1999-09-303914SENATE921501999-09-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.921510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:92151008U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.We the undersigned humbly request that the Senate honours the obligations of the Commonwealth of Australia to protect its territory that has received World Heritage status according to the World Heritage Convention of which Australia is a signatory.Significant areas of marine and mangrove ecosystems of Australia's World Heritage Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are directly threatened with destruction by the adjacent construction of Australia's largest tourist resort and marina complex at Oyster Point near Cardwell North Queensland (opposite Hinchinbrook Island).We implore the Senate to use its powers immediately to permanently halt the construction of the marina and access channel in the World Heritage "Buffer Zone" as recommended by the Valentine Report made to his Department in October 1994.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 100 citizens)92151458U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement;2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations;3. Not sign the MAI unless substantive amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards; 4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be held.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 145 citizens)9215158WP6Lightfoot Sen PhillipTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled:We the undersigned would like the Australian Federal Government and Parliament to;1. recognise the Committee Representing People's Parliament (C.R.P.P.) as the highest authority in BURMA.2. urge S.P.D.C. regime to enter dialogue with C.R.P.P.3. urge S.P.D.C. regime to free all political prisoners.4. urge S.P.D.C. regime to re-open all universities, colleges and legalise the student's union.5. adopt selective purchasing law banning contract against Australian companies doing business with S.P.D.C.Senator LightfootWP6Senator Lightfoot(from 158 citizens)Petitions received.Notices92159215Senator Greig to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to give effect to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and for related purposes. Genocide Convention Bill 1999 .Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) on 30 September 1999, BHP shutdown its steel smelting operations in Newcastle, but that 1 100 workers will continue to roll steel, and (ii) with respect to the workers affected by the shutdown, that BHP case-managed all of them through its world best practice Jobs Pathways Program;(b) commends the Howard Government for setting up a special taskforce to advise the Prime Minister on the social consequences of the shutdown, as well as a Hunter Structural Assistance Package of $10 million to build key infrastructure, and that all of these measures are expected to generate at least 1 000 direct, as well as 4 000 indirect, jobs;(c) looks forward to the announcements of additional support from the Federal Government, including special assistance to sub-contractors;(d) commends the Howard Government for setting an excellent example of government acting as a change leader, through setting the stage for the Hunter region to grow in diverse ways and to generate more jobs; and(e) expresses dismay that the Member for Newcastle (Mr Morris) has not lifted the telephone once to speak to any member of the Government on this matter.Business92169216Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business notice of motion No. 319 standing in the name of Senator Carr relating to Indigenous education; and(2) Consideration of government documents.Committees921692169216Motion (by Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 be extended to Monday, 11 October 1999.Notices92169216Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that the earth's population will reach 6 billion during October 1999;(b) recognises that the 20th century began with 1.6 billion people and will end with 6.1 billion;(c) understands that there may be as many as 10 to 14 billion people depending on the planet's finite resources during the 21st century; and(d) calls for Australia to establish a global population policy.9216An item of business was postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Ridgeway for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, postponed till 11 October 1999.Committees921692169216Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6) of the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, Senator Watson be appointed the chair of the committee.92169216Motion (by Senator McKiernan) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on the operation of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program be extended to the first sitting day of the second sitting week in 2000.Miscellaneous9216Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That the Senate notes, with deep concern, the declining level of service provision by Telstra, as revealed by the Australian Communication Authority.Committees921692169216Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on issues relating to air safety, the application of competition policy to services provided by Airservices Australia, and the impact of Airspace 2000 and location specific pricing be extended to the last sitting day in February 2000.92179217Motion (by Senator McKiernan) agreed to:That the Legal and Constitutional References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 21 October 1999, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program.Miscellaneous9217Motion (by Senator Bartlett) put:That the Senate—(a) notes that the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman) will be providing a discussion paper to her newly-established reference group developing a green paper on welfare reform;(b) supports the notion of an open, public and wide-ranging community debate on the future of Australia's welfare system; and(c) requires that the discussion paper mentioned in (a) be laid on the table no later than 3 pm on 12 October 1999.09:41:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)36Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ridgeway, A. D.