petition the Senate in support of the abovementioned motion.And we, as in duty bound wil ever pray.Senator O'Brien8O6Senator O'Brien(from 31 citizens)903210968G6Ridgeway Sen AdenTo the Honourable, The President and members of the Senate and the Parliament assembled, the undersigned petitioners respectfully request that the Senate recognises:The Sydney Gay and Lesbian, Transgender and Bisexual community, their family and friends—Affirm that Indigenous People are the original occupants of this land and have never ceded their ownership of it.Call on the Commonwealth Government to fully acknowledge the wrongs committed as a result of colonisation, particularly the theft of Indigenous people's land and Government policies relating to the forced removal of their children.We further call upon all Australian Governments to commit fully to the process of Reconciliation, and as part of that commitment to issue a formal apology for these wrongs on behalf of the people of Australia.Senator Ridgeway8G6Senator Ridgeway(from 1,096 citizens)Petitions received.Notices90329032Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes, with deep concern, the statement by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Chairman, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, that, `Despite the gains in Indigenous education in the past three decades, Indigenous students lag behind other Australians by almost any measure of participation or attainment. The gap between rates of retention for non-Indigenous students compared with Indigenous students has increased and is expected to worsen.'Senator Gibson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 be extended to 12 October 1999.Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes, with deep concern, the declining level of service provision by Telstra, as revealed by the Australian Communication Authority.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the Australian dairy industry be extended to 21 October 1999.903315:40:009033Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate motion Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 standing in my name for five sitting days after today.9033Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 309 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to Western Sahara, postponed till 29 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 288 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to current gene technology regulations, postponed till 29 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 289 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to genetically-modified foods, postponed till 29 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 307 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to genetically-engineered hormonal milk, postponed till 29 September 1999.General business notice of motion no. 291 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for 29 September 1999, relating to compensation for the stolen generation, postponed till 20 October 1999.Business90339033Motion (by Senator Troeth, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 be taken together with the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 after the bills are read a first time.Motion (by Senator Troeth, at the request of 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:Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Border Interception) Bill 1999.Committees903390339033Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 29 September 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office.Miscellaneous9033Motion (by Senator Allison)—as amended by leave—agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that the More Intensive and Flexible Services pilot program for people with disabilities is one of the Commonwealth's most successful programs, providing support and assistance to people with chronic, unstable or high support needs and to people with multiple disabilities, (ii) that, to date, the program has enabled up to 80 per cent of those on the program to access vocationally-oriented courses, (iii) that some 200 new entrants to the program have been referred for initial assessments in recent weeks, and (iv) the Government has announced that the program will finish in December 1999, even though no performance review has been undertaken with regards to the program;(b) condemns the Government for withdrawing funding from a program that is achieving successful vocational outcomes for people with disabilities who will not be catered for adequately by other programs; and(c) calls on the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman): (i) to conduct, as a matter of urgency, an open and independent assessment review of the program, and (ii) to provide for the necessary funds in the forthcoming budget to allow the continuance of the program with a similar level of funding provided to each client and to at least the same number of clients as was available prior to the Government's decision to discontinue the pilot program, until such time as a review is conducted and/or an alternative program is negotiated.Notices903490349034Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to provide that optional preferential voting be the method of choosing members of the House of Representatives, and for related purposes. Electoral Amendment (Optional Preferential Voting) Bill 1999 .Matters of Public Importance903490349034The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—The President has received a letter from Senator Forshaw proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The failure of the Federal Liberal-National Party Government to address the needs of rural and regional Australia as demonstrated by their lack of support for our major agricultural industries, failure to adequately support rural producers facing extreme financial difficulties and severe cuts to vital rural and regional programs and services.I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.15:45:009034Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Not only is this matter of public importance supported by the opposition; it is also supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Australia. It is particularly supported by people living in rural and regional Australia, people who have been deserted by the Liberal and National parties virtually since they came to office in 1996. It was John Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, who promised he would look after the battlers. When talking about battlers, there can probably be no group in Australia more deserving of attention than our farmers and people living in rural and regional Australia, who have been so badly hurt and so hard hit by the policies and decisions of this federal government and by the decisions of state governments of Liberal-National Party persuasion. I will come back to the election position in a minute, as we are seeing wholesale desertion by Australians living in rural and regional Australia when it comes to support for the coalition parties.People in rural and regional Australia have borne the brunt of the massive cuts introduced by this government when it came to office in 1996—cuts across a whole range of services such as education, health, local government, transport and so on. My colleague Senator Mackay will deal specifically with the impact of those massive cuts and other decisions of this government in respect of services for rural and regional Australia. I want to talk particularly about the impact upon those people who contribute so much to the wealth of this great nation, that is, farmers and employees of farmers in our great agricultural industries. This government, this federal Liberal-National Party government, has ignored their concerns.Remember when this government came to office one of its first decisions was to abolish the then Department of Regional Development, the department that was specifically targeted at considering the needs of our farming and rural communities. Since then we have seen one ministerial disaster after another. John Anderson, who was the Minister for Primary Industries in the first Howard government, was so incompetent, so inept, that he had no-confidence motions passed against him at various meetings of farmers around this country. In the end, they had to promote him sideways to give the job to another National Party minister in Minister Vaile.Minister Vaile's approach was that he would not adopt the haughty, landed gentry approach of Minister Anderson, an approach that was rejected by the people who had placed so much faith in this government; his approach was to be your friendly stock and station agent: `Come into my office, sit down, have a cup of coffee, discuss your problems and I will fix them.' That was Mr Vaile's approach. Looking at the agricultural sector in this country today, he has not fixed one problem; he has simply moved from one problem to the next. Any small moves that have been made by this government have only come about because of constant pressure being applied to previously Minister Anderson and now Minister Vaile.Take, for instance, the pork industry. The pork industry in this country faced a major crisis due to significant levels of importation of pig meat and other pork products into this country. This government stood by and did nothing. Despite the pressure that was being applied, despite the appeals to Minister Anderson and to Mr Fischer, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, they did nothing until they were dragged kicking and screaming to the table and over a series of months dribbled out some assistance packages. But they came about well after the time had run out in which the decisions should have been made, and that is a problem that is endemic to this government. It allows the problems to go on and on before it takes any action. Unfortunately in some cases it is far too late. We have seen another example of that today, which I will come to in a minute. The government dribbled out these assistance packages but, as I said, much too late for many pork producers.The problem, however, was that this government, in ignoring the plight of those producers, took the credit when prices increased recently. There has been a bit of an upturn in that industry, brought about not by the policies of this government but by a major disease outbreak in Malaysia whereby Australia was able to pick up some additional export markets, particularly to Singapore. This government tried to take the credit for something it had absolutely no control over.We can then go to another significant industry in which we have seen a belated announcement today—again at the eleventh hour, or well past the eleventh hour—and that is the dairying industry. I do not want to get too involved in that debate because as Senator Crane, Senator Woodley and members of the rural and regional affairs committee know, we are about to bring down a report on this. But what has been the position of the federal government throughout this problem of deregulation in the dairying industry? It sat on its hands and did nothing. There has been a total absence of any national leadership.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—It is a state matter.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—This is the problem, Senator Troeth. Senator Troeth says that it is a state matter. We have had the admission from the words of the parliamentary secretary. What have they said? They have said that it is a state matter. Notwithstanding the fact that they ripped hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars out of state finances in their first two budgets, they continue to say that this is a state matter. I say to the parliamentary secretary: it is not a state matter. Whilst regulation of the dairying industry may be controlled at the state level, there have been decisions made over a significant period of time in relation to the national dairying industry. Those decisions have come about because of national policies such as the determinations of national competition policy. I remind the parliamentary secretary that the national competition policy is not a state only matter; it looks at the issues of state regulation from a national perspective in trying to bring about competition on an equal basis or on a level playing field.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—One of the Labor Party's better policies.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—That is true, but I remind Senator Macdonald that the whole point is that you just do not have a policy. You also have to have leadership that drives that policy. Under the previous Labor government, we had ministers such as Mr Kerin. He set the dairying industry reform process on its way. He was able to convince the dairying industry of the need for reform. He was a magnificent minister for primary industries. He was then followed by Simon Crean. We had the Crean plan, which took the initiatives under John Kerin further, as did Bob Collins when he became minister.But what happened when the government changed from a Labor government to a Liberal-National Party government? What happened? Well, it all stopped. These people said that this was a state matter. Even though we know that the domestic market support scheme is going to cease at the beginning of July next year, this government has decided to do nothing to bring the states together in order to bring about a national position. What do we have now? We have a situation where the still remaining Premier of Victoria for a short time, Mr Kennett, decided to go it alone and sent the whole thing into a spin.Today, in a last desperate act to try to keep some sort of measure of involvement in the process, the federal government has announced its response to the dairying industry package, something that has been called for for many months now. But, at the same time, we still have major states involved in the dairying industry saying that they are not on board with that decision. We have a whole series of positions across the states, and Victoria is in a real state of flux because nobody will really know which party will be governing that state until the outcome of the by-election towards the end of this year.All through this, what has been the position of the Australian government? It has sat on its hands and done nothing. At the very time when we need national leadership to bring the states together to hammer out an agreement, knowing the deadline of 1 July next year is approaching, you have done nothing. It is a failure of national leadership. You can go through all those other issues we have had to look at over the last couple of years such as in the wheat industry, in the wool industry, in the salmon industry and in the forest industry where the minister for chainsaws is in charge of the forests—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please do not reflect upon a member in the other place.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Mr Tuckey—and what happened? The policy fell to bits in total uproar with respect to his management of that portfolio. What we have seen over the last couple of years is that those people in the bush, in rural and regional Australia, placed their faith in this government in 1996. They voted for a change and they believed John Howard when he said that he was going to look after these battlers. What have they done? They have deserted in their hundreds of thousands, firstly in Queensland. They voted against the National Party government and elected quite a number of One Nation members to the Queensland parliament. The National Party was virtually wiped out in the bush there.Then in Tasmania the coalition government was thrown out of office, and Tasmania is a state which is extremely important in terms of rural and regional issues. It then happened in New South Wales. The Labor Party now holds a majority of seats outside the Sydney metropolitan area and the National Party lost a senator just like it did in Queensland in the last federal election. Then, to top it all off, it happened again in the Victorian elections recently when the Labor Party smashed the Liberal and National parties because of their desertion of people in the bush. (Time expired)15:59:009037Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The debate today on this matter of public importance proposed by the Labor Party deals with matters of great importance to rural and regional Australia and refers to matters like support for major agriculture industries, support for rural producers facing extreme financial difficulties and vital rural and regional programs and services. I do thank the Labor Party for raising this important issue as it gives Senator Crane, Senator Boswell and me the opportunity of explaining in more detail than we can at question time just what this government has done.I am rather surprised that the Labor Party has raised this issue today. I wonder what the underlying philosophy is. It is the day when the newspapers are full of the disappearance from the public stage of Labor's chief spokesman on rural and regional matters, Ms Kernot. The great gain for the Labor Party who was going to do so many things for Australia has disappeared from sight because she cannot do the job. She is incapable of doing it and, when she is challenged about it, she spends most of her time blaming the messenger—the media. I saw a transcript of an interview she gave today—three pages of bile on a reporter who happened to report accurately what she said. Even Graham Richardson, the former Labor senator, has shaken his head with despair at the stupidity of the Labor Party's putting Ms Kernot in charge of this area.I am amazed at Senator Forshaw raising this issue today of all days. Perhaps Ms Kernot is not of his faction. I do not know: I am not into those sorts of conspiracy theories. But why has this been raised today? The Labor Party keep promising that they are going to do something. Ms Kernot says that she is getting a policy together, but she has been saying that for 12 months now. She says she has been consulting with regional communities in regional Australia and Canberra but, as I go around regional Australia, I see neither head nor hair of her. I know some of Ms Kernot's own colleagues who have asked her to come out to the bush have been disappointed because she is too busy. She says that she is looking after the marginal seat of Dickson, but the people of Dickson have not seen her either. She has simply disappeared without trace. Senator Woodley—who I understand is in this debate—was right when he disclosed to us Ms Kernot's philosophy, and that was: `Don't go near the bush, because there are no votes out there.'I see Senator Mackay follows me in this debate, and I expect we will get from her a rousing defence of her senior minister. I am sure she will tell us what Ms Kernot has been doing, and she will tell us why all the commentators are wrong when they say that Ms Kernot is simply not up to the job. Whilst that is a matter for the Labor Party, I say to the Labor Party: if Ms Kernot cannot do the job, please appoint someone who can, because country Australia is too important to have a very part-time player in the field who is more interested in getting herself a safer seat from the Labor Party—as she so clearly demonstrated on election night.I do thank Senator Forshaw for raising this issue although, as I say, I find it curious that the Labor Party would simply highlight Ms Kernot's absence by putting forward this matter. Senator Forshaw has raised a number of industry issues, and I know Senator Boswell and Senator Crane will go through those very carefully. Across the board, we are a government which understands rural and regional Australia. We are a government that understands farmers, and the Liberal and National parties have responded accordingly. I will mention just some of the ways we have responded. Following the regional and rural financial summit a couple of years back, we put into place the $525 million Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, which has done more for farmers and rural people in the last few years than Labor did in all of the 13 years they were in power. We have put $24 million into the pork industry. We have put $18 million to $20 million into the lamb industry. We have just today announced—and Senator Forshaw obviously has not read about this—a $1.8 billion package to assist the structural adjustment of the Australian dairy industry. 656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It's not your money! The consumers are paying that!YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—It is not our money, but we have done it, Senator. The Labor Party never did this, because they never understood rural and regional Australia. Up my way, the sugar growers have had tough times with reductions in prices, but some of them are doing pretty well, and they are grateful to this government—as are the NFF—because we have introduced the tax reform packages that the National Farmers Federation and cane growers asked for. With the Ralph reforms, the cane growers have come out and supported the government on those tax reform measures. The GST and the original tax reform proposals were called for by the National Farmers Federation for two decades. They pleaded with the Labor Party to do something about tax reform. The Labor Party typically shut their ears to rural and regional Australia and did not have the courage to do something about tax reform. We, the government of the Liberal and National parties, have done something. We have brought in a tax regime which is good for rural producers, good for small businessmen and good for regional Australia generally.We have been able to do these things because we do go out and consult. A big part of our program is listening to what people in rural and regional Australia say. Senator Forshaw, you rarely get out there, but Senator Crane and I live out there. We know what it is like out there because our neighbours tell us. We understand these sorts of things, and then we hold things like the rural summit. The rural summit is where we get people from rural and regional Australia in to talk to us. Do you know this rural and regional summit which is on at the end of October is one where politicians are not invited to speak?9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You're going!YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—We are going, but we are not invited to speak. We are not invited to participate. We are going because we want to hear from rural and regional Australians. We want to listen and learn, and that is what we have done also with our regional forums program. But, more importantly, we send our people around to listen and learn. Mr Anderson holds a very marginal seat: he got 46 per cent of the vote in his seat. The Labor Party and One Nation together got more than 46 per cent of the vote in that seat, so it is a very marginal seat, but that does not stop Mr Anderson from going right around this country consulting and listening to people. It does stop Ms Kernot, because she has to look after what she calls her marginal seat until the Labor Party can find her a safer seat somewhere to allow her to get around.I am not like Ms Kernot or Senator Mackay. I do not just fly into a town, deliver a speech and then not hang around to listen to what everybody says when I go; I actually stay there. I also get in my car, drive throughout western Queensland—through rural and regional Australia—and stop in towns and listen to people. I come there not to say anything, not to give them a message, but to ask them, `What is happening here; what is the problem and what do you think the government should do about it?' That is called consultation. Ms Kernot does not know about it; she is not interested. All I can say to you, Senator Forshaw, is can you please get a representative from the Labor Party who has some real interest in the bush.I know that Senator Crane, Senator Boswell and Senator Heffernan consult with the bush, as does Senator McGauran—Senator Heffernan lives in the bush. We understand these people and we want to listen to them. I make no political point about that. I do not want to be unfair to Ms Kernot. She attained some recognition as head of the Democrats, but she has found that dealing with your type, Senator Forshaw, in the Labor Party was not all beer and skittles, as she thought it would be. Even Senator Jacinta Collins showed what she thought of Ms Kernot—remember when she issued those wine bottles with the Cheryl Kernot label—so you know what the female members of the Labor Party think about Ms Kernot.It is not good enough: rural and regional Australia is an important area of policy. We have listened and we have done what we can. But we have more to do. I do not say, by any stretch of the imagination, that we have solved it all, but we are working towards that area because we listen, we want to understand and we want to try to help rural and regional communities to help themselves. That is what our policy is all about. We have addressed the things that are the subject of this matter of public importance. I urge the Labor Party to do the same. (Time expired)16:09:009039Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—This is a very important debate today and I am glad that the Labor Party have put this matter of public importance before us so that we can debate it. I want to underline that the MPI is quite correct in talking about the failure of this government to address the needs of regional and rural Australia. But I have to say that that was true of the previous government as well. However, that issue is not before us. I want to address the failure of this particular government and the areas in which it has to lift its game. It really must lift its game.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—You should talk about the rural transaction centres.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—No, that was your speech, Senator Macdonald; I will stick to mine. I want to talk about a big issue that is before us at the moment, and that is the failure of the government in the area of dairy deregulation. I think this is a big issue that is going to bite everybody if we cannot show some leadership in this area. I want to say to the government that there has been a failure of the government in three areas. First, there has been a failure in the area of leadership. I agree with Senator Forshaw: the problem is that this federal government has allowed Victoria to lead the debate. There has been no leadership at the federal level. If you do not believe me, then let me read from the press release put out today by the honourable Warren Truss. He says it quite clearly:The dairy industry proposals represent the single biggest deregulation of any Australian rural sector. The Victorian State Government and the Victorian dairy industry have indicated their intention to deregulate. As the Victorian industry represents 63 per cent of the Australian production their decision will bring considerable pressure on the regulation of other State markets. That is very true, but why doesn't this federal government show some leadership on this issue? Why doesn't it, when it is a national issue—it is not just a Victorian state issue—have something to offer for everybody else?YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Like $1.8 billion.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I am coming to that, Senator Boswell. I welcome the package which the government have released today, but it is not going to be enough. The problem is that they are hiding behind the skirts of state governments. They are not showing leadership. They are saying, `State governments are going to deregulate and all that the poor federal government can do is to make sure that dairy farmers not only get a compensation package but pay for it as well.' So they are going to get a loan, from which dairy farmers will be paid compensation, but then they will also be asked to repay the compensation they receive and, I presume—although the press release today does not make it clear—that the increase in the amount means that there will be tax implications. So the dairy farmers will be taxed on the compensation they receive—the compensation which they will have to repay anyway. What sort of a deal is that?The problem for the government is that there is not only a failure in their leadership but also a failure in the fact that there is no plan B. That is the problem. If deregulation does not go ahead, what is going to happen? The Victorian election really puts deregulation very much in doubt. If Mr Kennett does retain the premiership of the state, then he will have to depend upon a couple of Independents, and they have declared themselves very clearly—certainly, Susan Davies has clearly declared where she stands on deregulation. I just do not know what is going to happen in terms of plan B. Of course, if Labor wins in Victoria, John Brumby has already indicated that he will review deregulation.That does not take into account what the Western Australian government might do, as they are faced with being sued by the dairy farmers in their state once the quota system has been struck down in terms of deregulation, because those quotas in Western Australia are seen as real property. They are viewed this way in the other states as well, but in Western Australia the contracts for buying and selling the quotas attract stamp duty. They are real property. If, at the stroke of a pen, you destroy someone's real property, of course they are going to sue for compensation. That is not taken account of in the package. So I am not sure that the Western Australian government are going to be very keen on deregulation itself. That is two states: Victoria and Western Australia. I believe the government had better have plan B ready very quickly because, if the package does not get up, then we are going to need to know what is next.