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.31Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Lundy, K. Tambling, G. E. J.Ray, R. F. Minchin, N. H.Schacht, C. C. Abetz, E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Notices92179217Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Chris Evans)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 327 standing in the name of Senator Evans for today, relating to genetically-modified food, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous921709:44:009217Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 309, standing in my name and relating to an act of self-determination in Western Sahara, be taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.921709:44:009217Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 309.Question resolved in the affirmative.9218Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 309 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business this day till determined.9218Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) welcomes the progress made by the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in Western Sahara, through the organisation of a free and fair referendum to enable its people to exercise their right to self-determination, in July 2000;(b) calls on Morocco to abide by the UN-OAU peace plan and to fully cooperate with these organisations in their efforts to organise the referendum; and(c) urges the Australian Government: (i) to extend all due assistance to the UN mission in Western Sahara, and (ii) to establish official contacts with representatives of Polisario, the movement representing the people of Western Sahara.Miscellaneous921809:45:009218Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I ask, also on behalf of Senator Stott Despoja, that general business notice of motion No. 299 standing in my name for today relating to Internet censorship be taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.9218Contingent motion (by Senator Mark Bishop, at the request of Senator Faulkner) be agreed to:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Faulkner moving a motion relating to conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 299.Question resolved in the affirmative.9218Motion (by Senator Mark Bishop, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 299 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business this day till determined.9218Motion (by Senator Bishop, and on behalf of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes the range of recent criticism and developments surrounding the Government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 (the Act);(b) recognises that: (i) the Act will not achieve the Government's stated objectives, (ii) the Act will impact adversely on the emergent Australian e-commerce and Internet industries, which are strong employers of young Australians, (iii) the Act will discourage investment in information technology projects in Australia and will force Australian business offshore, and (iv) the most appropriate arrangement for the regulation of Internet content is the education of users, including parents and teachers, about appropriate use of the Internet, the empowerment of end-users, and the application of appropriate end-user filtering devices where required; and(c) calls on the Government: (i) to immediately address the concerns raised by industry and the community about the unworkability of the Government's approach, and the Act in general, (ii) to urgently revisit aspects of the Act, prior to its commencement on 1 January 2000, and (iii) to table a report on the effectiveness and consequences of the Act in the Senate at 6-month intervals from the date of implementation of the regulatory regime.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Thank you, Madam President. I—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The matter has been disposed of, Senator. I just put the question. We had the precedence motion. You then moved the motion. I put the motion and it was carried.09:47:009219Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—by leave—There was certainly a misunderstanding right across this side of the chamber. It was certainly our intention that there be a debate on the matter. We were quite happy—and I think it is understood on all sides—that the suspension motion should be supported. Beyond that, we will be voting against it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You did vote against it. There was a no call from my right.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—At the end of the debate we will be voting against it, but we wish to have the debate. I seek leave to have the motion recommitted.09:48:009219Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—The confusion started when Senator Bishop moved a motion out of the sequence that would normally appear when you are seeking to suspend standing orders. You drew his attention to that. I thought that was the motion. It was the clear understanding on this side that the motion being dealt with was a procedural motion. You may recall calling Senator Bishop's attention to the fact that he needed to move that procedural motion. We took a step backwards. We thought on this side that Senator Bishop had moved a procedural motion.Clearly, there was a misunderstanding. There was a misunderstanding on the other side because Senator Bishop moved an incorrect motion. You drew his attention to that. He then corrected that. I submit to you that there was a clear misunderstanding across the chamber as to the sequence of motions. There had been an informal understanding around the chamber that this matter would be dealt with and debated. I know that in discussions I had with the Democrats senator who is handling this, Senator Stott Despoja, and with other senators we agreed there would be a debate on this. If honourable senators want to take advantage of confusion that was clear on the other side of the chamber—from Senator Bishop's point of view—and around the chamber to ensure that no debate occurs, so be it. The government is happy to see this debated. It is happy to see the suspension proceed and would prefer to see this matter debated.09:50:009219Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—Notwithstanding the fact that the government is quite happy to remove questions allocated to me without debate, I think it is important—and I am therefore very tempted to refuse leave, but I can overcome that—that, if a matter like this draws the wish for debate from the government, the debate should proceed. I am not going to block leave in retaliation, but the government ought to be more alert to the process in this place. It is fast moving when the motions are here. The government has a number of members here. The minister should be watching the process. He lost concentration and therefore lost the flow of the process. I am happy for us to go back to the point where a debate takes place. Madam President, I was watching the flow of the debate, and it was quite clear to me the way your advice to Senator Bishop went and was resolved.Honourable senators interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, that is correct, Senator. I am happy to grant leave for the debate to proceed.09:52:009219O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—In relation to the suggestion that the opposition do not want this matter debated or seek to put obstacles in the way of its debate, I simply say that that is not the case. The opposition are happy to have this matter debated and will grant leave. I did make the comment when it was suggested that we needed to seek leave to recommit the motion that I thought we needed to do more than that. Leave to recommit the motion is simply to put it again, I would have thought, but we want to return to the point where the motion is to be debated. But that is our position, and I would not want it to be misrepresented.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The leave is granted. Senator Alston is moving to rescind the vote on general business notice of motion No. 299 so that the matter can proceed to debate.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I am indebted to Senator O'Brien for that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bishop, you may move notice of motion No. 299 and speak to it if you wish.922009:53:009220Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—On my own behalf and on behalf of Senator Stott Despoja, I move:That the Senate—(a) notes the range of recent criticism and developments surrounding the Government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 (the Act);(b) recognises that: (i) the Act will not achieve the Government's stated objectives, (ii) the Act will impact adversely on the emergent Australian e-commerce and Internet industries, which are strong employers of young Australians, (iii) the Act will discourage investment in information technology projects in Australia and will force Australian business offshore, and (iv) the most appropriate arrangement for the regulation of Internet content is the education of users, including parents and teachers, about appropriate use of the Internet, the empowerment of end-users, and the application of appropriate end-user filtering devices where required; and(c) calls on the Government: (i) to immediately address the concerns raised by industry and the community about the unworkability of the Government's approach, and the Act in general, (ii) to urgently revisit aspects of the Act, prior to its commencement on 1 January 2000, and (iii) to table a report on the effectiveness and consequences of the Act in the Senate at 6-month intervals from the date of implementation of the regulatory regime.This motion has three critical aspects. Firstly, it notes a range of community and industry criticisms of the recently passed Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999. Secondly, it invites the Senate to recognise that the act cannot and will not achieve the purposes intended by the government. Thirdly, and most importantly, paragraph (c) seeks the government revisit aspects of the act and table a report on the effectiveness and consequences of the act in the Senate at six-monthly intervals.Paragraph (a) essentially goes to recent criticisms from a whole range of community, industry and telecommunications observers and analysts who have all come to the view that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act is seriously deficient in a range of respects, some of which I will discuss in detail later. Paragraph (b) invites the Senate to recognise that the act cannot and will not achieve the purposes intended by government and suggests more appropriate mechanisms for regulation and control of Internet content.Paragraph (c) is in three parts. Paragraph (c)(i) addresses the general industry and community concerns about the unworkability of the act. Paragraph (c)(ii) calls upon the government to revisit particular defined areas which the opposition identifies as having priority concerns. The opposition believes that revisiting should occur prior to 1 January 2000. Paragraph (c)(iii) goes to the heart of the issues of information disclosure, accountability and informed public education and discussion. It requires the government to table a report on the effectiveness and consequences of the act in the Senate every six months from the date of the implementation of the new regulatory regime.The purpose of paragraph (c)(iii) is to reflect the concerns expressed by the opposition during the formal debates on the then bill and the desire of the opposition—and, one presumes, a range of community and industry groups—to have some hard, empirical data as to the effectiveness of the act. The opposition does not believe the act as currently drafted will achieve the government's stated purpose. We note this debate to date has been accompanied by a degree of assertion, disinformation and positioning.Paragraph (c)(iii) is essentially a provision that allows the Senate to review on a regular basis the effectiveness and consequences of the act. The effectiveness will be determined by reference to the objects of the act, the minister's second reading speech, relevant Hansard comments from the committee processes both in the chamber and in public hearing and, finally, the relevant aspects of the second reading speech by the opposition. At first instance, the ABA would have responsibility for the preparation of that tabling document, and the opposition expects relevant community and industry opinion will also