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Are the Democrats supporting it?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Yes, of course we are supporting the compensation package. But here is the problem: who is going to pay for the compensation? This was something that we asked as we went around during the inquiry, and we could not get a straight answer. In some cases, people were saying, `It's the consumers who'll pay because there is an 11c a litre levy on the cost of retail milk sales.' Certainly, when we went to northern New South Wales, Senator Forshaw would remember that Norco predicted there would be an increase for the consumer of about 10c a litre. But much of the other evidence we received suggested that, in fact, the farmers would pay.Senator Forshaw interjecting—HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—You say that the farmers will not pay. Let me tell you what Mr Truss said today in his press release:The package will be funded through a levy of 11 cents a litre on all retail milk sales. This levy is unlikely to have any impact on retail prices as farm gate prices are expected to fall after deregulation by at least this amount.There it is. So we can see who is going to pay for their own compensation. I have to say to you we will be supporting the package but I will keep my fingers crossed.There is another problem, and that is that the government has failed to listen to grassroots farmers in all of this. Let me quote from a very interesting letter which came my way. This underlines the fact that the UDV, the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria, have driven deregulation against the interests of farmers in the other states and, many of their own farmers would say, against the interests of farmers in their own state—and certainly against the interests of many farmers in regional areas. I have a very interesting document from Bega, which the committee also has, where the farmers and the local business community have done a professional social impact statement, and that shows the devastating effect of deregulation on that area. But the interesting thing is that this letter from the UDV must have been sent to the wrong people, because it is about a campaign and it includes eight draft letters. They are suggesting that these letters should be sent to local papers so that UDV members can get into the debate. The advice to their members is:. Please try to do this as soon as possible, remember they—the letters—must look genuine. I have selected DC's—district councils—on the basis of where we are getting the most calls.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It's push polling!HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Yes, it is a bit like that. The advice goes on to say:It would also be great at this time if Central Councillors and District Councils confirmed their support for the Executive, Central Council and UDV's position on deregulation.We are throwing everything at this to try and gain the final tick off from the Federal Government.They are not even sure whether the federal government support them, but they do.We recognise this is more work however, your help at this time will certainly make a difference.There were eight letters attached to this and they are very interesting, but they are saying, `We're not really sure if we're winning this debate, but we'll put out this disinformation which may help us finally get over the line.' So there you are: the government have let themselves be led by the Victorian government, which has almost fallen over because of this very issue. (Time expired)16:19:009041Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I congratulate Senator Woodley on a good speech. I am interested to note that he concluded his speech with what we could call `push post' in terms of letters being made `genuine'. I am also interested that Minister Ian Macdonald has become much more voluble recently than he has been in the past in relation to a few matters that he raised today. If I were the government, I might have sent somebody else in to play the person. I notice he spent six or seven minutes talking about Ms Kernot rather than talking about the policies of the government.What kind of person are we talking about in Minister Macdonald? I would never play politics, as he said, in relation to this matter, but let us cast our minds back to 1995 when Senator Ian Macdonald was shadow minister. This was, as Senator Crane will no doubt remember, at a shadow ministry meeting in North Queensland, and a certain piece of paper was left on the table. Subsequently, it got an awful lot of publicity resulting in a sequence of events which I will deal with. This is a quote from then shadow minister Senator Ian Macdonald:The policy indicates that prior to the election we would be announcing a list of long term visionary projects we would specifically like the Council to investigate—They are alluding to the previous council—and prioritise, for example: Darwin to Alice Railway, turning coastal waters inland, rejuvenating the Murray-Darling Basin—is this starting to ring any bells here—Adelaide Airport.This gives us the flexibility of announcing a lot of major long term visionary matters but without committing ourselves to actually proceeding with them.Who said that? Senator Macdonald.What happened to poor old Senator Macdonald, Senator Forshaw? Where was Senator Macdonald when the frontbench was announced in 1996? He was not there. He had a long way to go up the slippery pole before he got the imprimatur of the Prime Minister to come back onto the front bench. And we know why he is there. I would not play politics in relation to this, but it may have something to do with the fact that he is a Liberal senator from North Queensland, and it may have something to do with keeping the Liberal Party presence in North Queensland in terms of the National Party. So that is the kind of person we are dealing with: the kind of person who comes in here and plays the person. He is the sort of person who says, `Announce all these policies but don't worry too much about them because we don't have to deliver.' That is what he said, effectively, yet he comes in here and casts aspersions on other people when, clearly, on empirical evidence, he has no clothes on.As I said, we have never heard Senator Macdonald so voluble. Senator Crane, my colleague over there, has shared many hours in estimates with me, Senator Forshaw and Senator O'Brien in relation to a number of matters. He will well recall—as his patience was sorely tried—the last round of estimates where we attempted to ask many questions on the GST and regional Australia and also on the impact of the diesel fuel changes which were in the ANTS package. We also tried to ask a number of questions in relation to the GST and local government. We did not get one response. I could be wrong, but I surmised that the minister was having a big sulk because—unfortunately, from his perspective—he retained the portfolio of local government as a result of the deal with the Democrats. Anyway, he did not respond. I do pay tribute to Senator Crane for his behaviour in relation to this matter. I know he did attempt to get the minister to answer the questions, but it was impossible.Just in relation to the whole issue of regional and rural Australia, the opposition is very happy with the performance of the frontbench on this matter. We are very happy. We say to you, `Keep doing what you are doing.' We say to you, `Keep implementing the same sorts of policies that you have implemented in relation to regional and rural Australia, because it is those kinds of policies that delivered us the result we got in Victoria.' We are happy with that, so keep doing what you are doing.We were very happy with the debate on Victoria the other day. We were very happy with the contributions of Senator Troeth, Senator Patterson and Senator McGauran, because they said to us that you have not learned a thing. It was absolutely extraordinary—and Senator Heffernan would know this; he has been around politics for a long time—because when you get that kind of defeat, which it effectively was, what you say is, `We are sorry.' Even Jeff Kennett had some grace in relation to that. And you say, `We're going to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and we're going to do something.' But, no, the debate in relation to Victoria was, `Why on earth didn't the people of Victoria vote for Jeff Kennett?' Senator Patterson went through a long list of the policies of the Victorian coalition and basically ticked them off—gave the people of Victoria a big lecture about not voting for Jeff Kennett.We are very happy with that. Please keep doing it. Do not depart from the script. Do not go off the message, for goodness sake. While I am at it, might I say that we are also very happy with the calibre of the frontbench. Please do not promote any of the talented people, particularly women, that you have sitting on the back bench. Do not promote them to the frontbench. You keep them where they are. That is terrific.But it is not good enough—Senator Boswell has finally made it—to come in here and repeat the Goebbels-like mantra: `We are doing the right thing by regional and rural Australia.' You cannot just keep repeating this Goebbels-like mantra, backed up by Reifenstahl-like TV advertising which essentially says, `Yes, we are right, therefore people will vote for us.' That is not good enough, because people in rural Australia know—they are not silly—that this government has not done the right thing.What did the government do when it first came in in 1996? The first thing it did was abolish the department of regional development. If that was not a signal of what this government thought of regional and rural Australia, I do not know what was. I wonder whether, after the Victorian election, Minister Macdonald will stand by the government's own National Commission of Audit report from 1996 which stated that the federal government had no clear rationale for involvement in regional development policies. This picks up the point that Senator Forshaw made. Whose responsibility does it think it is? The states' responsibility. That is whose responsibility it thinks it is. It was the government's own National Commission of Audit that clearly said that.It is also worthwhile going through at some length some of the cuts that this government has made in relation to regional and rural Australia.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Poor old Cheryl. Give her a Gregorys map so she can find her way around.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—As I said, the first thing they did was abolish the $150 million regional development program. We have already covered that.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Give Cheryl a Gregorys .9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Senator Heffernan, I ask you again: if you are interested in actually speaking, why don't you, for once, get yourself on the speakers list and let us have the benefit of your wisdom? You are not actually heard very often in the Senate. But I will not be diverted by you.One of the first things that the government did, as I said, was to abolish the $150 million regional development program. That was the most telling illustration of this government starting off how it meant to go on. That program was very popular. It was committed to building regional economies and infrastructure—it is gone. Secondly, we had $62 million slashed from financial assistance grants to local government. Those senators who live in regional and rural Australia know exactly how local government feels about those cuts. That was the second thing.Thirdly, we had the slashing of the local government development program, which was a very popular program and something that Labor announced just before we lost office in 1996. That is now gone—$34 million gone, replaced by a $7 million program called the local government program, which is primarily designed to assist councils prepare for the implementation of the GST. Fourthly, the coalition cut $620 million in road funding from the national highway system. I am only up to the fourth thing.Fifthly, the coalition has inflicted large cuts on the higher education sector, impacting on regional universities and the positive and collaborative role they play in regional communities. I divert here to just mention the report on regional unemployment which will be brought down in the Senate in the next few days where, having gone all around regional Australia, we heard evidence of precisely what is happening in the education system under this government, and there are some very angry people.Sixthly, the coalition has dramatically reduced the size and scope of Labor's infrastructure bonds program, which has provided $200 million for the regional infrastructure program every year. In its place, what do we have? The infrastructure rebate, capped at $75 million and limited to transport infrastructure. That is what the coalition thinks of regional and rural Australia.The list goes on and on and, unfortunately, time does not permit me to continue in relation to this. But I will mention a few other things. None of these cuts have been lost on rural and regional Australians, and I think Senator Forshaw outlined electorally the impact that this is having. There was the slashing of funding to the ABC; the further sale of Telstra, which is not popular out in regional and rural Australia—Senator Boswell knows that, although he obviously will not say that here today; and major cuts to employment programs, including Working Nation which is still very well received in regional Australia, as you will see when the report comes out.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—How many seats did you win in Queensland?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Senator Macdonald has rejoined us. Welcome, Senator Macdonald. They turned their piecemeal approach to industry policy into an art form. They closed CES offices all over Australia. I noticed today that the head of Job Futures has come out and said that the Job Network has let regional and rural Australians down—this is after Minister Abbott gave it a clean bill of health. But we will deal with that later on. They closed the CES and replaced it with a substandard program which impacts disproportionately on regional and rural Australia. They closed tax offices. They closed Medicare offices. They failed to address the declining banking industry. The list goes on and on.We know the type of turmoil that is going on in the coalition at the moment. We all read what Senator Boswell had to say at the National Party conference a couple of weekends ago where he slammed national competition policy.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Who, me?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Yes, Senator Boswell. We read the reports—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—It was Graeme Samuels—9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Graeme Samuels and the National Competition Council, I beg your pardon. So you have slammed the NCC and not the NCP. Who introduced the NCC, I wonder? I do not think it was us.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—You introduced it.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—You have a look at the continuum of the national competition policy and when it was introduced by Labor and what has happened under this coalition government. The hearings of the Senate select committee into national competition policy, Senator Heffernan, have been most illuminating as to the disproportionate impact in regional and rural Australia. It is simply not good enough, as I said before, to come in with a Goebbels-like mantra and try to say to us that this government has tried to do the right thing by regional Australians. Look at the empirical evidence. Look at what happened in Victoria two weeks ago. Look at the electoral impact and try to mend your ways.16:30:009043Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Senator Forshaw produces an MPI today which states:The failure of the Federal Liberal-National Party Government to address the needs of rural and regional Australia as demonstrated by their lack of support for our major agricultural industries . . . What a free kick in front of the goalposts! On the very day that we bring down the biggest package ever produced for rural Australia—$1.8 billion to the dairy industry—Senator Forshaw fumbles the ball and says that the government is not looking after our agricultural industries. I would have thought that was an own goal, a free kick in front of the goalposts. If you had any understanding about rural Australia, Senator Forshaw, you would have withdrawn this MPI. It is a masterpiece of mistiming. Only the Labor Party could put their foot in their mouth and put up an MPI on the very day that the biggest package in the history of the parliament of Australia is being produced for rural Australia and the dairy industry.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Who is putting the $1.8 billion up?YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—The $1.8 billion will be legislated for. It is to go to the dairy industry because Pat Rowley and the industry came to us and asked us to do it. The industry put a package before the government and the government has agreed to honour that package. So, Senator Forshaw, you have really let the side down very badly by putting this MPI up today. It lacks any sort of credibility. One wonders why you do it. Could it be, Senator Macdonald, that there is a bit of blood in the water and that the sharks are circling Ms Kernot? Her electorate is 152 times smaller than Mr Anderson's, but she cannot get around her electorate because she does not have enough staff! She does not have a safe seat.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You are a National Party senator: talk about the issues.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I am going to talk about the issues. Why you would bring this MPI up on a day like this is beyond me. The only conclusion that I can come to is that there might be a bit of room coming up in the shadow cabinet and the parliamentary secretary might see an opportunity for a smart young lad with a bit of experience. That is the only reason that I can see that you would bring an MPI forward today.Let us deal now with the real issues. Let us look at some of the positive things that this government has done. Let us look at the diesel rebate of 23c a litre for all of rural Australia. That is going to return $550 million. This is a positive thing that John Anderson and the government have done. Road transport costs will be slashed by an estimated $1 billion; rail transport costs will be slashed by $160 million. Every tonne of wheat shifted will return to the farming industry an extra $1.60 because of this policy. There will be $30 million a year to upgrade roads and bridges. All of this is positive.If we want to get into the negatives, I can remind the Senate—and it will not need reminding—of the terrible years of Keating, from about 1985 to 1992, when rural Australia was absolutely gutted by high interest rates. Can we ever forget that? It is talked and whispered about around rural Australia—the 19 per cent, the 23 per cent and even the 25 per cent interest rates which sucked the equity out of Australian farming properties. It was a nightmare out there. So don't you ever have the audacity to come in here and say that you represent rural Australia. You absolutely wrecked rural Australia. People went broke one after the other as they had to climb over very high interest rates that were absolutely unbelievable and insupportable. Then you come in here and move an MPI on the very day that the government has given the greatest package to rural Australia and the dairy industry. We are a step closer to major fuel cost savings for the transport industry. We have delivered those major cost savings. We have delivered tax breaks. We have delivered many other things for rural Australia.Let us look at the absolute litany of things the Labor Party did when they were in government—and I am mentioning Hawke and Keating; I am not getting into the Whitlam era. In 1983, primary producers lost their general depreciation allowance and the special depreciation allowance on farm storage was abolished. Excise on petrol and diesel increased. Export inspection charges massively increased. Tax incentives on IEDs were abolished. There are pages and pages of concessions that the Labor Party took away from rural Australia. And that will never be forgotten. It will always be remembered out there. I want to pick up on one particular point that Senator Forshaw mentioned concerning the pig industry. Senator Forshaw said the National Party and Liberal Party deserted the pig industry. I will just read the Queensland Country Life editorial this week—and this is the bible of rural Australia in Queensland:A remarkable transformation is taking place in Australia's pork industry.Only a year ago the industry was in crisis. Knives were out then for Agriculture Minister John Anderson who was being accused of destroying the domestic pig industry.. . . . . . . . .Today, prices are at a three year high and climbing. Export markets have been established and the industry is entering a growth phase firmly aimed at supplying the massive—and nearby—Asian market.The article continues:John Anderson has stuck by his guns at a significant political cost to deliver a more efficient and robust industry.Leadership remains the single most powerful tool in agriculture—and Australia has to move forward.(Time expired)16:39:009045Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I am absolutely delighted to join in this debate today, because it is one of the most misplaced debates ever to come before this place. Really, what it is about is the little song Graham Richardson and John Laws sang yesterday: `Where have you been, Cheryl? Oh, where have you been?' In this case, Senator Forshaw, the Right from New South Wales, beat the Left from Tasmania in getting this motion up here. What they did not know was that today was the day on which Minister Vaile was going to bring down the dairy package. What this is all about is them positioning themselves to try to get Ms Kernot's job. One thing I will say about Senator Mackay, though, is that she does travel. She did go across to Perth last week, because I was on the same plane. I doubt whether she got out of the metropolitan area but I am sure she enjoyed some good Western Australian wine, which is thriving under our policies.I want to run through some of the major important reforms—not the things on the edge but the things that really matter in the short, the medium and the long term. The first thing is the reform of the grain research committee and the new structures we have there. Remember the old Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the little baby of the former minister, John Kerin? Everybody hated it. We now have Meat and Livestock Australia—universally supported, commercially driven and doing a fantastic job for the Australian meat industry.Let us think about the reform of the Australian Wheat Board and the new structures that exist there. Under the old statutory arrangements we were used to up to 80 per cent in the first advance; we are now going to have an additional payment in May to take it well above the 80 per cent. What are the grain growers of this country doing? They are rubbing their hands together and saying, `We now have a responsive commercial operation which is going to look after the marketing of our wheat.' If you can read the press, you will see that yourself.We have seen the reform in which we got rid of the old Wool International and its bureaucratic mess, replacing it with Woolstock Australia. We have seen the gradual strengthening of the wool market—very significant at the finer end and picking up in the middle ranges of wool. We are told that, come October-November, we are going to see some significant improvements in price in the broader lines. Once again, we are reforming the big things that really put the dollars and cents in the pocket.I want to say a little about the pork industry, which Senator Boswell mentioned. Sure, we got criticised at the time, but what did we do? We had a look at it, we concentrated on reforming the export sector and we put in place some decent abattoir facilities so we had the mechanism to get it offshore. When the recovery came, we were in a position to export meat. The crazy thing about the position you people on the other side supported—your answer was tariffs, banning Canadian pork and restrictions—is that we were a net exporter of pork. How silly can you be. You did not do your homework. We were a net exporter. We are an even greater exporter now, and the pork industry is going to continue to grow.The lamb industry has been mentioned. Tax reform has meant that $4.5 billion has gone from the cost of doing business in agriculture and mining in rural Australia. That is absolutely huge—the big stuff that really matters. A press release I have here from the National Farmers Federation states that farmers will be $5,000 to $7,000 a year better off.I want to spend just a moment on the $1.8 billion dairy package. You would think that somebody clicked their fingers yesterday and today we have it. The fact is that we have been working on this package for a long time as to the best way to handle it. And we have been working in conjunction with the dairy industry—something you people were not very good at—and with the states in terms of their constitutional rights as far as the setting of quotas is concerned. And the situation is no different in Queensland, Tasmania or New South Wales—all Labor states—from what it is in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia—all Liberal states. They all have the constitutional problem with respect to the quotas and who has the responsibility for them. You know that, but you try to do a beat-up on it. We have put in place the $1.8 billion package.I heard you interjecting on Senator Boswell and saying, `Oh well, you are not really funding it.' It is exactly the same funding, might I tell you, as the Crean DMS package. It is exactly the same form of funding. You said you were going to support it—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—The Labor government was funding it. He claimed the government was funding it; that is why he got corrected.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—No; they were not funding it.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Then why did he say that?