be considered in that tabling document.During the committee process of the bill, the opposition strongly argued for both a review and a sunset clause. Both of those amendments were defeated and, in the final analysis, the rejection of those amendments caused the opposition to vote against the bill. During the committee stage, the government insisted upon its own particular review clause, but the minister gave undertakings, recorded in Hansard, that the review process would be both wide and broad and go to the act in its entirety. Paragraph (c)(iii) simply builds upon that review process by requiring the tabling of a report every six months.I recall that during the debate the opposition repeatedly asserted that there had been a real lack of community consultation and a real lack of participation of community processes leading up to the tabling and discussion of the bill. I made the point that there had been extensive lobbying by various interest groups but very little real community lobbying. The opposition believes that was a serious omission and, accordingly, paragraph (c)(iii) will allow a monitoring role for those interested in this debate.Returning to paragraph (a), let me make the following points. Adverse comments, parental desire for real solutions, parental desire for control of the Internet in their home, industry concerns as to cost and unintended and undesirable consequences are all comprehended by paragraph (a) of the motion. If it had simply been Professor Strossen of the American Civil Liberties Union, one could safely observe that the United States has a different cultural tradition with respect to issues of censorship, free speech and the role of their court system. It is relevant to the social dynamics only of that country.This country has different traditions and, by and large, they fall on the side of a more interventionist and regulatory role for government. This has extended for many years to a range of communication media, and we only have to look at classification systems for television, film and literature to see the evidence of a more prominent regulatory role for government. But the concerns expressed are not only those of a recently visiting US professor: they go much deeper into the heart of our community.Take, for instance, the findings of the Bertelsmann survey released within the last four or five weeks by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which showed that 90 per cent of Australian Internet users believed end-use filtering was useful and that almost 76 per cent of Australians were confident of controlling access to Internet content themselves and did not want to rely on ISPs, government agencies or web site producers. That survey and its results are not surprising to participants in this debate. I vividly recall that, in the public hearings, the American firm AOL gave evidence of its 20 million subscribers around the world—11 million describing themselves as parents with families—and, of that figure, well over 80 per cent paid to subscribe to a filter product.I know, from comments made to me by various communities in Perth about the availability of social filtering devices, that there is a large untapped market that retailers and ISPs will be able to fill. Parents and other organisations in de facto control of children want to able to provide a safe product. Accordingly, the ALP has always taken the view and insisted strongly on parental empowerment and community education concerning choice and responsibility in this contentious area.As a parent, those concerns were brought home to me within the last six weeks when my wife found my 11-year-old daughter crying and upset. As it emerged, our daughter had been watching a TV show in the early evening. She was intrigued by some of the characters in the TV show. With a child's natural sense of curiosity, she went to find out more about the TV characters in that particular series on the web site of our local TV station. She typed in www. and the channel number and was immediately connected to a web site in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, the TV site was not disclosing details about harmless TV characters, but was a gateway to a hard-core pornographic site that left nothing to the imagination. Naturally, an innocent 11-year-old would be offended and upset by such offensive material. My wife calmed my daughter down and said words to the effect that, `Now I know what you have been talking about for the last few weeks; it is about time this problem was fixed.'This relatively minor and inconsequential episode goes to the heart of some of the legitimate concerns expressed in this debate. The government's act was and is a smokescreen. It does not solve the problems of minor access to illegal, improper, offensive or unauthorised sites. Indeed, the problems are developing and becoming more pronounced. It would have been better if the government had adopted a position of end user empowerment and turned to education and the advertising of end-use filter devices or ISPs that provide a safe and appropriate product that reflects mainstream community concerns.The economics of the offensive material industry are interesting. It is essentially a commodity that is offered for sale in high volume. Margins are low and tend to follow scale. Production costs of new material are a variable cost and can be quite high. Return to the providers of capital in this industry depends on high volume sales at low margins, and that is why those who make and distribute offensive materials parade their argument under the guise of free speech and are vehemently anti-censorship. If you take away or significantly reduce the high volume distribution, the economies of this industry can become cost prohibitive. That is one of the reasons why American companies and American producers are keen to expand the market for offensive material. They can recover costs in non-US countries when market access is gradually being limited in their own country.Similarly, I suspect that the widespread availability of low cost end-use filtering devices or safe products for children offered by firms like AOL or Disney has an impact on the volume purchase of offensive material. If somewhere between 60 per cent and 90 per cent of parents do not want offensive material in their homes, the vast majority of people are willing to pay market prices for safe products and the government chose to advertise and encourage the development and sale of such products, a lot of the emotion and heat would be taken out of this debate. I was in the United States last week and there was a report in the USA Today, a daily newspaper distributed across that country, for the week ending 24 September, under the heading, `Unsuspecting web users get page-jacked into porn sites'. That report stated:page-jacking and mouse-trapping are the latest Internet scams to come to light in a government crackdown on pornography sites trying to grab customers quite literally. The new technique, which tricks web surfers into visiting porn sites from which they cannot escape without repeated clicks or restarts are two of the most pernicious techno-dirty effects ever prosecuted.The Federal Trade Commission has obtained a preliminary injunction from a federal court to shut down the porn sites and prevent those involved from trying similar scams in the future. The sites were based in Australia.I will describe how they worked. Scammers made copies of as many as 25 million popular sites, including sites for the Harvard Business Review and the Japanese friendship garden, and posted the copies on their own computers. Search engines trawling the web for new pages soon found the copies and added them to their listings. However, the scammers had added to the fake pages an extra bit of coding so that, as soon as searchers went to a bogus page, it re-routed or page-stacked them to the scammers' porn sites. Once there, the user was mousetrapped at the site and efforts to escape only led to new porn pages—many porn sites sell ads and list ad prices, et cetera. That is exactly the same thing that happened to my daughter some four or five weeks ago. When she tapped into the www.channel—whatever it was—she was unable to get out of it for some five or 10 minutes. That is one of the key issues in this debate that the government's bill does not cover.The government sought to parade its virtue in that debate by saying that it was going to prevent access to unauthorised, improper or illegal material. The problem that we have, and it has been acknowledged in the public debate, is that 90 per cent of material comes in from offshore, predominantly from the West Coast of the United States or from two European countries. Nothing in the government's bill, and nothing in the government's act, prevents that from occurring. That is still happening every day of the week. This goes to the heart of the complaints that the opposition made while the bill was under discussion—that is, that the bill does not solve access to improper or unauthorised material.Turning again to paragraph (a), we have industry analysts and reputable industry companies addressing some of the more unfortunate consequences of the act. Those consequences relate to the significant compliance costs of $150 million for industry and the possible impact on the development of IT and associated service industries in this country. While a recent report, tabled in the last five or six weeks, says that Australia should not seek to control offensive material on the Internet, it does say that Australia should not seek to control offensive material on the Internet in the manner proposed in the broadcasting services amendment bill.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—What report was that?2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—The NAB report. Finally, that report favours pursuit of regulation at an international level, and it is probably time, in this area of debate, for the government to reverse its view and to think locally and act globally. If the bulk of offensive material is coming out of two countries in Europe and the West Coast of the US, it is entirely proper for the government to say that some of that material is grossly offensive and alien to community standards and cultural conditions in Australia and that it would be appropriate for those host countries to take action to regulate firms within their own jurisdiction and that such regulations be taken under international protocols.It is simply inappropriate for the US or governments to hide behind the mantra of free trade. Both major parties in the recent Blue Skies Senate inquiry recognised that culture should be exempted from free trade regulations. That being the case, it is entirely appropriate that the government in various international forums put pressure on host countries to clean up their own backyard.Paragraphs (b) and (c) restate the concerns that the opposition has repeatedly expressed in this debate. When the matter came on for debate, I said the opposition had a multifaceted approach. We made a number of points, including that the government's then bill would not, without more, solve the problem. In principle, the notion of Internet content regulation was agreed, but only that which was technically feasible and not so onerous as to reduce the attractiveness of Australia as an Internet industry e-commerce jurisdiction. We highlighted the lack of viability of offshore content regulation. We supported an industry based and an industry agreed code of practice as a regulatory vehicle in conjunction with the legislation. We acquiesced in the government's application of the broadcasting or narrowcasting classification regime for the purpose of the current proposed Internet content legislation, knowing that it might well have to be revisited as technology developed and products converged in the future.We supported, as the only ultimate, effective, realistic content regulation solution, the education and empowerment of end users, particularly by way of end-use filter devices, and we supported the notion of pursuing international activity and international agreements to address the question of Internet comment. Of those seven concerns identified by the opposition, one would anticipate that with paragraph (c)(iii), of the notice of motion, if adopted by the Senate, the government will be able to report on the effectiveness and consequences of the act. The concerns identified by the opposition go to the heart and soul of this act. It is public knowledge that the government is taking varying degrees