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You are wrong. I will go on a little further to some of the other issues that we have before us here. I have to watch that clock very carefully. Look at the rural transaction centres for the bush: $70 million over five years. We now have 58 communities that have Creditcare outlets. Were there Creditcare outlets in your time in government in 13 years? Not a hope in hell; you did not even know what Creditcare meant. There are 182 rural projects worth $21 million. Moving on to education and assistance for isolated children schemes, in 1999 the basic boarding allowance was increased from $2,900 to $3,500, restoring the rate of 55 per cent of the average boarding fee.I tell you people on the other side of the chamber that when I was the senior vice-president of the NFF, I made representations to your government to get something done about it, and you did absolutely nothing. Prime Minister Hawke at the time did promise that he would do something about it but he did not quite get there. You can keep on running through these things, such as Agriculture—Advancing Australia and the increase in rural doctors. Who was the first one to deal with the problem of rural doctors? We have still got a long way to go on that issue but we are addressing it: we have more of them out there and we have got special fly-in, fly-out services with female doctors to help women in the bush. A whole range of things have been done.I really want to come back to where I started. The issues that we have tackled are the big issues, the issues that are going to put more dollars and cents in the pockets of the people in the bush, and the issues that are going to cut their costs. When you can improve their terms of trade, that is how you will deal with the issues in country Australia, whether it be mining, agriculture or any of the service industries. That is how you will deal with it effectively—not by handouts. (Time expired)Delegation Reports9046904616:46:009046Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I seek leave to present a delegation report and to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Philippines and Japan, which took place from 24 May to 5 June 1999 and move:That the Senate take note of the document.The delegation occurred, of course, during the Asian economic downturn, which had extended throughout the region during the previous year and which had been manifest in Japan somewhat earlier in terms of a prolonged financial recession.The aims of the delegation's visit were, in general terms, to strengthen the bilateral relationships between Australia and both countries at a time when economic pressures underline the necessity for regional stability as a means of enhancing mutual security and promoting economic growth and recovery. To this end the delegation participated in an extensive program of meetings with members of the legislatures of both countries and with ministers and officials at the highest levels in the areas of economic policy, health, agriculture, foreign affairs, trade, defence and tourism. I have to say that people were enormously generous in the giving of their time, and the honesty and frankness with which they spoke to the delegation was certainly appreciated by all its members.In the Philippines, the government of President Joseph Estrada has continued to pursue the economic and social reform agenda established by his predecessor, President Ramos. Economic growth has proved difficult to achieve during the past year, due to continuing regional recession and climatic factors affecting agricultural production. The delegation was advised that economic restructuring was being pursued despite the social costs, such as higher structural unemployment. There were clearly measures being taken by the government to improve the status, and so it was very disheartening, not long after we came back, to see the typhoons that had so seriously affected the Philippines and would obviously put back a little further the strategies and the plans that had been made.Issues dominating the delegation's discussions in the Philippines ranged from tariffs on agricultural produce to investment and securi ty issues. The Philippines is trying to pursue a policy of trade liberalisation to open new markets for such produce as tropical fruits but continues to encounter political resistance to attempts to reduce tariffs on locally produced commodities, such as sugar and rice, which are produced very inefficiently as peasant based industries. Discussions with a range of congressional leaders and provincial officials made it clear to us that there was little or no popular support for tariff reduction on commodities such as sugar.The extremes of wealth and poverty, as well as infrastructure deficiencies, remain critical problems in the Philippines. The immaturity of the existing party system, with the extensive use of congressional `place filling' by families of leading political figures, was an additional issue which became apparent to the delegation in discussions with political leaders both in Manila and in the provinces.Security issues brought to our notice by Foreign Secretary Siazon and by Vice-Admiral Santos of the Philippines Navy included the concern over Chinese incursions on islands claimed by the Philippines in the South China Sea, the continuing insurgency problem on Mindanao and the ratification of the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States by the Philippines Congress. That debate was in fact being conducted at the time we were there, and it was quite incredible to see the amount of passion that was raised by locals, both for and against that agreement.The heavily armed escorts necessary for the delegation to make its way in safety through Manila and to areas of the provinces underlined the continued existence of law and order and insurgency problems in the country—both significant problems for the Estrada government. Although I would have preferred the delegation to have spent more time investigating health issues, Senator Denman, who is in the chamber at the moment, and I were able to visit the San Lazaro hospital in Manila and to inspect the hospital's centre for HIV/AIDS patients. While at the hospital, we were briefed by the project manager and community physician of the AusAID funded Remedios STD clinic.In Japan, the delegation met with Mr Takumi Nemoto, the Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Health and Welfare, whom we were able to ask about the details of the Japanese government's strategy with respect to the fight against drugs and HIV, as well as about their aged care and pension policies. Senator Denman and I also called upon Mr Ienishi, a member of the House of Representatives from the opposition Democratic Party of Japan. Mr Ienishi is a leading campaigner for the rights of Japanese infected with AIDS through the use of tainted blood products to treat haemophilia and other ailments. Mr Ienishi provided a valuable first-hand account of the issues faced by AIDS sufferers in Japan and expressed interest in Australian approaches to the problem.In Japan, discussions focused on the economy and on the financial restructuring measures put in place by the Obuchi government to restore confidence in the banking system and stimulate consumer spending and investment. There remain continuing concerns about the pace of reform in the areas of financial market deregulation and tariff reforms on a range of agricultural imports, some of which are important Australian agricultural exports—such as dairy products, meat and rice.I agree with some of my delegation colleagues that political and business leaders showed a lack of urgency with regard to change—particularly in regard to trade and financial deregulation matters. Representatives of the Diet Members' League were very senior political figures and the league would greatly benefit, we believe, from an infusion of younger Diet members.It was also an interesting observation that, while Japan is in somewhat of a recession, there was a severe lack of willingness to spend and people had not been encouraged at all to spend. The older community were very much sitting on the money and the assets, while the younger people were the ones who were saying, `We have to move forward, take some risks and get the country back on its feet.' It was also apparent that the Japan-Australia Business Cooperation Committee consisted of very conservative and senior business leaders and was dominated by commodity importers at the expense of representatives of such sectors as food processing and information technology—both areas in which Australia is keen to develop markets in Japan.The delegation's visit to regional areas of Japan enabled members to strengthen and consolidate already effective sister city relationships with Sasebo and Nara—sister cities of Coffs Harbour and Canberra—to be briefed on regional trade initiatives being undertaken by the Australian Consulate in Fukuoka and to observe the local tourism facilities in Nara and in the Mie Prefecture.In both the Philippines and Japan, the delegation was received with warmth and friendliness both at official levels and by its many hosts within the capital cities and in a variety of provincial centres. The itineraries in both places were absolutely first class and provided us with a very broad ranging cover of a whole range of issues that gave us a great insight into the past, the present and the future strategies of both countries. I sincerely thank my delegation colleagues, as well as Dr Margot Kerley, for their support and for the constructive contributions that were made by everyone.I would also like to mention the highly professional assistance received from the Australian Embassy staff in both the Philippines and Japan. We could not have asked for better support from both embassies. The amount of briefing they did and the support they gave us right throughout the visit to both the Philippines and Japan were nothing short of first class.16:55:009048Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I will be very brief. I would like to congratulate Senator Knowles on the report; it is excellent. The things she has addressed are the things that were important. I would also like to briefly congratulate the embassies in both places for the superb support they gave us. They went out of their way to make sure the things we wanted to do and see happened.I would first of all like to speak on the Philippines. I was particularly keen to go back to the Philippines—I had been there in 1996 on a delegation—to see whether there had been any changes under the Estrada government. They still have a lot of problems, with their major problem being their high population growth and enormous poverty. They have a population of 74.5 million and, out of that, 25 million are living in enormous poverty.As Senator Knowles said, she and I visited the San Lazaro hospital where we were briefed on the AIDS educational programs. We met with AIDS patients, and it was interesting to see AIDS patients and their families living together in the hospital with the families helping to care for the patients. Women with AIDS are able to have their children stay with them, which is of enormous comfort to the women.One of the other persons from the Philippines I would like to mention is Senate President Fernan. He was an enormously courageous man. He spent just about the whole of the day with us on 25 May, and he hosted a dinner for us that night. He was terminally ill and he died about a week after we left the Philippines. He was a very gracious person and so was his wife. It was very courageous of him to have spent the amount of time he did with us. We pass on our sympathies. The visit to Japan was, as Senator Knowles said, based around a lot of trade and investment issues. She and I, again, saw drugs and AIDS issues there. The AIDS issues in Japan do not get the policy attention that they do here in Australia. There do not seem to be the AIDS problems, according to the Japanese, that some other countries have.Since 1963, it has been compulsory for drug addicts to be hospitalised in Japan. It is also compulsory for doctors and the law to enforce and report officially drug addicts. The minister for health and welfare is undertaking several studies to develop new methods to control drug abuse. As Senator Knowles also said, we met with a spokesperson on AIDS issues. He was in the opposition Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. He is an AIDS sufferer as a result of infected blood, and he spends most of his time working for people who have AIDS, which is not such an enormous issue in Japan. He campaigned as an AIDS sufferer and was able to gain a seat in parliament to do the sorts of things he is doing.The visits to the sister cities were interesting. Nara, which is Canberra's sister city, is a particularly beautiful city. It is the old imperial capital, and that was one of the visits we found relaxing, because it was a very full on visit to both the Philippines and Japan. We were flat out all the time with very little spare time, but Nara was very different and I really enjoyed it.A couple of issues that were topical to Australia at the time were brought up in both countries. One was the referendum—both countries were very keen to know how we thought the vote would go—and the second was East Timor. We were asked many times by politicians on all sides of politics what we thought would happen in East Timor.Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Dr Margot Kerley, who was the secretary for the delegation, and the other members of the delegation. It was a very compatible delegation. We did not have any disagreements. I think we all enjoyed it, and I send my sincere thanks to the embassies in both countries for their organisation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills9049r824904917:01:009049Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 , together with the submissions and Hansard records of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills9049r8969049Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Herron) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.905017:02:009050Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Madam President, this bill amends the investment rules for superannuation funds, in line with the announcement in the 1998-99 Budget.The investment rules are designed to limit the risks to superannuation savings and to ensure that superannuation is preserved for retirement income.The existing investment rules restrict investments in employers and associates, prohibit superannuation funds from borrowing, prevent lending to members, prevent the acquisition of assets from members, and require that transactions be undertaken on an arm's length basis.It has become clear that the legislation needs to be strengthened, in order to preserve the integrity of the investment rules.Some superannuation funds have been investing in related trusts. This effectively allows superannuation savings to be transferred into entities that are controlled by the employer or a member, and which are not subject to the investment rules or other superannuation regulation.The investment rules prohibit superannuation funds from borrowing. This limits the risk to superannuation savings from geared investments. This objective of limiting risk is not achieved if superannuation savings are simply transferred into a related trust that borrows.The existing legislation does not prevent superannuation funds from leasing assets to related parties, nor does it prevent superannuation money being used in related trusts that lease assets to employers and members. In effect, this allows superannuation savings to be committed to the employer's business or used by the members for current day support.In the absence of legislative change, such arrangements could be expected to increase over time.The provisions in the bill address these arrangements by applying the in-house asset limit (which limits in-house assets to 5 per cent of total fund assets by 2000-01).The in-house limit will now cover investments in and loans to employers, members and their associates. The in-house limit will also cover investments in trusts that are controlled by an employer-sponsor or a member of the fund. Assets leased by a superannuation fund to a related party will also be treated as in-house assets.The anti-avoidance provisions for the in-house asset rules will be strengthened.The rule that prevents a superannuation fund from acquiring assets from a member or relative will be extended to cover the acquisition of assets from an employer or other related parties.The measures will help ensure that superannuation savings are preserved for retirement income. There are benefits to the community as a whole in maintaining the integrity of the superannuation system and ensuring that the billions of dollars of superannuation tax concessions provided each year are used for the intended purpose, thereby reducing the burden on future Age Pension outlays.Superannuation funds with fewer than 5 members will be able to use up to 100 per cent of their assets to invest in real property leased to employers or members for business purposes. This provision recognises that land and buildings generally have an underlying value independent of the employer's business.The legislation also contains a number of transitional arrangements to assist superannuation funds in adapting to the new arrangements. Investments and loans undertaken before 12 May 1998 and assets leased before that time are grandfathered. Transitional rules allow additional payments on partly paid shares and units and for reinvestment of earnings until 30 June 2009.Investments, loans and leases undertaken between the Budget announcement and the time the bill receives Royal Assent will not be treated as in-house assets until 1 July 2001, if they would not have been in-house assets under the existing legislation.The Government has taken account of concerns raised during consultation, about the need for transitional arrangements for related entities with geared investments.In response to these concerns, superannuation funds with fewer than 5 members will be able to make additional investments and loans into a related company or unit trust until 30 June 2009, up to the amount of the entity's outstanding debt at 12 May 1998.The measures are not expected to impact on Budget revenues or outlays in the forward estimates years. However, longer term benefits can be expected, including savings on future Age Pension outlays.In conclusion, the goal of the Government in introducing this bill is to reduce the risk to superannuation savings and to ensure that superannuation is used for the intended purpose of retirement income.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the summer sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills9051r8799051Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Herron) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.905117:03:009051Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Australia needs a skilled and educated population to meet the challenges and opportunities arising from new technology, changes in the domestic economy, and globalisation.Australia has a good higher education system; an achievement recognised by surveys of graduates and the large numbers of overseas students choosing to study here. But we are working in a rapidly changing environment and there is always scope for improvement.The universities must be highly responsive to their students and to the expectations of employers and the general community.The universities must take principal responsibility for increasing their income. They have already made substantial efforts in this direction, with total university revenue increasing by around $700 million since 1995. The government's policies to diversify the mix between public and private funding for universities means that there will be an estimated $8.6 billion available to Australian universities this year.The universities' efforts to expand their own income are on the base of a very substantial investment from the Commonwealth government. This year universities will, including money collected from students via the HECS system, receive almost $5.6 billion from the government.The government has introduced two major flexibilities for the universities which enable them to increase their income.It now pays around $2500 for each undergraduate enrolled above the number allocated to each institution. This makes it economic for the universities to utilise any extra capacity they have. On the early estimates for 1999 there are 36,000 undergraduate places that will be funded on this basis.The government has also allowed the universities to offer full fee-paying undergraduate courses. This enables students to do their course of first choice. While it is disappointing that some universities continue to deny students this opportunity, there are now 1740 of these places.These extra places come in addition to the increase in fully-funded undergraduate places.The government has created an extra 12,665 Commonwealth-funded places for undergraduate students in the past two years. In 1999 the Commonwealth will fund 364,400 undergraduate student places in universities. No government in Australia's history has provided so many fully-funded undergraduate places.The cumulative effect of these policies is that there is now a record number of undergraduate places in Australia's universities. The early estimate is that there are 402,372 such places, the first time the number has exceeded 400,000, and an increase of 40,000 places over Labor's last year.The additional funding to James Cook University provided in this bill honours an election commitment for sixty medical places at James Cook University, with the first intake of students expected at the start of the 2001 academic year, following accreditation by the Australian Medical Council. The new medical school will increase the proportion of rural and remote students studying medicine. In each year's intake, five places will be earmarked for Indigenous students and fifteen for students from rural and remote areas.In line with the government's election commitment to lift funding for research expenditure, the bill provides an additional $36.8 million in each of 2000 and 2001. This will bring total funding for research infrastructure over the next three years 1999, 2000 and 2001 to over $315 million. This bill also enhances university and industry collaboration. It includes provision for $4.9 million in 2000 and $9.8 million in 2001 for Science Lectureships. The development of graduates with the knowledge and skills to work in emerging industries and technologies is vital for Australia's economic growth.The bill includes savings resulting from the phasing out of the Merit-based Equity Scholarships Scheme. The Scheme was reviewed in 1998, with the review finding that the Scheme had little impact on encouraging people who would not otherwise have enrolled to attend university. Students currently holding a scholarship will continue to do so, but no new scholarships will be available from 2000.The bill also provides funding of $4.0 million for 2001 for the international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International. This funding will support the continued growth of Australia's education and training export industry.The measures in this bill continue the government's objectives of fostering a quality higher education sector that is open, accessible and responsive to Australia's future needs.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) adjourned.Bills9052r8429052Consideration resumed from 27 September.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—The committee is considering the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 and amendments Nos 1 and 7 on sheet 1508, moved by Senator Evans. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.17:04:009052Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—When we adjourned yesterday, I was speaking in support of our Labor opposition amendments. The thrust of my remarks went to the question of these amendments applying only to those providers who were not doing the right thing, and Senator Allison had raised objections to the amendments on the basis that these might have unintended consequences. I want to make the point very clearly that these amendments apply to those who have already had their approval to operate a facility revoked. These are people who are not doing the right thing. These are providers who have failed to care properly for aged care residents.We are saying that the current provisions available under the act and this bill do not sufficiently protect those residents. We have had the example of Alimar Nursing Home in Senator Allison's own state of Victoria where the provider was failing to provide care and where there was an intention to leave the industry. We had a great deal of difficulty with residents not being treated properly and families being most concerned about the treatment of those residents while the proprietor closed the place down. This is designed specifically to make sure that those residents who, because of the lack of supply of alternative places, are left in the residence while it is closing down, while they are looking for new places for those residents, get appropriate care.No doubt, the minister will rely on the argument that the existing provisions of the act will provide sufficient protection. I think that is not true. I think the other provisions of the act provide enough protection to residents for providers who are trying to do the right thing and might need to be guided as to some of their practices. But these are the people who are going to have their licences revoked. They are clearly not suitable to be providers. They made a decision that they are not going to play ball, that they are not going to offer suitable standards of care, and our amendments try to ensure that they do provide that care and that we take a proactive role in ensuring the residents get that care. It is a very important addition to the set of provisions available to the government.As I understand it, most of the current provisions rely on the discretion of the minister and/or the secretary to the department to appoint an authorised officer and are not specifically linked to a particular facility. We are not aware of any such officer being specifically appointed to monitor care residential facilities that have a proven record of poor care. There is no evidence that these provisions are providing the sorts of protections that we are seeking in these amendments. So we think these are an import ant adjunct, and we would urge the Senate to support them.Amendments not agreed to.17:08:009053Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet 1508:(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 5), after item 4, insert:4A At the end of subsection 16-1(2)Add:and (f) the transferor has no outstanding debts to (i) a member of staff; or (ii) a care recipient, or the legal personal representative of a deceased care recipient, because of paragraph 57-2(na), 57-2(nb) or 57A-2(la); or, if the transferor does have any such debts, the debtors have agreed to the transfer.This is the opposition amendment that deals with the question of the sale of licences only when there are no debts owed. It is an amendment that inserts a requirement that the secretary must ensure that a provider does not owe debts to either staff or residents before approval for the transfer of bed licences can take place. The provision allows for the transfer to occur where all debtors agree, which covers the potential situation that the provider may only be able to pay out the debts following the sale of the bed licences.We think this provision guards against the situation highlighted again by the Alimar Nursing Home example, where the department is made aware of the debts owed to staff but agrees to the sale of the bed licences and allows the provider to go into hiding owing staff money. If the amendment is not carried then staff in nursing homes will have to continue to fight for entitlements owed to them through the courts while the department allows the provider to sell their bed licences for substantial sums of money and simply walk away with that money. We are not talking about peanuts here; we are talking about bed licences that sell for $30,000 or upwards of that figure each. If it is a 60-bed nursing home, we are talking about very large sums of money.We have had examples already in the courts of people, reacting to the accreditation and new standards of care required of them, leaving the industry. But they are leaving the industry owing their staff thousands of dollars in unpaid wages, redundancy entitlements, long service leave entitlements, et cetera. Those staff are having enormous difficulties trying to pursue their entitlements. Many of these people are the nursing staff who are providing care to the residents, or domestic staff, many of whom are on very low wages. This is an important issue for them, because they cannot afford to lose the entitlements that they have accrued while working, some of them for very long periods, at some of these facilities.We think it is a very simple measure to implement what all parties in this parliament have been talking about in the last few months. There has been a great deal of fuss about the Oakdale miners and about other situations where workers have lost their entitlements to wages, accrued entitlements, long service leave and redundancy payments because of the closure of a business. The government says that it is very concerned about that. The government says that it is looking at ways of introducing legislation to provide protection for those people.The Democrats also agree that something needs to be done. Senator Murray and others have been very vocal in advocating that we do something to address these concerns. I say: let's take a small step now. This measure provides a small step; it provides protection for workers in the nursing home industry. The very thing we talk about on a grand scale—protection of entitlements on a nationwide scale, which is proving a fairly difficult issue to come to terms with—can be achieved in some cases by an industry by industry approach. In the nursing home industry, the sale of the bed licence is the bonanza for the provider getting out of the industry. For that person getting out of the industry, it seems to me that this is a reasonable measure to ensure that they have met their debts, both to their residents and to their staff.This is within the power of the department and the minister. They have to approve the sale of bed licences. All we are asking is that we put a reasonable measure in place that ensures that some check is made before the sale occurs to ensure that those entitlements are covered. I do not think it is an unreasonable thing. We do not want to put overly onerous provisions on the department or the minister, but it seems reasonable that they do take the step, because they do have a great deal of bargaining power in this situation.If someone has hundreds of thousands of dollars at risk, they will settle outstanding wage and other entitlement issues with their staff, because they will have to in order to access those funds. What we are seeing at the moment is those people trying to pursue their entitlements through the courts, trying to track down and serve writs on people who leave no forwarding address, et cetera, and who go into hiding to avoid their debts. The simple way of solving that is to support these amendments, to put the trigger in place that allows the department to make sure that all reasonable debts have been paid before the sale of the licences is allowed to occur, before the provider leaving the industry has access to that considerable amount of money. I think that is a reasonable step to take along the path that we have all been discussing about providing some protection for employees when a business fails or when a provider goes out of business owing them money.17:13:009054Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I indicate that this, as with the other amendments put up by Labor, will not have the support of the Democrats. That is not because they are not worthy; I think this one probably has some merit. For us the most significant problem is the fact that consultation has not taken place with the service providers. It may well be that they would support this proposal. But they have said to us that there are some doubts about definitions of this one and others. Perhaps the minister might be able to comment on what he sees as underlying problems with proceeding down the path of this amendment. Is there any problem with understanding what might be meant by `no outstanding debts'? Perhaps Senator Evans can answer this as well. He has already mentioned outstanding payments for salaries and wages and the like, but I wonder if there are, as we have been informed, some problems in terms of being able to talk this through, and whether or not the amendment has got some unintended consequences.17:14:009054Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Like Senator Allison, the government supports the sentiment behind the amendment. There is no question that it is aimed in the right direction. However, the reality is that it is unworkable because the effect of the amendment would be that it would absolutely preclude the secretary from approving a transfer of places if there are outstanding debts to staff or residents. Generally, it is the poorest providers of care that seek to leave the industry or who are unable or unwilling to make the necessary capital investment by preventing or seriously hampering transfers. Would the opposition rather see closures than an orderly restructuring and improvement of the residential aged care sector?Preventing the secretary from acting in a timely manner to transfer funding from a substandard facility to another would put the health and safety of residents at substantial risk. Places are transferred concurrently with residents to enable continuity of care, and staff work up until the transfer and in practice beyond to wind up and so accrue debts as they go. The provision could therefore never in practice be satisfied. Staff, of course, maintain their rights to action to obtain payments of moneys owed through Corporations Law. The reality is that the government will oppose the amendment because it is bad policy and it is unworkable.17:16:009054Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask the minister or Senator Evans: what does this amendment actually mean? Does it mean that a nursing home which wants to transfer its licence cannot use the profits from the sale of that licence in order to pay off debts or salaries to staff? Is that one effect of this amendment?17:16:009054Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do not think it is my job to defend Senator Allison's argument that there are unworkable consequences of my amend ment. Senator Allison, if you are searching for a reason to vote against this, you find it. Do not ask me to find it for you. You have been told by somebody that it might have unintended consequences. That is all you have to say about all our amendments. The public expect better analysis of the issues. Quite frankly, it is not my job to provide answers to you when you say that there might be unintended consequences and can I find some for you.The consequence of this is that the owner of Alimar Nursing Home collected $1 million, approved by the department from the sale of his licences, and his staff members are trying to get legal representation to go to the courts to get the $2,000, the $4,000, the $10,000 they are owed in wages, long service leave and redundancy entitlements. What I am trying to do is enact what I understood was Democrats' policy as well, that is, to provide some protection for those employees' entitlements. If there is a technical problem with the amendment which you can identify, then we will gladly work with you to fix it up. But you cannot just say, `Oh, well, there may be unintended consequences; it is all too hard.'This is an important public policy issue. The amendment is before the Senate. We would expect senators to support it because it is one way of protecting the entitlements of these workers. I am not going to search around—you have asked three leading questions to the minister and one to me—to identify what you say might be problems. I am not going to do that. I do not think there are problems. I think with goodwill the department and the government can make this work. If there is an objection that a particular phrase in the amendment might have an unintended consequence, the government can raise that and we can work on fixing it. That is what we have always done in this chamber. But to throw up your hands and say, `There may be unintended consequences that we cannot identify and it is all too hard,' is not the answer. What I want is someone to debate with me why we should not be doing this rather than saying, `We agree with you but we want to talk more about it.' This is the chance. This is the first time in two years we have had a chance to deal with aged care bills. Let's deal with them.There is a problem in Senator Allison's state of Victoria, where people, as a result of the government's quite correct policy of improving standards, are being driven out of the industry. They do not want to make that investment. They are leaving the industry. Some of these people are quite shonky in their operations and people are suffering because of the loss of their entitlements when these aged care institutions close. This is a simple measure to give the secretary to the department the ability to protect their interests. I do not think it is unreasonable. I do not think it is all that hard. I think we ought to be looking to see whether we cannot support that thrust of policy.17:19:009055Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I do not want to delay this vote any longer than is necessary, but I take exception to Senator Evans suggesting that I am just looking for unintended consequences; I am certainly not. I am trying to understand what this amendment means. Since you are the mover of it, Senator Evans, it is incumbent on you, I would have thought, to explain such things. I have just pointed out what seems to me to be a fairly obvious flaw. If you have to deal with outstanding debts before you get the returns from transferring the licence, then it may put some nursing homes in a spot of difficulty. I do not know, but such nursing home operators are probably in some financial difficulty already, otherwise there would not be a debt problem.That was a simple question. I am not looking for unintended consequences. This is one amendment of all of those that you have put forward that I have great sympathy with but, again to come back to the old question, if we have not consulted with the industry then we do not know the answers to these questions. That is why you do yourself a disservice in putting amendments up that have not been through that process. I am not going to say any more about it. We are simply not going to support it because (a) I have not been persuaded that this is useful and (b) you have not asked the questions in the right quarters. 17:21:009056Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On the one hand, Senator Allison, you ask me to answer the question to convince you and then you say you are not going to vote for it anyway. So I do wonder whether I am on a fool's errand. I am happy to answer the question because we do provide in the amendment that, if there is an agreement amongst those who are owed money, they can proceed with the sale. But it seems to me that the more important point is that, if you have $1 million or $2 million at stake, then you can afford to pay out the $40,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 you owe in wages, et cetera. These are people who, the minute the secretary signs off on the sale of the bed licences, get a windfall. What we are trying to do is make sure that the little people are looked after in the same process so they actually get their entitlement before that provider disappears with the money.We have provided for the fact that, if there is a particular problem where someone cannot meet the costs and there is an agreement about how the debt issue will be managed, then the secretary can provide, but we do provide that trigger for the secretary to the department to involve themselves before the provider accesses that money to protect the interests of those people who are owed money by that provider. I think it is a fairly straightforward amendment. Senator Allison, I just do not agree that there has been no consultation with the industry. I agree that some of them do not agree, but there has been consultation. These issues have been raised with them.At the end of the day, the Senate votes on amendments to bills. We have an obligation not just to providers but also to the residents of aged care facilities, to the consumers and to the public more widely. I say to you that this is an important protection for another group involved—that is, those people who are employed in the industry. They certainly support the measure, but it is also for the residents. I think your concern about that particular aspect is covered. It certainly gives a lot of flexibility to the department in terms of approval, but it is an important addition to the bill. I hope you will support it.17:23:009056Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Allison asked a question and I can confirm some of what has already been said. Holding up the transfer and sale of beds would make it harder for providers to repay debts, including to the staff. So Senator Allison is quite correct.In reply to Senator Evans, I point out that his amendment would allow a debtor care recipient who does not wish to have care provided by a new provider to not agree to the sale of places for reasons unrelated to the debt. It would act as a significant impediment to business transactions in the aged care industry by parties unrelated to the transaction. Senator Evans does not seem to accept that, but that is the reality. It is for that reason that the government is not accepting the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chris Evans's ) be agreed to.17:29:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)24Bolkus, N. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Sherry, N. West, S. M.38Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Greig, B. A.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Bishop, T. M. Hill, R. M.Conroy, S. Tchen, T.Faulkner, J. P. Ellison, C.Lundy, K. Minchin, N. H.Ray, R. F. Campbell, I. G.Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—We now move to opposition amendment No. 3 on sheet 1508.Amendment (by Senator Chris Evans) proposed:(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 6), after item 13, insert:13A At the end of section 44-6Add:(7) The approved provider must use any payment of the concessional resident supplement it receives in the following ways: (a) to meet capital works costs relating to residential care; (b) to retire debt associated with capital works costs relating to residential care; or (c) where no capital expenditure is reasonably necessary to comply with matters specified in the certification principles for the purposes of subsection 38-3(3) and meeting accreditation requirements,to be placed in reserve for future use in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b).(8) Where the allocation of a *place ceases to have effect under Division 18, the approved provider must refund to the Commonwealth any payment of the concessional resident supplement that the approved provider received for the place that has not been used in accordance with paragraphs (7)(a) and (b).(9) Where a *place is transferred to another provider under Division 16 and the place would relate to a different *aged care service, the transferor must refund to the Commonwealth any payment of the concessional resident supplement that the transferor received for the place that has not been used in accordance with paragraphs (7)(a) and (b).(10) Rules for the refund of the concessional supplement under subsections (8) and (9) will be set out in the Residential Care Subsidy Principles.17:32:009057West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—On this concessional rates issue, last night there was an amendment to the principles announced, whereby the minister exempted people whose assets are valued at less than $23,500. That is fine. I am aware of an institution in New South Wales that has four such residents. They have had those residents since the beginning of the changes to the Aged Care Act. I understand this abolition is worth about $4,500 a year to the institutions in concessional payments. If they have four residents, that adds up to their being $18,000 a year out of pocket. This has been going on for two years, which means that this institution in New South Wales is $36,000 out of pocket. Can the minister tell me whether he is going to do anything to compensate institutions that have lost money up to the gazetting of this particular amendment to the principle? Is the government going to undertake to compensate those institutions for that amount of money? Some $36,000 over two years is a lot of money to an institution. That is a fair part of one member of staff's salary.17:34:009057Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer is that those residents would have been covered under the hardship provisions. The services would have the money. There have been 22 such approvals since 1 October 1997. They are paid an amount equivalent to the concessional supplement.17:35:009057West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Is the minister telling me that all of these clients—or residents, patients or whatever you want to call them—since October 1997 have been in receipt of hardship provisions? That is not my understanding of the situation. I am talking about the institution: if the clients are in receipt of hardship provi sions, how is that going to help the institution to reclaim that money?17:36:009058Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am advised that the institution is paid the hardship supplement and, if the department were unaware of any cases, that payment would apply if the department were notified. I would like to correct something that was said previously. There were not 22 such approvals since 1 October 1997; there were in fact 11 such approvals for hardship.17:36:009058West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Is the department able to tell us how many residents there are in institutions in this country whose assets, including their houses, are less than $23,500 or less than $37,000 in value? This is critical to us and them—understanding the number of people involved in this particular situation.17:37:009058Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—A total of 49 per cent of residents are concessional. Some people might not have a house, so that 49 per cent would include all those with assets valued at up to $23,500.17:37:009058West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—So the department is not able to tell me if, of the 11 that have received money under the hardship provisions, four of those are from Broken Hill?17:37:009058Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have received advice that they are.17:38:009058Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Perhaps as a starting point, I would ask what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that the concessional resident supplement—which I understand will be $142 million this year, $169 million next year and $180 million the year after that—will be spent on capital?17:38:009058Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am seeking advice on that, but I would assume that that would be notified to the department and then it would be up to the department to accept or reject that advice.Advice has now been provided to me that the concession is not purely for capital and accountability is on the outcomes of that. For example, the providers who needed to spend money on improving care services and other services which do not relate to capital requirements for certification and accreditation would not be able to do so. Effective mechanisms already exist to ensure that providers direct sufficient funding to capital upgrading. Providers are required to report annually on their upgrading activity, and certification and accreditation frameworks have built-in mechanisms to ensure continuous improvements.Providers who do not continue to upgrade their facilities lose the capacity to receive concessional resident supplements and from 2001 they will lose government subsidies as well. It should be clear that these requirements would be extremely difficult for the government to monitor and it would place a heavy administrative burden on providers to document expenditure and reserves. Because of that, these amendments could severely impact on care and services for residents and could prevent providers from achieving accreditation by interfering with their ability to manage their finances to provide the best care and accommodation for residents. For that reason, we will be opposing the amendment.17:39:009058Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do not know that that fully answers my question. My question was: what accountability measures do we have to ensure that the $150 million or so each year that goes on the concessional resident supplement—which, when it was announced by the government, was for capital—is spent on capital? I understand that the minister is now saying that it is not only for capital. Is he therefore indicating that this is now a subsidy for care by the providers, because I thought that was made by a separate payment? My understanding, and that of the industry, was that these were funds provided for capital. If you are not saying that, I would appreciate your being a bit clearer about what the concessional resident supplement is for, what accountability measures are in place to ensure that the money is used for those purposes and where in the bill these provisions are made.17:41:009059Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It seems like Senator Evans is putting up another straw man to knock down. There is no quarantining as to whether the money should be spent on capital or on care. It is an overall sum that is provided. As I said previously, the department provides notification of any upgrading that occurs, but I do not know where Senator Evans got this straw man from.17:42:009059Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—As I understood it, Minister, when you introduced your aged care reforms, we had a situation where there was an accommodation charge levied against those who could afford to pay under your guidelines to meet the capital needs of the sector. In the case where the resident was not able to contribute to that accommodation charge, the government would pay a concessional resident supplement to the provider in lieu of that charge. You then have a situation where the provider receives either the accommodation charge from the individual or the concessional resident supplement from the government. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but I thought one was in lieu of the other and that they were both related to the provision of capital.The government have made a series of announcements about the capital needs of the sector. They have traditionally pointed to this as being a measure that they have introduced to meet the capital needs of the sector. You are now telling me that the concessional resident supplement is not for capital needs but rather to meet the care needs of the sector. I must admit that I am a bit flabbergasted if that is in fact the government's position. So perhaps you could explain further.17:43:009059Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It should be fairly obvious to Senator Evans that when we came to government we inherited a terrible mess and a terrible backlog of aged care places. There was a desperate need for an injection of capital into the aged care industry. The concessional supplement was about ensuring access to care for those who could not pay. It can be used for capital—and it is—but it is not quarantined. As I say, I do not know where Senator Evans got this idea. We inherited this mess and applied mechanisms to ensure that more money went into the industry, but this money was primarily aimed at access for people to aged care beds across the industry.17:44:009059Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I will not delay the chamber by having this debate about what is a bit of a rewrite of history. Certainly the government at the time used the sort of rhetoric that Senator Herron used then, and then said, `We need to provide capital to meet the capital needs of the sector.' He is now saying to me that the concessional resident supplement is not about capital; it is about care.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Temporary Chairman, I object. What I said will be on the record.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I am not trying to verbal the minister—as he says, it will be on the record. But I do not think that his answer is all that clear because it seems to me this was very much about the capital needs of the sector, and now the minister is saying the government's position is that this need not be used for capital. Of course, the intent of the Labor opposition's amendment is very much to quarantine this payment for the use of capital. That is what it is about. We seek to insert provisions in the act that set out the use of the concessional resident supplement and ensure that the taxpayers' dollars allocated to the supplement are used for capital improvements in the aged care sector, because we think there is a glaring hole in the government's approach with their failure to direct the use of the supplement in that way. Our amendment attempts to put some accountability into the system to ensure that the millions of dollars of taxpayers' money spent on the supplement are spent appropriately and, where that does not occur, the amendment would ensure that the funds be returned to the Commonwealth. The government's original estimate was that 27 per cent of residents would be covered by the concessional resident supplement. Last week, as I saw it, that was at 47 per cent. This is a payment that is supposed to cover the capital needs of half of the residents of nursing home facilities in this country, and we simply do not know what the providers are doing with the money. Most are doing the right thing and putting it into funding their capital improvements and ensuring that they meet accreditation—the sort of point that Senator Herron alluded to. I concede that. We are trying to deal with those that are not doing that. We are trying to make sure that there is some accountability for the millions of dollars of taxpayers' money spent. Minister, I want to know what accountability there is. What is to prevent nursing home proprietors leaving the industry and pocketing the concessional resident supplement payments that you have made to them?We have always understood that there was a clear and strong link between the supplement and capital improvements. In fact, the industry recently put out the HESTA report, which said that the current capital needs of the sector will not be met by the accommodation charge and the concessional supplement. I will leave that argument to another day, but clearly they think there is a link between the concessional supplement and the capital needs of the sector. That certainly was my understanding. I want to know what there is to prevent a provider who intends getting out of business before certification comes in from pocketing thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of dollars in concessional supplements—not improving the facility, not spending it on more care for the residents and leaving the industry. We have had a number of examples already; more are expected to follow.Why are you handing over taxpayers' dollars to these providers with no assurance that they will spend the money—even under your scenario—either on capital or care? There is no provision at all that they spend that money on anything. We are trying to quarantine it to the use of capital. Your defence is to say it is a more general pay ment, which is an interesting development; I thought the funding of that was covered by the daily care charges, but apparently not. What guarantee can you give that that money is not pocketed by people leaving the industry?17:48:009060Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Evans either misunderstands or purports to misunderstand the whole point of accreditation. A poor home will not be certified.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—In two years time.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Senator Evans is incorrect. He interjects, but he is incorrect. It is in now.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—How many homes have been accredited?VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Certified?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You said accredited.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Lapsus linguae. For the non-latin scholars, a slip of the tongue. I meant accredited—so it is in now. It is a hypothetical point that Senator Evans is making. Would Senator Evans point out one instance where that has occurred?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Alimar Nursing Home, Victoria.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Which was not certified.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)—Order! Minister, perhaps if you make your point.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I think I have made the point. It was not certified and, if it is not certified now, no payment of concessional supplement would occur. As of now, five per cent are not certified.17:50:009060Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do not think we disagree about what is happening. What I am saying to you is this: prior to accreditation and with the changes occurring in the industry, there will be providers who will be looking to get out of the industry. I want to make sure that the concessional resident supplement that you pay, the taxpayers' money you send to them, is used for the purposes of providing capital. I want to know what guarantee you can give that the money that is paid to these people is kept in the system and used for the improvement of nursing home facilities, because it seems to me that for someone looking to get out of the industry, it can go in their pocket and there is no guarantee that it is spent for any public purpose at all. To say that it is spent on care implies that your current care subsidies are not sufficient, which has not been the government's traditional position. So, if the current care subsidies are sufficient and it is not spent on capital, what is to prevent the money just being pocketed and taken as profit? There is no accountability in your bill for the expenditure of this money, other than the longer term view, that is, that accreditation and certification will provide protections in the sense of standards met and that that money will be required to be used. But that is a fairly nebulous and longer term view. I am asking you about the shorter term impacts and what guarantees we have that the money will be used for those purposes.17:51:009061Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The guarantee is that if it is not certified now there is no payment of concessional supplements. So it is a hypothetical—it does not exist.17:51:009061Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The point I made is that no facility has yet been accredited, as I understand it. Accreditation is still 18 months or two years away. The sorts of standards that you say will ensure that the money is spent for those purposes are not in place. Even if they were, and even if those standards were saying, `You're currently paying them X amount of dollars to provide care. You're now providing them X plus Y, the concessional supplement, to provide for capital needs,' I want to know what mechanism ensures that Y is spent on those purposes? What accountability assures that it is spent on those purposes? You cannot seem to answer that question.17:52:009061Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The point is that we have had certification from 1 October 1997. If they are not certified now, there is no payment of the concessional supplement. I think that is the point. So it is a hypothetical.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I conceded that.