of action in terms of allocation of funds from the Telstra dividend to certain programs sourced out of Tasmania addressing community concerns arising out of the act. It is common knowledge that senior officers of the ABA participate in various international fora. It was reported in the press three weeks ago that industry had developed various codes of practice and were awaiting the final tick-off from Minister Alston's office.It is fair to say the reaction to those industry codes of practice travelled the path from outright rejection, through begrudging acceptance, to a desire to make the new system work more effectively. It is fair to comment that on balance industry reaction was positive, with the only possible exception being the Electronic Frontiers Association. The opposition has noted that the ABA has identified major levels of consumer desire for the purchase of either protective products or safe end-use filter devices. Again I make the point for the record that the opposition expects that any report tabled by the government will identify and report on the concerns expressed today and in the major speeches at the second reading stage of the formal debates some months ago.The opposition draws attention to paragraph (c)(iii). In the consideration in detail stage of the then bill, the opposition identified a range of matters comprehended by paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c). Those matters are the meaning of reasonable steps to include end-use empowerment, information provision and that such reasonable steps be generally technically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective. It also included the ABA taking into account the public interest. Those matters arose out of Senate hearings and I recall extensive discussion as to what were reasonable steps, what was technically feasible and commercially viable and, in the requirement of the ABA, taking into account the public interest. Amendments going to each of those issues were rejected by the government. Upon further consideration, the opposition is of the view that each of those matters is worthy of further attention by government, and we strongly urge the government to revisit those issues.The opposition urges passage of the motion under discussion. As I said at the outset, the motion is conveniently divided into three paragraphs. Firstly, concerns raised by a range of industry and community groups and individuals; secondly, the act cannot and will not achieve its purpose and in fact acts as a diversion or smokescreen to those in positions of authority; and, thirdly, requires the government to address a range of industry concerns going to unworkability, unintended impact on business and the ease by which the act can be bypassed or ignored. In summary, the opposition holds to its public view that a multifaceted approach is warranted, and that approach involves parental employment, community awareness and education, technical research, promotion of end-use filter devices and safe products and the pursuit of regulation via international protocols and agreements.The opposition sees no reason to depart from its public position to date. We await with interest, and we will read closely, reports tabled in the Senate every six months if the motion should be passed. We regard the public dissemination of that information as a critical element in this debate, and we will have regard to that material in our future deliberations concerning the act. I again urge the government to have regard in those reports to my comments today as to the nature and content of those six-monthly reports. I urge passage of the notice of motion as tabled. (Time expired)10:13:009224Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am delighted that this motion is up for debate today because it really does highlight the extraordinary position in which the Labor Party finds itself. The original motion that Senator Stott Despoja put down called on the government to repeal the Internet censorship legislation. She is no longer calling for that, so presumably even she recognises that that is a ludicrously silly position to adopt and it is simply not supported out there in the community.What ought to be fundamentally understood in this whole debate is that the Labor Party voted against this legislation at the second reading stage. They did that because they were in this position where, on the one hand, Senator Lundy was totally captured by some of the noisy elements, like Electronic Frontiers, who have no interest at all in sensible and responsible regulation of the Internet, but were simply low grade, undergraduate political activists who thought that they could get themselves a bit of a run on free speech arguments—totally adopting the US approach, which I note Senator Bishop quite rightly says is not applicable in this country. Not only that, but they got themselves over to the recent Berterlsmann Conference and made a big noise there along the same lines—in other words, not in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of the community, whether parents have concerns or anything else; just adopting this sort of hard line, ultra dry civil liberties approach which no doubt appeals to people who might belong to the Civil Liberties Union in the US but does not cut much ice out here.I think it is a fascinating political exercise. You had Senator Lundy captured on the one hand running that line, even though she is from the left and you would have thought that their bread and butter is industry intervention. I notice that in his comment Senator Bishop actually said that you cannot just compare us with the US, because we do have a tradition, particularly in the media, of intervention and regulatory mechanisms. That is precisely right. In other words, it is a natural approach. It is much more natural on the Labor Party's side to actually respond to community concerns and do something about it if you can, rather than wiping your hands and taking the laissez-faire approach of effectively saying, `We will leave it up to parents.'The fact is, of course, that most parents do not feel comfortable trying to self-regulate the Internet. They do not feel that they are end users who are dying to be empowered by having access to filtering technology or being able to