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Would you also concede, then, that it is a requirement to notify the department as to the expenditure?17:52:009061Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I want to make clear that we can agree on what we can agree on and then move to the point of argument. I am not saying that that is not right; I am talking about certified nursing homes which do not use that money for capital improvements. What guarantee do we have that that money is used for those purposes? They might well have a new building or a building that is up to scratch. What I am saying is: you are paying them $12 a day per resident for half of their residents for capital purposes and I want to know what protection the Commonwealth taxpayer has that that money is used for those purposes.17:53:009061Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—There seems to be some misunderstanding in this regard. I think it could be clarified by asking: if they are certified, would Senator Evans accept that the building standard is good? That is simple.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—If that meets the minimum, yes.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Yes, it meets the standard. If they are certified, they are servicing debt, upgrading and increasing capital expenditure. They require that for certification. So I cannot see what the problem is.17:54:009061Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do not seem to be making my point very well. But it seems to me, Minister, that that is right; they are certified. But you are now paying them extra. Under your reforms you are going to give them an extra $12 a day—if you have indexed it, it will be more; I am not sure whether you have taken that decision yet—to provide for capital improvements. You are now telling me it is not for capital improvements; it is for capital improvements and care as a more general concept—a little ill-defined. I want to know what guarantee—other than you saying that the buildings are okay—there is that the money is used for those purposes. I accept that, if they are certified, they have met the minimum standards. They are certified maybe for three years. But you are giving them an extra $12 a day per resident, and I want to know what you are getting in return for that payment.17:55:009062Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The short answer is that that is a requirement of certification.17:55:009062West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I return to the issue that I was pursuing and seek some information about the paperwork that goes back to institutions when they receive the concessional subsidy or when they receive the hardship provision in lieu. I am told it gets paid to the institution. What is in the paperwork that goes back to the institution that allows them to reconcile the amounts of money they have been paid and to identify the hardship subsidy paid to them in lieu of the concession?17:56:009062Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—They get a letter saying that, as the person has total assets less than $23,500, the Commonwealth pays the amount of the concessional resident supplement for that person.17:56:009062West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I am talking about the group of people who have a house included in that. Does the same letter go to the institution? You are telling me that there are 11 of those all up. I think that we had better go back and check some figures and some information, because maybe we are missing the point in the long-distance telephone calls that are being had here. My sources are saying to me that they are not aware of that institution or the residents in that institution receiving hardship or any other subsidies. I would not like the minister or the department to mislead this place, and I would like that checked, because I think it needs to be very clear. It might well be that in the issue I raised when I spoke earlier things were not very clear or in simple language when they came from the depart ment, so I think that we had better do a recheck.17:58:009062Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am in complete agreement with that. I certainly would not want to mislead the Senate or Senator West. The department would be happy to give Senator West a copy of the letter with identifying information blanked out. With regard to checking, we would be happy to do that also. I will ask the department to do that and to get back to us as soon as possible.17:58:009062West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I would appreciate that, because somewhere along the line this is not computing. I was asked by the institution, `What about the money that we have not been paid' and I wonder just how clear the documentation is and whether we are at cross-purposes. I would like that to be checked further—I think the department knows which institution and which individuals we are talking about—because, if there is some confusion there, then we need to iron it out. If it was not an issue, I wonder why it would have been raised in the first place and why the department did not tell us and the institutions this information some considerable time ago. There seems to be some sort of failure in communication here, and I would like to get to the bottom of it. I will reserve further questions on this matter until you get me an answer.18:00:009062Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I want to point out that I am not going to divide on this issue. I think we have established that Senator Herron and I disagree. However, we have not got much of an indication of how the chamber is going to vote. As Senator Allison has rejoined the chamber, I guess we can move to the vote.Amendment not agreed to.18:01:009062Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:(4) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 12), after item 30, insert:30A Subparagraphs 57-2(n)(ii) and (iii)Repeal the subparagraphs, substitute: (ii) to retire debt associated with capital works costs relating to residential care; or (iii) where no capital expenditure is reasonably necessary to comply with matters specified in the certification principles for the purposes of subsection 38-3(3) and meeting accreditation requirements, to be placed in reserve for future use in accordance with subparagraphs (i) and (ii);30B After paragraph 57-2(n)Insert: (na) where the allocation of a *place ceases to have effect under Division 18, the approved provider must refund to the care recipient, or the legal personal representative of a deceased care recipient, any income derived from the accommodation bond and the retention amount that the approved provider received for that place and that has not been used in accordance with subparagraphs (n)(i) and (ii); (nb) where a *place is transferred to another provider under Division 16 and the place would relate to a different *aged care service, the transferor must refund to the care recipient, or the legal personal representative of a deceased care recipient, any income derived from the accommodation bond and the retention amount that the approved provider received for that place and that has not been used in accordance with subparagraphs (n)(i) and (ii); (nc) Rules for the refund of any income derived from the accommodation bond and retention amount under paragraph (na) or (nb) will be set out in the Residential Care Subsidy Principles.This is the first of the measures that the Labor opposition is supporting which seek to quarantine the use of income derived from accommodation bonds and charges for use in upgrading capital infrastructure and ensure that where a provider closes down a facility they be required to refund the money where it is unspent. It is a similar measure to the one we just moved and lost in terms of the concessional supplement, but it is a slightly different debate because I do not think, on this occasion, the government will be arguing that this has nothing to do with capital. I am still flabbergasted by the response to the previous amendment with that defence. Clearly, if we could not get support for that, I suspect we will not get support for this either.I want to raise the issues at stake in this because this is an even more important issue. The previous one was about the protection of taxpayers' funds and ensuring that they were used for the purposes for which they were intended. The Labor Party's deep concern is that there was no protection for those taxpayers' funds and no sufficient accountability to ensure that funds were used for purposes for which the parliament approved them. This is a measure which seeks to protect the interests of residents who are paying, if you like, user-pays fees for their accommodation, either in hostels or in nursing homes.The government's aged care reforms introduced charges for nursing home residents to go with the bond system that was in place for hostels. The thrust of these amendments by the Labor Party is consistent with the approach we took in 1997, that we were looking to try to ensure that there was some protection for those residents and that the quite substantial amounts of money that they pay to their provider for accommodation purposes is used for those purposes. We are not convinced that there are sufficient protections in place for those residents.With these amendments we have sought to put in place a system that ensures that where an older Australian pays money to a provider for the provision of the capital infrastructure of their nursing home or hostel the provider is required to use that money for that purpose. I think it is a fairly unremarkable initiative. We expressed our concern in 1997 that there was not enough of a link or enough protection to ensure that funds were used for the purposes that they were designed for. We still are of that view and I think the history of the last couple of years has added to our concern that providers are not required to commit those funds gathered from residents, in the form of fees, to the use of capital.I think, for good accountability reasons, these amendments ought to be supported. From the industry's point of view, there is another problem, and it is one that will increasingly become a concern. The government's position on the last amendments indicated that there is this confusion now between what will be for daily needs and care and what will be for accommodation charges. There is a real risk that we will see the underfunding of daily care costs as the government seeks to blur the edges between the capital needs and the care needs.Senator Herron's answer to the last amendment is a very interesting development in that when the care providers are arguing that they need more money to provide sufficient care the government is saying that the concessional resident's supplement that was for capital is now for capital and care and that somehow the boundaries have been blurred. I think there is a real risk that by blurring these boundaries, by failing to quarantine funds for capital, as was originally intended under the aged care reforms, we will see pressure building to use what was to be for capital for ongoing care needs, and we will end up in a situation, which a number of people in this chamber have gone on about at great length, where there will be a failure to address the capital needs of the nursing home sector.I think these measures are important in terms of the consumer protections they provide to the residents. But I also think, in terms of dealing with government policy and development of the sector, it is an important policy imperative that we separate the two and that we give protection to the industry, if you like, to ensure that the money that has been designed to meet capital needs is used for capital needs. We will be moving these amendments along that track. Given that we have not been able to get support for less radical propositions, I do not expect to get any support from the chamber for these. However, I make my point quite strongly because I think it is going to be an important issue in the years to come.I do want to say, particularly in terms of the bonds, that I would be interested in whether the minister can answer a couple of questions. I understand that paragraph 57(2) already requires providers to account for the income they derive from the bond and the capital expenditure, even if it does not require qua rantining the funds for capital works. The issue I want to raise with the minister is: what action does the department currently take to enforce compliance with that rule, to have providers account for the monies raised by the bonds; and what enforcement provisions have been put in place to ensure that the income derived from the accommodation bond is being used in accordance with the act? Perhaps that is a good starting point.18:07:009064Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Evans said he is flabbergasted. I am in complete agreement with him. I see from the dictionary that flabbergasted is `to be overcome with surprise and bewilderment.' He is certainly bewildered, because the amendment he has moved would require that all income from accommodation bonds be quarantined for capital works. I have travelled around many nursing homes and hostels in the last 40 years—certainly during election campaigns—and there have been many places that I have seen that certainly do not need money spent on capital works. This amendment would require that that money be quarantined for capital works. What if that place does not need money spent on capital works? Do we have to quarantine it, put it away somewhere, lock it up? He is certainly bewildered. I suggest that he come around with me some time to nursing homes and hostels—there are a wide variety—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I've done my share, John.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Not as much as Senator West and I have done, I assure you. As I said previously, because this is a similar amendment, if the money is not spent and buildings are not kept up to standard, they are not certified—they lose the ability to charge the bonds and, after 1 January 2001, they lose all funding. That is being pretty accountable as far as I see it.As I said previously, these amendments could severely impact on care and services for residents and could prevent providers achieving accreditation by interfering with their ability to manage their finance. Once again, we are back to the `big brother', the good old ALP philosophy: control it all; make sure it reports to government; do not allow people to make their own decisions. The nursing homes are required to reach a certain standard—that is what accreditation is about—and, if they do not become certified, they lose the ability to charge those bonds.18:10:009065Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The minister said, `They might not need it for accommodation.' Why would you then charge the pensioners of Australia and the older Australians who are residents in these places $12 a day if you think they do not need the capital? What you are saying to me is, `If they do not need the capital, you should not have a problem.' You introduced this fee and told the people they had to pay it to meet capital needs. They asked me whether it is being used for capital. You say, `If they don't need the capital, what is the problem?' I guess the people paying the fee would ask why they should be paying the fee. That is the question you have to answer.18:11:009065Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It improves the standard of care. It is spent on improving the standard of care to the residents. That is the purpose of injecting more money into the system—so either it can be spent on capital works or it can improve the quality of care that is provided. But in either case it must reach the standards for certification.18:11:009065Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I want to indicate that the Democrats will not be supporting this amendment nor the next two. As far as I can see, this is going over old ground again. We had the same debate at some length back in 1997 when my colleague Senator Woodley debated the original bill. At that time, after lengthy debate, the Democrats acknowledged that leaving aged care providers with absolutely no flexibility in how to allocate the money they receive from fees and charges might be counterproductive. I seem to remember that there was some discussion about whether a similar ALP amendment would mean that providers with facilities which already met the appropriate standards would be required to keep on upgrading those standards. You might imagine moving to gold taps in the bathroom or the like to use the funds for that purpose. I think that is what would happen. It is hardly likely that a nursing home would return funds; they would just go on spending them on unnecessary materials. For the record I would like to quote Senator Woodley during that debate when he said:In the initial phase, certainly we would want all of the money to be used for capital, retiring debt, et cetera. But down the road, does there come a point at which a provider has done everything he can possibly do? What does he then do with the income? It seems to me that, once you have done everything to bring the facility up to scratch, there may be the point at which you would want to allow the use of income for other things.At that time, the Democrats successfully moved an amendment to the opposition's amendment which would require that:. . . the approved provider must use the income derived from the accommodation bond and the retention amount in the following ways:(i) to meet capital works costs relating to residential care; and(ii) to retire debt relating to residential care;or (iii) where no capital expenditure is reasonably necessary to comply with matters specified in the certification principles for the purposes of 38-3(3) and meeting accreditation requirements—to improve the quality and range of aged care services;That amendment was widely supported by the industry at the time. So while a small minority of providers might have been acting against the interests of aged care residents in relation to the expenditure of the funding derived from fees and charges, I think it is very important to make it clear that these are only a small minority. Again, the Democrats, from my discussion with the industry aged care providers as well, recognise the need to examine ways of ensuring that cases such as those that Senator Evans talked about previously in his speech on the second reading are not able to happen in the future. However, it is pointless to try to do this without consultation with the majority of aged care providers, who are doing the right thing and who have the best interests of consumers at heart.Again, while the sentiment is there—and we support that—and there is some merit in these amendments, we cannot support them, because they have been largely put together without industry consultation and support. The major peak bodies that I have spoken with who represent aged care providers have all expressed a willingness to sit down and talk about finding effective ways to protect consumers against the minority of providers who are doing the wrong thing; and that is something that we would be happy to follow up with all relevant parties in the very near future. But, at this point in time, we do not see that there is a reason to move on these amendments and we will not be supporting them.18:15:009066Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do not know whether it was a Freudian slip, Senator Allison, but you said that the `government' will not be supporting these amendments. I presume that you meant the Democrats. I did not expect that you would support them but, as I say, I have made the point a couple of times that I do not think it is enough to say that we will sit down at some other time and look at the problem and that yes, it is a problem, but we cannot vote for it. The duty that we have as senators is to actually deal with the legislation now and try to work through those issues. Your unwillingness to engage in that means that we miss that opportunity, and that is unfortunate. I do accept though, that these amendments are largely directed at a very small minority of providers. That is an important point to make, and I made it in my speech in the second reading debate. But we are dealing with how to deal with those providers who are not playing the game.One of the things that I do want to say is that the `gold taps' type of argument is a bit fallacious. One of the things we could do is actually not make people pay the fee. The fee was introduced because we said there was a need for it. If there was not a need for the fee, because they had enough capital, couldn't we reduce the fee? Couldn't we take the burden off older Australians? Couldn't we actually ensure that they do not have to pay the fee if, in fact, it is not needed? We are saying, `Let's be accountable for the fees charged.' This parliament has agreed to charge people extra fees to meet the capital needs of the industry. So these older Austral ians are having to fork out $12 a day—quite a lot of money—to fund these things. We are saying, `Let's make sure it is used for that purpose.' If it is needed for those purposes, then fine. If it is not needed for those purposes, why should they be paying it? I think that is a reasonable question.The approach seems to be, `They can just go on paying it and it does not really matter too much. The providers can use it for whatever they want.' I have raised the concern before about the blurring of care costs and accommodation costs and what that will perhaps mean for governments faced with tough budgets about daily care charges in the future. No-one is immune from those sorts of pressures, so I think we ought to take that concern seriously.Anyway, as I say, I am not going to win this debate today. I think it is a debate that we will have again, because the problem is not going to go away. But I did want to get the minister to answer this question. He relied on, in terms of the bond, the provision that Senator Allison referred to that was asserted in 1997. I want to know what the department is currently doing to enforce compliance with that rule and how it is working. If this is the defence, I want to know what you have been doing about it for the past two years and how it is working.18:18:009066Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—One point that has not been raised that I think properly important to put in the Hansard in relation to this matter is that nobody has mentioned the continuous maintenance that is required in this situation. Funds have to be spent not only to achieve certain standards but to maintain them. There is in these cases a continuous upgrading and investment needed.In response to Senator Evans's last question, I have answered that previously: once those standards have been achieved and the nursing home has been certified, then that notification occurs and they would lose their ability to charge the bonds if they were not certified.18:19:009066Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I raise again the question that I asked the minister about the amendment that Senator Allison relied upon in her arguments and which was put in requiring providers to account for the income that they derived from the bond and their capital expenditure. I want to know what has been done to ensure compliance with that amendment, which is relied upon by the Democrats and the government as the defence against this amendment.18:20:009067Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—In one word, `certification'.18:20:009067Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I am sorry, but that is the wrong word, Minister. That is not what you said you would do. That is not what the Democrats said that that amendment did. That says that the providers are required to account for the income they derive from the bond and their capital expenditure. What form of accounting does it take? Is it purely the certification? Is that it? I think the minister has indicated by nodding that that is it. Certification has obviously become an all-embracing and very powerful tool. Can the minister also explain to me whether the department has established the Aged Care Accommodation Bond Trust in line with the prudential arrangements under the act and principles?18:21:009067Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am advised that the prudential arrangements were changed and that the trust is being wound up.18:21:009067Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I just want to clarify that, Minister. Are you saying that the trust was established and now is being abolished? If so, could you explain why that is the case? At the time, it was considered to be an important part of the prudential arrangements for the protection of the bonds of residents. There is quite a large section in the act which details that. When was it established, how did it operate, and why is it being wound up?18:22:009067Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am advised that it was being wound up because both the residents and the providers wanted it wound up. As to the dates, I will check with the department. We might have to confirm it, but I am advised that it is thought to have been February 1998. We will check that for you.18:22:009067Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Which residents wanted it wound up? You said the residents wanted it wound up. Who was consulted about that on behalf of the residents?18:23:009067Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am advised that it was the Council on the Ageing, the Australian Pensioners Federation and the Carers Association.18:23:009067West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Who were the trustees?18:23:009067Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It was the Permanent Trustee Company of Australia.18:24:009067West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—What are the fiduciary requirements now in place to ensure that the institutions actually do uphold all requirements to care for that money in a correct and proper manner?18:24:009067Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am happy to read them into the Hansard , if that is Senator West's request. They are:(1) The approved provider must, by written agreement, guarantee repayment of each accommodation bond balance in accordance with the Act to the care recipient who paid the bond.(2) Within 4 months after the end of each financial year for an approved provider, the approved provider must:(a) give a written statement that complies with subsections (3) and (4) to the Secretary; and(b) give a copy of the statement to each care recipient of the approved provider who has paid an accommodation bond that has not been repaid.(3) The statement must state that:(a) care recipients' accommodation bond balances required to be repaid during the year have been repaid in accordance with the Act; and (b) the approved provider can repay liabilities, for accommodation bond balances in accordance with the Act, that can be expected to fall due in the following financial year; and(c) the approved provider has, throughout the year, had enough insurance to cover losses arising from fraud, loss of earnings, fire, flood or other reasonably insurable events that may affect the ability of the approved provider to refund accommodation bond balances.(4) The statement must be:(a) approved by the company directors or other key personnel of the approved provider; and(b) certified or qualified by an independent auditor or accountant.(5) The approved provider must also give a copy of the latest statement under this section to each prospective care recipient.Amendment not agreed to.18:26:009068West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Can I go back to my question about hardships and concessional. I have been back on to the institution that prompted my questioning, and they say that they have correspondence on file stating that, under the legislation, they cannot make hardship applications on behalf of residents or for themselves unless patients are charged an accommodation fee. Is that the act?VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Temporary Chairman, are we moving another amendment?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—There is no amendment moved.18:26:009068Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—If Senator West has a specific case, we are happy to follow that up and see if we can answer that.18:27:009068West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I do have specific cases and I will follow that up, but I want to get it clarified here whether the legislation states that an institution cannot make a hardship application on behalf of a resident unless the patients are charged an accommodation fee.18:28:009068Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am informed that the secretary can use their discretion. The relevant page is page 359 at No. 2, under `principles', and it states:The Secretary may have regard to any other matters the Secretary considers relevant.18:28:009068West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—What is the ordinary correspondence sent out to the institutions? I think I made a comment last night about wording being complicated and not clear. `The secretary is able to make decisions that the secretary can make, et cetera, et cetera,' would not be particularly clear to administrators as to what that means. How clearly is that spelt out to the institutions? In fact, the correspondence that the department sends out most of the time does say things like, `They cannot make a hardship application on behalf of a resident unless those clients are charged an accommodation fee.' Of course, if they have an asset value of less than $23,500, they cannot be charged an accommodation fee. Do we run the risk here of a catch-22?18:29:009068Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am informed that that occurred in one case. The department would be happy to provide instances of letters that have been sent out.18:29:009068West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—In the case where it applied, what compensation was given to the institution? It would appear that it was a fault on behalf of the department.18:29:009068Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It is difficult to comment on one specific case. If it is the one that the department think that Senator West is referring to, their belief is that the provider did not behave appropriately and, therefore, compensation is not payable. As I say, if Senator West wishes to bring that to the notice of the department, they will give a considered response to it.18:30:009068West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I do not know what the one case is. I do not know it. The minister was the person who told us about the one case. I am very concerned that the institutions actually have it very clearly in their minds and clearly understood that they are not actually entering a catch-22 situation. I certainly will be pursuing privately with the minister's office just what is written in those letters and what information goes out to institutions because I think that there is a grave risk here that there could be some confusion and some catch-22 situations.18:30:009069Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7:(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (lines 8 to 13), omit subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), substitute: (ii) to retire debt associated with capital works costs relating to residential care; or (iii) where no capital expenditure is reasonably necessary to comply with matters specified in the certification principles for the purposes of subsection 38-3(3) and meeting accreditation requirements,to be placed in reserve for future use in accordance with subparagraphs (i) and (ii);(6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (after line 13), after paragraph (l), insert: (la) where the allocation of a *place ceases to have effect under Division 18, the approved provider must refund to the care recipient, or the legal personal representative of a deceased care recipient, any payment of the accommodation charge that the approved provider received for that place and that has not been used in accordance with subparagraphs (l)(i) and (ii); (lb) where a *place is transferred to another provider under Division 16 and the place would relate to a different *aged care service, the transferor must refund to the care recipient, or the legal personal representative of a deceased care recipient, any payment of the accommodation charge that the approved provider received for that place and that has not been used in accordance with subparagraphs (l)(i) and (ii); (lc) rules for the refund of the accommodation charge under paragraph (lb) or (lc) will be set out in the Residential Care Subsidy Principles.(7) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 19), after item 41, insert:41A Before paragraph 91-1(2)(a)Insert: (aa) monitoring the care of care recipients in residential care services operated by approved providers who have been issued with a notice under paragraph 10-3(7)(a) or (b);The debate on these issues goes very much to the debate we had on the previous amendment, which was about the need to provide for the charges to be used for capital purposes. There is no support for that in the Senate, so we will have that battle, I suspect, on another occasion.I do want to say, though, that I think the industry needs to consider this issue quite seriously. On the one hand, the industry say to me, the Democrats and others that there is a $1 billion shortfall in capital funding for the sector, even under current funding arrangements, and that they need more funds to meet the capital needs of the sector; and they have released the HESTA report and have argued that that seeks to establish the case for more capital funds being required for the sector. But, on the other hand, they argue that the Senate ought not support amendments which quarantine the capital currently available for capital purposes.I suppose I am indicating on behalf of the Labor opposition that we think there is an instance here of wanting your cake and eating it too. If the sector want to make the case for more capital funding and to argue there are insufficient capital funds, they should not really be arguing that the funds that have been dedicated for that purpose ought to be used for other purposes. It just seems to me slightly inconsistent, and I think there are real traps for the industry in supporting this blurring that is occurring in terms of capital and care funds. They will be the losers at the end of the day if they acquiesce in that. Having said that, that is now obviously a debate for another day.Amendments not agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to requests.Bill reported with amendments and requests; report adopted.Bills9070r8889070Debate resumed from 12 August, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.18:36:009070Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—For the third time in just over two years, the Senate is being asked to consider detailed changes to the government's flawed superannuation surcharge tax policy. On this occasion, there seems to be a begrudging acceptance of these changes before us by some in the superannuation industry, which is so shell shocked after three years of the Howard government that it is grateful for any scraps that fall off the Treasurer's table from time to time. I say there is a begrudging acceptance because one gets the impression that the industry would prefer to see the surcharge dispatched with rather more than more fiddling from the Assistant Treasurer.There are others in the industry who believe that the changes before us are an outrage in that they apply retrospectively, a point which is all but acknowledged by the government. It is on this point that Labor has a problem with this bill and will be moving an amendment that will prevent the retrospective operation of this bill. The Senate should very carefully consider legislation which applies any retrospective penalty on a person who has already complied with the law as it is written. Senator Kemp has maintained that there is nothing wrong with the current legislation. If that is the case, why is there a need for this amending legislation in the first place?In addition, Labor will be moving a second reading amendment, to be moved by my colleague Senator Sherry, which urges the government to address the unfair circumstances that currently exist for some mineworkers at Pasminco sites around Australia. These workers receive superannuation based on their base rate of pay of around $25,000 per year. However, because of working a 12-hour shift, the workers actually incur a surcharge tax liability which they are forced to pay, despite getting superannuation contributions based only on a much lower rate of pay. Clearly, this is inequitable—just another of the many inequities of this flawed policy—and should be addressed by the government. A restriction on opposition parties initiating tax legislation in the Senate is why the opposition will not be moving a specific amendment.Most measures in this bill improve and, to the extent that it is possible, simplify the operation of the superannuation surcharge tax, and Labor will be supporting them. On this occasion the government appear to have consulted widely in formulating this bill, which they seem very eager to have passed. As I said earlier, there was not complete agreement of the government's position on the retrospective calculation of the surchargeable contributions. Compliance costs associated with the changes are claimed by the government to be low, although anything related to compliance with the surcharge is much more likely to cost a bomb rather than cost little.To the extent that it is possible, Labor agrees that some measures in this bill improve and simplify the operation of the superannuation surcharge tax, and we will support these aspects of the bill. The outstanding issue is the abolition of the advance instalment requirement, which should not have been a part of the bill in the first place. It was only Senator Kemp's stubbornness which saw it remain as part of the bill. Senator Sherry will have more to say about that, I am sure.A number of the changes, however, are chiefly designed to address the legality of the surcharge tax on defined benefit schemes, particularly those on a `contributions holiday' and those who are unfunded and make notional contributions. This aspect of the surcharge is presently the subject of a Federal Court challenge, which may come as news to the government and its advisers, who surprisingly indicated, in evidence to the committee which examined this bill, that they were not aware of the court challenge. But perhaps it will not come as news to the government and its advisers, as one could be forgiven for assuming that it is the likelihood that the govern ment will lose the case which has prompted these changes.A senior superannuation lawyer and outstanding critic of the surcharge tax, Mr Noel Davis from Clayton Utz, together with Mr Chris Beeny from Mallesons and others who handle corporate defined benefit funds, are unhappy about the retrospective nature of the bill, which will require some superannuation funds to recalculate their surcharge tax liability. Mr Davis and Mr Beeny, who work as superannuation lawyers and, one could argue, benefit from a complex tax law, actually want to see the surcharge collection method scrapped. However, the government is unlikely to support a scrapping of the surcharge tax, despite it being a complete embarrassment, despite it being an albatross around the government's neck. The recommendation from Mr Davis and Mr Beeny and others is that, at the minimum, the government should ensure that this legislation does not operate retrospectively. Labor is inclined to support this view.The requirement that super funds only need provide information to fund members if requested by the fund members represents a substantial cost saving to funds with a majority of members who do not pay the surcharge tax. However, it also means that fewer people would be aware that their super fund is reporting contributions received to the ATO, regardless of whether they pay the tax. It in effect reduces the transparency of the compliance costs of this tax in a way which I am sure the government is quite happy about. While drawing attention to this fact, Labor will not be opposing this measure, as it will result in cost reductions and a higher retirement income for working Australians.Preliminary discussions with the Institute of Actuaries have revealed a range of technical problems with the bill relating to definitions of a number of terms. These definitional issues would ordinarily be issues about which Labor would propose amendments, but I understand that the government may be considering amendments as a result of these discussions.The superannuation surcharge tax is a world's worst practice tax legislation and administration. The super tax is supposed to be levied on some 355,000 higher income earners and collect approximately $500 million per annum. Instead, due to the government's desire to keep its promise not to introduce any new taxes or increase any existing levies, the collection mechanism chosen has cost all eight million superannuation fund members the high price of reduced retirement incomes through increased administration costs as a minimum. Some low and middle income earners who did not provide their tax file numbers to their superannuation fund or the Australian Taxation Office—and whom the ATO cannot find cross-matching data on—are also likely to pay this tax.The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia estimates that the cost to super funds in administration and collection of the super tax is in excess of $190 million. Evidence to the committee from Mr Noel Davis that the industry's reporting costs in the first year of operation of the super tax were some $270 million to enable the government to collect $340 million of tax revenue is clear evidence that this tax is not only inefficient but is inequitable. For all eight million superannuation fund members to have to pay for the collection of a tax which is supposed to be levied on only higher income earners is grossly inequitable. The government should be ashamed.Answers to questions placed on notice confirm that the ATO itself has spent in excess of $23 million, with the Department of Finance and Administration and Comsuper spending $3.4 million. That adds up to approximately $27 million spent by the government in collecting this tax, meaning that all Australian taxpayers have shelled out for this tax, which is supposed to be on higher income earners. Remember, many funds, particularly industry funds, and many low and middle income earning members will go on incurring costs when they have few fund members who actually pay the tax.The ATO has also confirmed that it had issued some $454 million of 1996-97 assessments, of which only $347 million had been collected by 30 June 1998. Some $86 million of amended and original assessments were issued in February 1999, bringing the total expected revenue for the financial year 1996-97 to $540 million, some $60 million more than the $480 million estimated for the 1997-98 financial year. Some $100 million has been collected since 1 July 1998, with approximately $76 million outstanding, again indicating revenue in excess of projections.In February 1999, the ATO issued 66,500 surcharge tax assessments to persons who had not provided their tax file numbers to their superannuation fund or the ATO. While the ATO anticipates that all of these assessments will go to higher income earners, there are bound to be some who are not higher income earners yet will still receive an assessment from the tax office. This new tax is starting to bite the government, and it is the opposition's intention to ensure that all Australians know that Mr Howard has not only reneged on his promise but also lumbered eight million Australians with the most cumbersome tax in the history of taxation.The figures I have mentioned suggest that many more people are paying more surcharge tax than the government estimated. This is expected to increase as employers are now required to provide superannuation information on group certificates, which will lessen the opportunity for surcharge avoidance. There is little doubt that the surcharge tax is an embarrassment to the government, particularly the Treasurer. Along with the GST, it represents poor tax administration and collection.The Senate Economics Legislation Committee examined this bill and recommended that the Senate pass it subject to discussions between industry representatives and the government. These discussions have taken place and the government has indicated that it may move two technical amendments on the advice of the Institute of Actuaries and consulting actuaries William M. Mercer. Labor should support these amendments. Labor senators recommended that the bill be supported after the government address the issues of the retrospective aspects of the changes to the calculation of the surcharge and the fact that some workers are paid SG on a low base but are forced to pay the surcharge tax due to allowances and overtime.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You will live to regret this.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will debate you on the 7.30 Report any time you like to appear on that show, Senator. The government's bill will retrospectively apply amendments designed to address the legality of the surcharge tax on defined benefit schemes, particularly those on a `contributions holiday' and those who are `unfunded' and make `notional' contributions.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You have done a big shift. You have done a Nick Sherry.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—Order, Senator!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It is all right, Mr Acting Deputy President. The actuarial practices and methods of calculating the surcharge are presently the subject of a Federal Court challenge, which it appears the government is not confident of winning. It appears that the likelihood of the government losing the court case is what has prompted it to make the changes to abolish the advance instalment. In other words, it is an attempt to placate the industry in return for industry accepting the changes to the calculation of the surcharge which will retrospectively apply to a minority of funds.Labor will be moving an amendment to prevent the bill from operating retrospectively. This amendment may have an impact on revenue that the government believes is owing from funds who reported nil surchargeable contributions. The extent of this revenue is unknown according to verbal advice from the ATO. However, the arguments against this legislation are overwhelming. First, Senator Kemp has said in evidence to the committee that the government is happy with the existing legislation. That is right. Senator Kemp has said, `From our point of view, the legislation is sound.' If that is the case, Senator Kemp, why then the need to change it? Nothing to say? No interjection at this point?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I will have plenty to say. You have done a Nick Sherry. It will come back to haunt you.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—If you think the legislation is sound, Senator Kemp, why are we standing here today debating it?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, I invite you to direct your comments through the chair. Senator Kemp, I invite you to use more parliamentary language, please.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—All I said was that he has done a Nick Sherry.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You are out of order, Senator Kemp.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Second, funds who notified a return to the ATO of nil, based on the current legislation, will have to incur costs in recalculating a new return. Chris Beeny from Mallesons estimated in evidence to the committee that the cost would be approximately $40,000 to $50,000 for some funds. That cost would be borne by all fund members, not just those who are liable for the tax again, proving the inequity and injustice of this tax.Third, most funds may not have the information available to them to recalculate the liability under the new laws. In many cases, the systems have changed since the 1997 and 1998 returns were made. Fourth, systems changes to retrieve information could have implications for the Y2K security procedures funds are currently undertaking. Fifth, this bill will retrospectively change the existing law. That amounts to a denial of right to take legal action against existing legislation if the bill is changed retrospectively.Sixth, the government has claimed that less than 1,500 funds reported nil contributions in the period in question. That is less than five per cent of all 180,000 superannuation funds. If, as Senator Kemp claims, its existing legislation is sound and such a small percentage of funds did not report as the tax office may have liked, why is the government pursuing a retrospective amendment for such a small number of funds? The government has not identified any revenue with this measure, so it cannot be to chase more revenue. No revenue—so what is happening, Senator Kemp, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You have taken bad advice.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Kemp, you are out of order.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Senator Kemp has said that these changes are the result of industry representations. But one wonders why the industry will want to foist retrospective legislation on itself. If there is no revenue attached to this, why would the government want to force funds to incur further costs in meeting this disaster of a tax? Those are just a few of the reasons why Labor is seeking the Senate's support for its amendment to ensure that this bill is not retrospective.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—It is a free gift to a lot of rich people.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Try the Ralph package or the GST, Senator Kemp.Debate interrupted.Documents9073907318:50:009073Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I rise to speak on the second quarterly report of the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA, the regulatory authority which was established this year under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act. That act came into force on 5 February and the accompanying regulations on 17 March 1999. These dates are particularly significant since there was a six-month transition period inserted into the act during which all Commonwealth agencies were to apply for licences to permit their involvement in the operation of radiation sources, facilities and nuclear installations. That six-month period has now passed and all Commonwealth facilities must now be licensed.One of those facilities now licensed by ARPANSA is the Lucas Heights complex, which is operated by ANSTO. Since ANSTO is the intended operator of the new nuclear reactor the government wants to build in Lucas Heights, I would like to comment on some of the incidents that have been referred to in this particular report. Although it did not actually occur during the quarter of this report, the fuel rod handling incident has received another special mention. This seems to be due to a decision by ANSTO to change the INES rating of the accident. The INES rating is a figure on an agreed scale—it is actually an internationally agreed scale—from level zero to level seven, zero being where there is no safety impact and seven where there is a major accident such as Chernobyl. The fuel rod accident was moved from zero to one on that scale.The accident was examined extensively by the Economics References Committee during the recently completed inquiry into the new nuclear reactor. Some of the evidence that was received during those hearings demonstrated a fairly lax view of the seriousness of this particular incident. I note that a period of eight weeks elapsed between the accident and the provision of a submission on recovery procedures by ANSTO. Curiously, ARPANSA's review of that submission took less than 24 hours and the operation was completed the same day.The next incident report relates to a damaged sewer pipeline at Lucas Heights. This problem was dealt with rapidly, but the blaming of subcontractors bears an intriguing resemblance to the major discharge of water into the Woronora River late last year.Perhaps most significant in the ANSTO related issues covered in this report is the small mention of the Little Forest Burial Ground. It is understood that previous media reports led to this inclusion. So that it is clearly stated on the record, I will repeat the sentence from the report. It states:In total approximately 47,600 packages of active waste, with a volume of 1,765 cubic metres, were buried in 77 three metre deep trenches.This is in a suburban area, not part of the main ANSTO complex. So apparently ANSTO will be applying for a licence to operate the site. I should hope so. My under standing is that those same media reports which prompted a reference to this site in the ARPANSA report also suggested that there had been vandalism and theft of radiation monitoring equipment at the site.We know very little about what is actually stored at Little Forest, which provided waste disposal for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission from 1960 to 1968. Certainly, there is uranium, cobalt, beryllium, small amounts of plutonium, traces of other isotopes and extensive low level radioactive waste. I hope that the commitment that has been given by ANSTO to make further investigations at the Little Forest Burial Ground in the context of the licensing process for Lucas Heights has been followed through. The Little Forest Burial Ground remains a major issue for the local community.I conclude my remarks with a brief reference to the new nuclear reactor that has been promoted by this government. The ARPANSA report makes reference to the licence application for this new reactor, referring to it with the government's preferred phrase of `replacement reactor' when we know it is a new reactor. This report refers to materials which would be considered in investigating the licence application. Included were 73 public submissions. I hope these submissions have been treated seriously by ARPANSA. I hope that ARPANSA has been the regulator of government nuclear activities. I hope it will be the regulator of these activities. It should be. I am not confident of that. I understand that ARPANSA has now granted a site licence for the new nuclear reactor. The construction and operation of a reactor is not necessary. It is not appropriate. I reiterate the Democrats' opposition to Australia's continuing involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.907418:55:009074Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to speak to the annual report of ESRA for 1997-98. It is the final report of that body. It effectively ceased operations in October 1998 after ceasing day-to-day operations upon the introduction of the government's privatised employment services scheme—Job Network—in May of last year.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—A very successful scheme it is too.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—It is a great pity that the government chose to throw out ESRA with the rest of the CES based system of employment service delivery. I note the interjection from Senator Kemp, not that it is a successful scheme but, regardless of whether it is successful or not, it should have an appropriate regulatory and monitoring body. It is sad that they got rid of this body. It was a vital component of a well-run, effective network of case management and employment service provision, and it has been sorely missed since the introduction of the beleaguered Job Network to which Senator Kemp referred.The Australian Democrats have, on a number of occasions, listed our concerns with Job Network. We have voiced these concerns. Some of these concerns range from charging employers fees for services which they received for free under the CES, to cashing out training and support for job seekers, to leaving their employment welfare to the discretion of the individual provider and to making community services operate on a profit motive. There are many reforms which we believe should have been and can be made to Job Network to give job seekers their best chance of finding work in what is becoming a cutthroat labour market.However, a key concern has always related to the protection of job seekers within this brave new world of privatised employment assistance—that is, the lack of an independent regulator to oversee service delivery and report on any problems that may emerge. ESRA performed this function under the old system. It received its funding from outside the department of employment and operated outside that department, protecting it from any conflicts of interest. It comprised consultative committees and a national board with a balance of parties—providers and interested parties such as welfare organisations and, of course, consumers of the employment services. It also produced regular reports on the outcomes of organisations. These functions are not being served under the current arguments, compromising transparency, accountability and market choice. What the government has failed to understand in its refusal to set up an independent monitoring body to carry out the functions that were previously performed by ESRA is that, for a marketised system of service delivery to operate, for job seekers to have the same status as clients—as they are intended, according to government rhetoric—they must have access to independent information about the services competing for their custom. Instead, we have seen a trickle of information released by the department. Of course, both DETYA and the department responsible for workplace relations and small business are now responsible for the evaluation and the monitoring. It was months before any performance data was available on the performance of job agencies under Job Network. This information was quickly withdrawn after a brief appearance on the Internet. Job seekers are more likely to choose the agency with the greatest advertising power. It has been no surprise that the government owned Employment National has capitalised on the generous market share allocated to it by the government, certainly in the initial tender round.It is also vital that job seekers be able to access a complaints mechanism. In 1997-98, 43 written complaints were lodged with and investigated by ESRA, and all were resolved by 30 June 1998. These complaints, according to page 38 of the report, covered instances of unsympathetic or rude case managers, communication difficulties, inappropriate refusals and referrals to case management, privacy breaches and unsatisfactory levels of service. Current arrangements place most responsibility for dealing with complaints with the agency itself. This is an unsatisfactory situation for job seekers, who are often reluctant to pursue claims against an agency through that agency.With the second tender round now in progress, information on unsatisfactory performance by job agencies should be available to the department to make proper evaluations of job agency performance. With agencies now pursuing the resolution of complaints in-house, this information is less likely to be made publicly available. In the wake of the demise of ESRA, a qualitative monitoring process must be incorporated into Job Network to monitor the levels of client service provided by job agencies and to ensure that the department maintains the accounting of clients and outcomes and regularly makes public those results. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment907610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.907619:02:009076Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I wish to share with the chamber a Tasmanian good news story, and that is the story of the Tasmanian poppy industry. I wish to take this opportunity to shed light on the growth, benefit and strength of Tasmania's poppy industry, where we have become the largest producer of raw narcotic materials in the world. There are just two players in this Tasmanian success story, and they both operate from the north of the state. Glaxo Wellcome Australia Ltd is situated at Latrobe, and Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd is situated at Westbury.Poppy production in Australia is strictly regulated by federal and state governments, and Tasmania, being an island state and isolated, is favoured for security reasons. The Poppy Advisory and Control Board coordinates the regulatory and surveillance operations, and the Tasmanian Poppy Growers Association provides a healthy sounding-board and an information source for growers. The Tasmanian poppy industry was pioneered by Glaxo Australia in the early 1960s. Today it is one of the success stories of Australian agriculture and manufacturing. The industry's growth has been based on the innovative development and usage of technology in all aspects of the operation, and Tasmania's poppy crop provides world markets with a reliable and secure supply of alkaloids for analgesic medicines.Poppy production has quite an interesting history. For example, in 1806 a complex chemical responsible for pain relieving properties was isolated from opium gum and called `morphine' after Morpheus, the Greek god of dreams. In 1831 a process for the extraction of morphine hydrochloride from opium gum was developed at Edinburgh University in Scotland. In the 1920s, Hungarian scientist Janos Kabay developed a process to extract morphine from dry poppy straw, which was an essential requirement for the future development of a mechanised harvest. The year 1951 saw Mr Stephen King, an agriculturalist, and Mr Bull, a chemical engineer, commence work on the production of poppy straw in Britain—on behalf of the Glaxo group—as an insurance against the unreliable supply of opium from traditional producers. Heavy rainfall resulted in low alkaloid concentration, however, and the attempt to grow poppies in Britain was abandoned in 1957. A search began for a more favourable climate and, in the 1960-61 season, trials were undertaken in New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. Poppies had been grown in Australia on a limited scale during World War II, but cultivation ceased after the war.Tasmania was chosen as the location for all future development. In the 1964-65 season, the first commercial harvest of 52 hectares using 17 growers produced 140 kilograms of morphine alkaloid. Mr Stephen King moved to Tasmania in 1965 to supervise research and commercial production, and growers formed the Oil Poppy Growers Association. Thus a new Tasmanian industry was born. A reliable and productive cultivar suited to Tasmanian conditions was identified in 1969. A Glaxo factory was constructed at Latrobe in 1970 and, in the 1971-72 season, Glaxo for the first time produced sufficient morphine to supply the needs of Australia as well as New Zealand. In 1977 exports of poppy seed to the United States exceeded imports from the Netherlands for the first time. In 1985 continued growth in the industry resulted in Glaxo supplying 13 per cent of the world's requirements for opiate alkaloids.Ten years later, in 1995, Glaxo Wellcome Australia—Glaxo having purchased the pharmaceutical company Wellcome—supplied 25 per cent of the world market. Approximately 90 per cent of all production was being exported. The success continues. Work has begun on planting the crop for the 1999-2000 season. It will be the biggest poppy crop ever planted in Tasmania and is expected to earn about $200 million for the state's economy. Using 1,400 growers statewide, the area of Tasmania's farmland planted with poppy has doubled in four years to 20,000 hectares. Cropping is mostly concentrated in the north-west and north-east of the state.In the competition for fertile farmland and to drive the industry forward, producers offer free seed and professional advice from qualified field officers, drilling charges are paid, all herbicide costs are paid by the company and deducted from the final grower payment and harvesting and cartage is undertaken by the company at no cost to the grower. An innovative payment system guaranteeing minimum payments and a bonus incentive scheme ensure satisfied growers. Each year Tasmanian Alkaloids give their growers the chance to win a Mercedes Benz 180 motor vehicle. The company seek out a champion in the poppy industry to create a goal for all growers to strive towards in trying to improve the product.This year's winners produced a crop which yielded 40 kilograms of alkaloid per hectare. This compares to a world average of 12 kilograms per hectare. The return was $8,763 a hectare, which is nearly three times the northern Tasmanian industry average of around $3,000 per hectare. The support of Tasmanian growers has been an integral factor in the success and growth of the poppy industry, and growers have displayed an ability to quickly adapt to the many improved practices targeted by the producers. Efficiency in providing a competitively priced product and aggressive marketing of the unsubsidised crop in the international arena have led to the industry meeting competition head-on from France, India, Hungary, Spain, Turkey, Poland, Yugoslavia and other countries.Customers demand a reliable supply of quality products, which in turn enables them to supply quality products to their own markets. Glaxo Wellcome is recognised as being one of the world's largest opiate suppliers with exports to over 12 countries. Tasmania is pushing for more poppy exports to the United States, and a change of attitude by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency could result in increased Tasmanian narcotic raw material exports—which would be good news for the state. Unfortunately, the US specifies that 80 per cent of its imports must come from India and Turkey, with 20 per cent from the rest of the world. A relaxation of the US law to a 60 to 40 percentage split would enable the Tasmanian industry to grow significantly, and all parties are lobbying very strongly for this to occur.Security of the product is extremely important. Tasmania has a worldwide enviably low level of poppy theft at 0.001 per cent. This compares with recent statistics suggesting a 30 per cent diversion from legitimate purposes of material in India and Turkey. All Tasmanian growers are issued with individual licences and these carry responsibilities and obligations which ensure that the industry maintains its status as the model of poppy production. The companies, growers, police and control board inspectors all play an important role in security and in the industry's future. As the industry grows, additional staff are employed by the companies and the control board, cars for field officers are required, new seeding drills and harvesters are purchased, additional trucks are required and additional laboratories are built.The Glaxo Wellcome annual poppy crop is harvested and processed in Tasmania at Latrobe and the poppy capsules containing the medical alkaloids are processed and shipped to the Port Fairy plant in Victoria for extraction. The poppy seeds are cleaned and exported from Latrobe to the culinary food industry worldwide. Tasmanian Alkaloids has recently opened a new research and development laboratory in a three-year, $18 million expansion at its Westbury factory, and the company aims to keep all its value adding processes in Tasmania. With demand for poppy alkaloids to supply the legal pharmaceuticals market growing at the rate of five per cent a year, Tasmania now supplies half the world's morphine demands. Further favourable outcomes for the Tasmanian poppy industry are ensured. Successful partnerships with growers, profitable and reliable crop returns, the application of innovative technology, crop security, the capacity for rapid crop harvest and intake, aggressive marketing and a worldwide reputation for reliability and quality have all contributed to the building of a sustainable future for this outstanding industry. So it is not surprising that agricultural commentators from the ABC recently commented that, if you want to go to an interesting place in terms of agriculture, you should get a transfer to Tasmania. I thank the Senate.907819:11:009078Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise this evening to bring to the Senate's attention the impressive work being done by Dr Stuart Reece in his Brisbane drug detoxification clinic. Senators will be all too aware of the problems that drugs, particularly heroin, cause in this country. Dr Reece's work, along with the work of similar clinics around the country, has shown that it is possible to fight drug addiction. Despite the rhetoric coming from the Prime Minister's office about reducing crime and building communities, senators also need to be made aware of the obstacles that the federal government is putting in the way of effective treatment of drug addicts—but I will come to that later.Dr Reece started the naltrexone rapid detoxification unit in Brisbane in July last year. His clinic is combating more than just a health problem; it is combating social problems as well. Some of the people that he helps have a $500-a-day addiction. That level of addiction leads to all sorts of social problems such as violence, family breakdown and crime. Parliament, the government and the community in general have a big interest in helping to solve these problems. When people talk about the supposed high cost of treating heroin addicts, they seem to forget the cost of the alternatives. Treating people in hospital for heroin overdoses is extremely expensive, as is putting people in jail. Areas such as Inala and Ipswich have long felt the effect of drug related social problems. We owe it to the community, especially to the people in those drug ravaged areas, to help fight this problem in the most effective way we can.Dr Reece faces enormous difficulties in providing his services to the people in most need. However, before I start talking about some of the problems that Dr Reece faces, I will talk about some of his success stories. If any of us here went to hospital and needed pain-killers, we would possibly be given five or 10 milligrams of methadone. One particular patient who came in to Dr Reece's clinic was using up to 200 milligrams of methadone a day. He was also taking half a gram of heroin a day, as well as one or two packets of valium a day—this was every single day. He underwent naltrexone treatment at the clinic nine months ago. He has been heroin free since then and is just now starting his own mechanics business.Another young lady who underwent the treatment a year ago has stayed off heroin. She found a job, married and is now starting a family. Dr Reece also treated a computer programmer who had been sacked from his job because of the effects of his addiction on his life. Since the treatment, this man has gone from strength to strength, even so far as being able to get a new job that pays $150,000 a year.They are some of the personal stories from the Brisbane clinic. The overall story is just as impressive. Since the clinic opened, they have treated about 500 patients. Their success rate—which is determined by seeing how many addicts stay off opiates for six, and then twelve, months—is wonderful. The six-month opiate-free success rate at the clinic is 62 per cent. Put simply, that means that more than 300 drug users who have undergone rapid detoxification using naltrexone have remained off heroin for at least six months. That success rate is in line with other naltrexone clinics around the country. To put it in per spective, the success of methadone treatment is only one or two per cent. Despite the proven success rate and the inspiring stories of personal achievement, the Brisbane clinic still faces a number of problems.The first problem is that some people in the governments at various levels, and some people in the medical community who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, refuse to recognise the value of naltrexone. Although first developed in the United States in 1963, it is only relatively recently that the potential benefits of naltrexone have become more widely known. Naltrexone works by blocking the receptors in the brain. Those receptors help provide users with pleasure from taking various drugs. There have been more than 1,500 studies worldwide that show the effectiveness of naltrexone. It is a proven remedy. The academic war has been won on this it is now time for politicians to act. The first thing the Minister for Health and Aged Care should do is place naltrexone on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In July this year, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommended against the federal government subsidising the cost of naltrexone. I realise that it is impossible for the government to subsidise every single drug that manufacturers bring onto the market. But isn't that why governments have priorities? This government must recognise that heroin is the scourge of the community. It is a drug that wrecks lives and destroys communities.What this decision has done, however, is take away the hope of thousands and thousands of people trying to get off heroin. On 1 December, the Federal Court will review the PBAC's decision. The government could end a lot of heartache right now by putting naltrexone on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Last week, the Queensland government showed its commitment to the process of drug rehabilitation by helping work through some problems concerning the prescription of certain other drugs at Dr Reece's clinic. But there are many problems that can be worked on at the federal level to make this program more successful. Dr Reece's clinic treats up to 20 people a week. That represents the chance to get 20 people off heroin. Unfor tunately, the clinic turns away three or four people every week. Those people are turned away for a number of reasons, but one common reason is that they cannot afford the treatment.The initial cost of treatment is $500. This is the second cheapest privately run naltrexone detoxification program in the country. Five hundred dollars might not sound like much to some, but to drug users it is an awful lot of money. Furthermore, people who have undergone rapid detoxification need to stay on the drug for a year to ensure the treatment works in the long term. Because the treatment is not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, patients have to pay $2,000 a year to continue receiving the drug. That means that the people who most need the treatment cannot afford it. The people who would benefit most from the treatment cannot afford it. The clinic could also benefit from increased funding for social workers and a higher number of drug rehabilitation services in Queensland. But understandably, that cannot all be achieved overnight. At the very least, however, the federal government could put naltrexone on the PBS and give people who want to come off heroin the best possible chance.The other thing the government can do is allow one particular drug buprenorphine to be used in rapid detoxification. Buprenorphine is a drug that is particularly useful in helping treat high-dose methadone and heroin users. Unfortunately, even though the drug can be used for other purposes, regulations prohibit it from being used for the treatment of opiate-addicted people. The alternative to these measures is that we pay for higher levels of crime, higher levels of medical treatment, more overdoses and more deaths. It is a grim alternative indeed.907919:20:009079Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to speak this evening on the issue of aquaculture and its potential environmental impact. As senators would probably be aware, yesterday the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee tabled a report into the Port Hinchinbrook development. One of the recommendations was to do with assessing the development of aquaculture and its impact on and discharge into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That recommendation was provided because the potential environmental impacts of aquaculture, if not done properly, were shown during the course of the inquiry to be a significant potential problem for the environmental health of the Great Barrier Reef and surrounding waters.Aquaculture has been seen in recent years as a potential way forward to feed thousands of hungry people around the world. By the middle of the last decade, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and others were putting around $200 million a year into aquaculture projects, and aquaculture has kept growing since that time. The dramatic change now is the final use of the produce of aquaculture: rather than the direct feeding of the hungry, it is often seen as a valuable cash crop, ready for the export markets of poor and wealthy countries alike. It is now a question of who is prepared, under current practice, to enable themselves to get a share of the spoils.Aquaculture in the United States, for example, has boomed for three different reasons: firstly, a decline in domestic and world fisheries' catches; secondly, an increase in the demand for seafood generally and aquacultural products specifically; and, thirdly, government promotion of aquaculture. Similar reasons are determining the expansion of aquaculture in Australia.There are some significant issues that I believe need to be addressed and monitored in relation to aquaculture. It is an issue relevant for the country as a whole and certainly relevant for my own state of Queensland. A significant number of prawn farms, in particular, have been established, and many more are proposed. As indicated in the environment committee report into Port Hinchinbrook, there are potential problems—in particular, potential environmental problems—if it is not managed properly.The aquaculture industry is often promoted as a clean industry but, like any intensive animal industry, it can produce large amounts of polluting waste. Uneaten fish food is a source of nutrients in the form of carbon based organic compounds, nitrogen and phosphorus which can stimulate algae and phytoplankton blooms, cutting out sunlight. When the algae die, they dramatically reduce oxygen levels, which can cause fish and other organisms stress and potentially death. Toxic algae blooms can cause the killing of organisms and the transfer of the toxins through the food chain to humans.Open nets, used mainly in the farming of salmon and tuna, have the greatest potential to cause environmental damage due to the untreated discharge. Discharges from salmon farms around the coast of British Colombia are estimated to be equivalent to raw human sewage from a city of half a million people. On the other hand, molluscs—such as oysters, clams and muscles—are filter feeders and actually reduce nutrients in marine systems, as 30 to 40 per cent of the total organic matter ingested by the mollusc is used for growth and is permanently removed through harvesting. It is important to note also the potential flow-on effects in terms of other usage of the environment—for example, more than one-quarter of wild fish harvests are now used for animal feed.The measure of world production of aquaculture when looked at in monetary value rather than weight is fairly different, and the ranking is different for certain products of aquaculture. For example, prawns, while not produced in large weight quantities on a global scale, emerge clearly as a very valuable product. Tiger prawns are ranked 11th in world production by weight but first in value. In Queensland, the varieties that were identified earlier this year as potential stock for aquaculture were prawns, barramundi, pearls, redclaw, ornamental fish, oysters, silver perch, golden perch and crocodiles.I raise this issue not to try to generate an overall blanket blackening of the name of aquaculture because—as I indicated already this evening—if managed properly and monitored properly, the potential environmental impacts are very much minimised. But the real issue is ensuring that it operates properly, the approvals are done in an efficient and effective way, assessments are done before any approvals are given and ongoing monitoring is effective.By way of example, a proposed aquaculture farm in North Queensland at Armstrong Beach near Sarina has been a cause of great controversy and concern in that community. That has a Queensland licence to release up to 75,000 cubic metres of waste on any given day, averaging 35,000 cubic metres of waste a day. They will, as part of the development, have permits to clear mangroves, which is fairly ironic, given that mangroves are breeding grounds for wild fisheries. There is very significant community opposition to it in the Sarina area. Yet Armstrong Beach is just one of over 60 sites identified along a 640-kilometre stretch of Central Queensland coast as being potentially suitable for aquaculture. That is one approximately every 10 kilometres.The federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, to his credit, has reacted to some of the concerns relating to inappropriate approvals of aquaculture development by proposing regulations for waters that lead into or are part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to try to ensure that the potential problems that may occur from aquaculture do not happen and that we do not have those sorts of impacts occurring on the Barrier Reef. It is pleasing to see the federal environment minister working to exercise his responsibilities constructively in that regard. It is one area where I think the environment minister has shown some positive actions in recent years. He has focused on improving the health of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the world heritage area surrounding it. It is only appropriate, of course, that as federal environment minister he does that to ensure that world heritage values are protected.The Democrats very much support the aim of the federal environment minister in the regulations that he has put forward. I understand that they are only draft regulations at this stage. It is a source of concern that the Queensland government has come out against what the federal environment minister is trying to do. I believe that the state government's suggestions and the concerns that they have expressed about the likely impact of the proposed regulations are grossly inaccurate and overstated. From my point of view and the Democrats' point of view, it would be far more preferable if the Queensland government took a constructive approach, rather than an alarmist approach, to what the federal environment minister is trying to do.Clearly, this should not be an issue of arm-wrestling over power and responsibility between state and federal governments; it should be an issue where governments at both levels work together to try to ensure the maximum health of the Barrier Reef. There are many threats to the Barrier Reef—aquaculture is but one—and it is much more important that state and federal governments, both of which have responsibility for managing the Barrier Reef, work together to try to address those potential negative impacts. Certainly it is pleasing to see—and the Democrats are supportive of this—what the federal environment minister is trying to do in relation to ensuring that there are not negative environmental impacts on the Barrier Reef from aquaculture developments.I am not in any way suggesting that aquaculture is inherently bad or evil. In fact, the aim of the federal environment minister is to, in a way, improve the potential for aquaculture by ensuring that it operates only under best possible practice and that approvals are given only when environmental impact assessments have been done and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts. Those sorts of circumstances provide the best atmosphere and the best grounding for the ongoing development of that aquaculture industry.The Democrats are pleased about the concern the federal environment minister has shown about proposals such as that at Armstrong Beach. We urge Senator Hill to continue working in that regard and the Queensland government to take a more constructive approach to ensure that aquaculture developments in Queensland, particularly along the Barrier Reef, operate in a manner that does not damage the reef. We believe that can be done. We encourage all parties to work together to ensure that that is how things are done.908219:30:009082Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Two weeks ago, on 14 September, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority commenced another airspace trial at Yulara in central Australia. The opposition wishes to place on record its serious concerns about the conduct and implications of this trial. I would also like to draw to the Senate's attention the fact that key aspects of the trial run counter to the Senate's disallowance earlier this year of government regulations that would have allowed the contracting out and privatisation of air traffic control services.The opposition has been very firm in its view that air traffic services are a public responsibility—a core responsibility of government, if you like—and should not be run for profit by private operators. The problem we seem to be having in aviation safety in this country is that the coalition government does not see it as a public responsibility. It sees it as just another service—like selling groceries or TV sets or whatever—for which customers must pay and from which every last bit of profit must be wrung irrespective of the wider and longer-term consequences.There is no doubt that Airservices Australia are less and less interested in providing the full mix of air traffic and information services and more and more interested in restricting their operations to what they see as the potentially high profitable end of the business—that is, en route services. The name of the game appears to be to retain en route services through The Advanced Australian Air Traffic System, TAAATS, and to try to sell TAAATS overseas whilst quietly ditching air traffic and firefighting services at aerodromes and other technical support services.The opposition does not consider this to be an acceptable and appropriate approach to the management and delivery of air safety and air traffic services in this country. In fact, we see it as a potential recipe for disaster. This new trial at Yulara gives us little cause to become any more relaxed or comfortable about the future of aviation safety under this govern ment. What is happening at Yulara is that CASA is trialling a certified air/ground radio service.The trial is being funded by Qantas, Ansett and the Ayers Rock resorts. Services have been provided under contract to the resort by a private company called Ambidji. We have several concerns about the trial. Firstly, there appears to have been no tender process and no-one has seen any terms of reference for the trial or anything setting out the outcomes or indicators against which the success of the trial will be measured. That is a major failing of accountability transparency and public scrutiny and one which we believe the minister should immediately redress.Secondly, the trial effectively privatises these particular air traffic services at this airport during the trial. That cuts directly across the Senate's rejection earlier this year of regulations that would have permitted the contracting out of air traffic services. The Senate very clearly rejected those regulations and it rejected them for very good reasons. It believed that the provision of air traffic and aerodrome safety services was wholly and solely the responsibility of government. It may be that further down the track the government convinces the Senate that some of these sorts of services should be provided by private companies or individuals but, to date, that has not occurred. So to turn around and use a private company to run this trial is, we believe, a direct contravention of the Senate disallowance and a snub to the Senate and the parliament of Australia.Airservices Australia is clearly charged with the legal responsibility of providing air traffic and aeronautical information services under the Airservices Act. But CASA and Airservices Australia are claiming these particular services, certified air/ground services, are not air traffic services. The argument goes that, if they are not air traffic services, anyone can provide them and Airservices Australia is entitled to decline to become involved. That is patently absurd. Generally, certified air/ground operators provide details of known air traffic and may suggest a course of action to a pilot to assist in the safety of operations. That, in anyone's definition, is an air traffic service. What is happening here, we believe, is that some fancy footwork is being done by CASA and Airservices Australia, with the minister clearly cognisant of this, to get private companies in the door to deliver these services by brazenly denying they are air traffic services.Thirdly, we have concerns about the role of CASA in this trial. It seems as though CASA asked Airservices Australia to provide the services and they said, `No, we're too busy working out how to make a fortune out of TAAATS.' So CASA, presumably in the interests of wanting to address safety concerns at Yulara, decided to arrange for Ambidji to provide the services for the trial. But that raises a couple of crucial questions: why didn't CASA insist on Airservices Australia coming to the party? What business does CASA have in the arranging or procuring of air traffic services?I would have thought there were sufficient burnt fingers around, after the disastrous G class airspace trial last year, to at least make them stop and think about a potential conflict of interest with regard to this sort of matter. It seems to me that a more appropriate course of action for CASA to take would have been to go to the minister and say, `Look, we've identified some serious concerns at Yulara. We want to run a trial there to see if we can address those concerns and we want you to tell Airservices Australia, as the organisation responsible for the provision of these services, to cooperate with us in the running of the trial.' We believe that would have been a more appropriate and publicly responsible course of action.Obviously, my personal view is that there is considerable potential for conflict of interest in having Ansett and Qantas pay for the trial in the first place. I would not have thought there would be many that would demur from that. I think it would have been much more appropriate, from a public policy and public accountability perspective, for CASA and Airservices to share the cost of the trial.I do understand, of course, the cost pressure that public organisations are under and perhaps everyone jumped at the chance to run a trial with no cost to their budgets. In this day and age, maybe that is understandable in some way. But there are two points to make about that. First, even with airlines funding the trial, Airservices should still have provided the relevant services, not a private company. Secondly, Airservices Australia have just revealed in their corporate plan that they expect to make an operating profit of $228 million over the next five years. Perhaps some of that profit could be directed into assisting the task of making regional aerodromes safer places.Finally, this trial does not simply reflect poorly on CASA and Airservices Australia; we believe it reflects very badly on the Howard government's agenda for aviation safety in Australia. That agenda—as we saw early this year with the government regulations—is very clearly the privatisation of air traffic control services. You only have to look at Airservices Australia's corporate plan tabled last week to see that agenda expressed very unambiguously. `To achieve its new vision,' the report tells us, `Airservices Australia will position itself to be an aggressive competitor in delivering air traffic management services, aviation rescue and firefighting services and related business, technology and information services in our target markets.' That is what this country's public provider of air traffic services has become: `an aggressive competitor' going after `target markets'.Are we all going to be happy when we turn around in a few years from now to find that the `aggressive' Airservices Australia is being little more than a marketing agency for the TAAATS system while a foreign owned company—like Serco—runs every other air traffic control service in the country, with perhaps an Australian company picking up a few scraps here and there? I do not think so. Are we seriously expected to believe that will be an improvement on having a publicly owned and controlled Airservices Australia providing air traffic services across the board? Obviously, we do not think that will be an improvement.If he learned nothing more from the Victorian state election, I would have thought Minister Anderson might have realised that Australians living in regional areas are sick and tired of—and have rejected—an agenda that places privatisation and the pursuit of competition ahead of every other value. I would have thought he might have started to realise that a great many Australians think there are other values worth placing ahead of competition at any cost.Labor believes that one of those axiomatic values is that aviation safety is a public responsibility and that air traffic services should be provided by government and motivated by the need for the protection of public safety—not by the need to make a profit. That is why we will continue to oppose the privatisation of air traffic and airport firefighting services. We will continue to point out to the minister that setting Airservices Australia on this new path of aggressive competition in target markets while failing to meet its current obligations is an approach in direct contradiction to what we believe is the government's responsibility to provide a safe aviation environment.Senate adjourned at 7.40 p.m.Documents90849084The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report—No. 56—Roper Valley (Kewulyi) land claim no. 163 and explanatory statement by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron).Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 1 April to 30 June 1999 (2nd).East Timor—Report of the official Australian delegation to East Timor, 26 August to 1 September 1999.Employment Services Regulatory Authority—Report for 1997-98 and ministerial response by the Minister for Employment Services (Mr Abbott).Final budget outcome 1998-99—Report by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), September 1999.Public Lending Right Committee—Report for 1998-99. The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian National Railways Commission Sale Act—1997 Railways Agreement in relation to non-metropolitan railways of the State of South Australia—First Amending Agreement, dated 21 September 1999.Defence Act—Determination under section 58H—Determination No. 12 of 1999, Officer Trainees and Reserve Forces Medical and Dental Officers—Salary Amendments.Endangered Species Protection Act—Declarations under section 18 amending Schedule 1—99/ESP6, 99/ESP7, 99/ESP9 and 99/ESP10.National Health Act—Determination under Schedule 1—IHS 14/1999 and IHS 15/1999.Public Service Act—Foreign Affairs and Trade Determination 1999/17.Radiocommunications Act—Spectrum Re-allocation Declaration 1999 (No. 2).Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 12/99.Telecommunications Act—Telecommunications Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) Amendment Notice 1999 (No. 1).Answers to Questions on Notice9085The following answers to questions were circulated:9085(Question No. 1342)13429085Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) How many Guests of Government were there in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) In each instance, who were they.(3) What was the total cost to the Commonwealth.9085Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Note: The answers to parts (1) and (2) are given in terms of the principal only and not the accompanying party, some of whom, including spouses, were also accorded guest of government status.(1) The total number of Guests of Government for the 1998-99 financial year was 48.(2) In each instance they were:Foreign Royalty:HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, Crown Prince of ThailandHeads of State:HE Mary McAleese, President of IrelandHE Mr Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, President of ItalyHE Dr Arpad Goncz, President of HungaryHeads of Government:HE Mr Mart Siimann, Prime Minister of EstoniaHon Bill Skate CMG MP, Prime Minister of Papua New GuineaMajor-General the Hon Sitiveni L Rabuka, MP OBE (Mil), Prime Minister of FijiHE Mr Goh Chok Tong, Prime Minister of SingaporeHE Mr Phan Van Khai, Prime Minister of VietnamMinisters:HE Dr Surin Pitsuwan, Minister of Foreign Affairs, ThailandHon Jonetani Kaukimoce MP, Minister for Youth, Employment Opportunities and Sports, Fiji Mr W Noel Levi CBE, Secretary General, South Pacific ForumAUSMIN Hon Dr Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, USA Hon William S Cohen, Secretary of Defense, USA General Henry H Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, USA Admiral Joseph W Prueher USN, Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command, USAHE Sheikh Fahim Al-Qasimi, Minister of Economy and Commerce, United Arab EmiratesHE Mr Wei Jianxing, Member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, Member of the Secretariat CPC Central Committee, ChinaHE Dato' Seri Haji Mohd Najib Bin Tun Haji Abd Razak, Minister for Education, MalaysiaHE Mr Masahiko Koumura, Minister for Foreign Affairs, JapanMr Niels Helveg Petersen, Minister for Foreign Affairs, DenmarkMr Alec Erwin MP, Minister of Trade and Industry, South AfricaEleventh Australia-Papua New Guinea Ministerial Forum (Papua New Guinea Ministers) The Honourable Roy Yaki MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade The Rt Hon Sir Rabbie Namaliu KCMG MP, Minister for Petroleum and Gas The Honourable Peter Waieng MP, Minister for Defence The Honourable Ian Ling-Stuckey MP—Minister for Commerce and Industry The Honourable Thomas Pelika MP—Minister for Correction Institution Services and Police The Honourable Sam Akoitai MP—Minister for Bouganville Affairs The Honourable Vincent Auali MP—Minister for Transport The Honourable Kala Swokin CBE MP—Minister for Civil Aviation The Honourable Dibara Yagabo MP—Minister for Provincial and Local Government Affairs The Honourable Peter Peipul MP—Minister for Public Service The Honourable Yauwe Riyong MP—Minister for Works The Honourable William Ebonosi MP Vice Minister for TreasuryHon Lakshman Kadirgamar PC MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sri LankaHE Dr Tran Xuan Gia, Minister of Planning and Investment, VietnamHE Mr Adi Sasono, Minister for Cooperatives and Small Enterprises, IndonesiaHE Mr Kaoru Yosano, Minister for International Trade and Industry, JapanHE Mr Bao Xuding, Vice Chairman, State Development Planning Commission, ChinaHE Dato Leo Moggie, Minister for Energy, Communications and Multimedia, MalaysiaHE Mr Suwat Liptapanlop, Minister for Industry, ThailandHE Mr Park Tae-Young, Minister for Commerce, Industry and Energy, KoreaHE Mr Said Ben Mustapha, Minister for Foreign Affairs, TunisiaHon Orlando S Mercado, Minister for Defence, PhilippinesHRH Prince `Ulukalala Lavaka, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence, TongaOthers:HE Mr Noboru Taheshita, Former Prime Minister, JapanHon Fidel Valdez Ramos, Former President, PhilippinesMr Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President, USSR(3) The total cost to the Commonwealth was $1,737,475.299086(Question No. 1343)13439086Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) Has the department recently co-sponsored an exhibition with Rio Tinto, dealing with Rio Tinto's relationship with Aboriginal people.(2) (a) Is it correct that this exhibition is comprised, in part, of a series of panels: and(b) do each of these panels refer by name to Rio Tinto (3) (a) Is it correct that the exhibition is comprised, in part, of video presentations; and(b) do each of these presentations refer by name to Rio Tinto(4) Has a representative of Rio Tinto spoken at each of the launches of the exhibition; if so:(a) what was the content of those speeches; and(b) were they sanctioned by the Government(5) (a) In which countries has this exhibition been showed;(b) are there other countries in which the exhibition will be shown in the future; and(c) in each case, on what dates has it been, or will it be, shown.(6) Has the Commonwealth Government contributed taxpayer funds to the Rio Tinto exhibition; if so:(a) how much federal money has been contributed; and(b) how much money has been contributed by Rio Tinto.(7) (a) Are further costs expected to be incurred;(b) how much of these costs will be borne by the Australian Government; and(c) how much will be borne by Rio Tinto(8) Under what program were the funds made available to sponsor the exhibition with Rio Tinto.(9) If the Federal Government has partly funded the exhibition, does this constitute Federal Government support for the content of the exhibition; if not, why not.(10) Did the Federal Government view the material that is being exhibited by Rio Tinto; if so, who viewed the material and when.(11) Were any recommendations made to Rio Tinto on the content of the exhibition; if so, what were they.(12) (a) Who was the Minister responsible for approving the funding of the sponsorship; and(b) did that Minister, or the Minister's office, view the exhibition before funding was approved.9086Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes. The concept of the exhibition arose out of the National Reconciliation Convention in 1997, at which the Rio Tinto subsidiary Hamersley Iron was declared national winner in the business category of the Reconciliation Awards. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade invited Rio Tinto and other award winners to participate in a project which would demonstrate the benefits of cooperation and partnership between Aboriginal communities and industry. Rio Tinto was the only company which agreed to participate.(2) (a) Yes. There are 8 modules comprising 16 panels (1 module for each project consisting of 2-3 photographs on each panel) with brief descriptive text.(b) Yes. Each panel refers to a series of cooperative projects between Aboriginal communities in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland and Rio Tinto aimed at developing employment and training, environmental rehabilitation, cultural heritage protection, business enterprises, cultural awareness, education, health and sports.(3) (a) Yes. There are 8 video monitors: 1 on each module. Each video comprises a 2-3 minute presentation about each of the cooperative projects.(b) Yes. Each video contains a brief presentation on each project by Aboriginal community representatives, business and project participants, explaining in their own words how each partnership or collaboration was developed and why, and the benefits gained.(4) (a) Yes. Attached is a copy of the speech delivered at the launch of the exhibition in Canberra on 9 November 1999 by Barry Cusack, Managing Director of Rio Tinto Australia. All subsequent speeches by Rio Tinto representatives delivered similar messages.(b) No. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade received an advance copy of the speech by the Managing Director of Rio Tinto Australia at the launch of the exhibition in Canberra. Speeches by Rio Tinto representatives at openings at other venues were similar in content.(5) (a) Australia, Philippines, South Korea, Japan and Switzerland.(b) Yes. The exhibition will be shown in The Netherlands from 18-29 October 1999. Venues in Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom are being considered.(c) 9 November 1998 Canberra (official launch)16-27 November 1998 Manila25 January-5 February 1999 Perth11-18 February 1999 Brisbane2-18 March 1999 Seoul13-21 May 1999 Melbourne17 June-6 July 1999 Tokyo19-30 July 1999 Geneva18-29 October 1999 The Hague(6) Yes. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has contributed funds to the development of this joint initiative with Rio Tinto.(a) $295,000 (b) Rio Tinto is not prepared to release this information.(7) (a) Yes.(b) $75,000(c) Rio Tinto is not prepared to release this information.(8) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Program of the Images of Australia Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.(9) Yes.(10) Yes. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including the Executive Officer of the Department's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Program, were closely consulted during the development of the exhibition. The Exhibition was also viewed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on 9 November 1998 at the official launch in Canberra and by the then Minister for Trade in Manila on 16 November 1998. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs also attended the exhibition in Geneva in July 1999.(11) Yes. Recommendations included: that the overall theme of the exhibition incorporate the `voice' of Aboriginal Australia; that content, including video presentations, photographs and text be cleared by the Aboriginal communities involved, and; that a working group including Aboriginal representatives, monitor and advise on all stages and content of the exhibition's development. These recommendations were implemented. As a result, the exhibition has been strongly supported by prominent members of the aboriginal community including Patrick Dodson who wrote the introduction, Lowitja O'Donoghue who attended the launch in Canberra and ATSIC Chairman, Gatjil Djerrkura who attended the exhibition in Geneva in July 1999.(12) (a) The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer.(b) No. The exhibition was developed after funding was approved.9087(Question No. 1354)13549087Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) Is the Minister aware that : (a) Acrolein, a chemical used to control weeds in irrigation channels, is often mixed with hydroquinone to keep Acrolein stable; (b) hydroquinone is carcinogenic and a germ-cell mutagen; (c) the carcinogenic properties of acrolein have not been fully evaluated due to the chemical's extreme acute toxicity, that is, laboratory animals die before carcinogenic effects have can be identified; (d) some operators who have been involved in injecting acrolein into water supplies cannot read well and would have difficulty completing formal training courses in the safe use of the chemical; (e) acrolein is listed as a possible carcinogen in the Hazardous Substances Resources Guide and that other effects of exposure include nausea, headaches, pulmonary oedema and possible death; and (f) extreme effects of prolonged exposure to acrolein on skin and eyes, or, if swallowed; if so, why did the Minister not refer to these effects in his answer to question on notice No. 396 (Senate Hansard , 8 August 1999, p. 2443).(2) Is the Minister aware that: (a) some of the highest concentrations of acrolein have been measured in irrigation canals, particularly in the United States of America; (b) workers have inhaled excessive quantities of acrolein vapour in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria; and (c) vapour from an injection into the Yarrawonga main canal in Victoria caused discomfort to residents in nearby houses.(3) Is the Minister also aware: (a) of the case of Mr Ian Deacon, who was not notified of an injection of acrolein into the canal near his farm in 1993; (b) that Mr Deacon and his family were poisoned by acrolein; and (c) that Mr Deacon's battery-hen business was destroyed by acrolein poisoning.9088Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Yes.(b) The Department of Health and Aged Care advises that long-term (2 years) feeding studies in mice and rats indicate that hydroquinone has a marginal carcinogenic potential.(c) The Department of Health and Aged Care advises that it assessed the carcinogenic potential of acrolein in 1994 using the full range of studies normally used to assess the carcinogenic potential of agricultural chemicals. Each of the studies produces a clear `No Observed Effect Level', and there was no evidence of any significant increase in cancer incidence seen at any dose in any of these studies.(d) Under the National Registration Scheme for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, control-of-use remains a State/Territory function. Those States in which acrolein is registered for use (New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Austral ia) advise that they are unaware of operators of acrolein equipment in their jurisdictions who cannot read well. Any evidence to the contrary should be supplied to relevant State officials, who will investigate the matter.(e) The Department of Health and Aged Care advises that it is not aware of the Hazardous Substances Resources Guide. A recognised international reference is published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It shows acrolein as being in Group 3; ie it is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. This listing is due to the inadequacy of the data reviewed to make a clear determination of the carcinogenic potential, rather than to indications that acrolein is likely to cause cancer. The current Acceptable Daily Intake for acrolein is 0.0005 milligram per kilogram of bodyweight per day. Accordingly, a daily oral intake of 0.035 mg per day for a 70 kg person should not present an appreciable health risk.(f) The Department of Health and Aged Care advises that acrolein has an odour perception threshold of around 0.07 mg per cubic metre, which should assist in avoiding hazardous levels in air. Accordingly, prolonged exposure or swallowing is extremely improbable.In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that the answer to question on notice No. 396 was complete and accurate.(2) (a) As acrolein is registered for use in canals it is to be expected that elevated concentrations of acrolein are to be found there, rather than elsewhere.(b) Officials from New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria advise that they are unaware of any basis for this allegation. Any evidence should be supplied to relevant State officials.(c) Goulburn Murray Water advises that an incident in Yarrawonga occurred approximately 20 years ago, which is prior to the introduction of the present controls over use. At that time, acrolein was used at concentrations of 30 to 50 parts per million, whereas the concentration used now is 0.5 parts per million.(3) (a), (b) and (c) This issue has not been brought to the Federal Government's attention. However, it is a State issue. State Governments advise they are unaware of the alleged incident. Any evidence on this matter should be supplied to relevant State officials. 9089(Question No. 1356)13569089Lundy, Sen KateSenator Lundy7G6ACTALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:(1) Why was Ms Douglas' contract terminated with no recompense to her.(2) Why is the National Gallery of Australia (NGA) refusing to acknowledge the judgement of the Australian Capital Territory's Magistrate's Court and Supreme Court in relation to this case.(3) What is the higher appeal lodged by the NGA costing the gallery and taxpayers.9089Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1), (2) and (3) It is not appropriate for me to answer questions about matters that may be in issue in litigation.9089(Question No. 1362)13629089Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:(1) (a) How many Commonwealth Government departments provide salary packaging for their staff; and (b) can details be provided, by department.(2) What proportion of staff within each of these departments are eligible for salary packaging.(3) What is the average amount of the salary packages (as a dollar amount and as a percentage of total salary)(4) What types of benefits are available to public servants through salary packaging.(5) How much revenue is lost to the Government through salary packaging of Commonwealth public service employees.9089Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) In accordance with Treasury's Certified Agreement, salary packaging was offered to staff in late August 1999. Treasury is unable to provide information on other departments.(b) No see (1) (a).(2) All permanent staff within Treasury are eligible to access salary packaging. (3) The arrangements have only been in place for a short time and only a small number of employees have elected to enter into salary packaging. Detailed information on the value of salary packages is not currently available.(4) Treasury has limited the benefits available to be salary packaged to the following items:. membership fees and subscriptions to professional associations;. home office expenses;. financial counselling fees;. disability and income protection insurance premiums; . self-education expenses (work related);. work related travel expenses;. mobile phones for predominantly business use (with incidental private use);. personal computers (notebook and laptop only);. contributions to a complying superannuation fund or Retirement Savings Account;. motor vehicle (for private use) by way of a novated lease; and. private health insurance premiums.(5) Treasury is unable to provide this information.9089(Question No. 1420)14209089Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 September 1999:(1) Is the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) currently considering implementing the Western Province Coastal Zone Management Project in Papua New Guinea (PNG).(2) Is the project in the catchment area of the Fly River, the same catchment area which has suffered massive environmental damage as a result of the Ok Tedi mine in which BHP is a major shareholder.(3) Is it a fact that, until recently, AusAID: (a) regarded the project as poorly conceived and that is likely to cause more problems that it will solve; and (b) considered it unlikely to receive financial support.(4) Is the project currently being `fast-tracked' by AusAID.(5) Is AusAID's sudden endorsement of the project a response to BHP's rumoured withdrawal from Ok Tedi Mining Limited (OTML). (6) What is the Minister's position with respect to BHP's legal obligations to compensate landowners and rehabilitate the environment affected by the Ok Tedi mine.(7) Is it the intention of AusAID to provide support for those communities in the Ok Tedi area that have been affected by the operations of the BHP subsidiary, OTML.(8) Is the Minister aware of any plans by BHP to sell its shares of OTML to a Chinese or Dutch mining company and thereby pass on its responsibilities to those affected by the mine's environmental damage to the PNG Government and a third party.(9) Has the Minister, his department or AusAID had any meetings with BHP at which the issues of the project or BHP's withdrawal from Ok Tedi mine were discussed.(10) Is the Minister aware that OTML recently admitted that the environmental impacts of the Ok Tedi mine `would be far greater and more damaging than predicted.(11) Does the Minister have a view on whether Australian taxpayers' money should be channelled through AusAID to rehabilitation works that are rightfully the legal responsibility of BHP.9090Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows:(1) AusAID officials are currently considering a project design document for a coastal zone management project in Western Province of PNG.(2) The proposed project is not in the Fly River watershed area but does include part of the Fly River delta. The project has been designed to be contiguous with but not including communities which previously received compensation from OTML. Planned activities in the WPCZM Project are located over 250 km from the Ok Tedi mine.(3) No. The project's objectives are sound. The project is planned in a difficult environment. For this reason AusAID has moved forward cautiously and sought to improve the design to maximise sustainability. Approval for the project will not be given until Mr Downer is satisfied with the project design.(4) The proposed project is not being `fast-tracked'. The project has not yet been approved. Consideration of the redesigned project is nearing completion in line with quality assurance processes built into the project development cycle.(5) AusAID's consideration of the project design document is part of the normal project cycle and unrelated to Ok Tedi mining operations.(6) The legal obligations of OTML are a matter for the Board and shareholders of OTML.(7) AusAID has no intention of providing support for communities affected by the operations of OTML.(8) No. BHP has indicated that it will consider its future involvement pending a decision by OTML on the future of the mine.(9) Yes. AusAID and DFAT officials have attended briefing sessions provided by BHP on the future of Ok Tedi mine. The issue has also been discussed at Australia-PNG Business Council (APNGBC) meetings (at which AusAID and DFAT officials were present).(10) Yes. OTML released an environmental impact options report in August indicating that the environmental effects of the mine would be far greater and more damaging than predicted.(11) OTML has advised DFAT officials that the clean-up of the Fly River system and rehabilitation of local communities will be considered in the OTML closure plan. There is no intention to use aid funding to rehabilitate environmental damage caused by the OK Tedi mine.