buy packages from service providers. Only 22 per cent of households have the Internet. The vast majority do not and those who do, generally speaking, are occasional users. The children are often fanatical users, and quite rightly so, because it is a fantastic new medium and there is an amazing amount of knowledge, entertainment and information to be acquired. To suggest that somehow parents are on an equal footing with their children is not real world, and I think we all know that. The last thing parents are going to want to do is to be telling their children how to run the Internet, or having to accept responsibility for purchasing those sorts of items. I was interested in the debate about regulation of free to air television arising out of the Port Arthur massacre. We had an inquiry which recommended the introduction of the V chip. That was generally supported. The experience in the US is that, although sets are now embedded with V chips, hardly anyone purchases them. In other words, the theory is fine. Yes, parents can if they like ensure that there are coding devices that will filter out violence on television, but in practice it just does not work.Labor has found itself in this position of desperately having to find some product differentiation and do the precise opposite of what it would have done in government. It would have been in like Flynn on the approach we are taking, because we are not being technology specific. We are not directing service providers or anyone else to adopt any particular approach, block sites or interfere with international gateways. We simply say to them, `Set up industry codes of practice. It is acceptable to us if it is technologically feasible and commercially viable, but you've got to do your best. You've got to take whatever action is open to you, within reason, to ensure that parents and children are properly protected.'All of what Senator Bishop said essentially confirms that. Parents are very concerned indeed. The figures from the Berterlsmann survey were that 53 per cent of Australian respondents said they would block pornographic content in all circumstances, while a further 33 per cent said they would block this content in certain circumstances. That is a higher figure than for racist messages. Seventy-four per cent of Australian respondents said that the courts and legal authorities, politicians and other agencies all have a part to play in the appropriate supervision and selection of Internet content. In other words, they are not just saying, `Leave it to end user empowerment', which is basically jargon for `let's do nothing.' And they certainly do not agree that the most appropriate arrangement is the education of users, including parents and teachers, about the appropriate use of the Internet. In other words, they expect governments to respond sensibly, and not in a draconian manner; not to simply ban or be out there as policemen surfing the net and trying to block material off their own bat, but they do expect a sensible industry response. That is why I find it fascinating that somehow there is this notion that the community is opposed to what we are doing. They certainly are not.The industry itself accepts that there should be these codes of practice and this form of regulation. We have been trying to negotiate it for the last three years with the Internet Industry Association. Their problem is that there are these maniacs—these electronic frontiers outfits—running around stirring up trouble, using quaint expressions and feeding lines to that woman from the Civil Liberties Union who then gets out there, gets a good run and says that we are global village idiots. This is just a low-grade political campaign. I do not find industry opposing this approach.I was fascinated when I was in Silicon Valley about two months ago. I waited for industry to raise it, because it was at the height of the furore. It was just after the legislation had gone through and I was doing the rounds of all the IT companies in the valley. I waited for them to raise it with me. The only people who ever raised it with me were journalists who were saying, `Isn't this a big problem?' I replied, `Why it is a big problem?' They said, `It is because it is getting media coverage. It is coming out of Australia. Your Senator Lundy is faxing the New York Times and saying, "Isn't it disgraceful?" and Electronic Frontiers Australia is calling for the minister's resignation. Isn't this an issue?' It is an issue for the media, because it is new, exciting and a lot of fun, but it was not an issue for the industry.The only people who raised it with me on that visit were Yahoo who thought it was a good idea. I recently saw the president and CEO of Lotus, which is a major player. He was out visiting Australia. Again, I waited for him to raise it with me and he did not. Over the years I have seen a lot of these people and none of them have ever raised it. I thought I might as well ask him what he thinks. His answer was, `Industry has no issue with online content regulation. The industry endorses content regulation.'In other words, all of the responsible players—and most of these people have kids of their own—do not for a moment want to see the anarchy that is prevailing at the moment. Senator Bishop quite rightly pointed out that his 11-year-old daughter was distressed by accidentally coming across an offensive web site. We all know this can happen. I was told last night that www.9msm, not www.9msn, is a hard core porn site. We all know that if you get it wrong between whitehouse.com and whitehouse.gov and all sorts of others, you can accidentally find yourself on a hard core porn web site.That article you referred to in USA Today was run out here quite extensively because mousetrapping is an issue. You say that the hosts were in Australia and then you say that, in international forums, it is entirely appropriate to put pressure on host countries to clean up their own backyards. That is precisely what we are doing. We are not just saying that we hope that end users, parents, will block these sites. We think it is offensive, the community thinks it is offensive and the industry thinks it is offensive. Electronic frontiers do not and neither does that American Civil Liberties Union. They challenged, constitutionally, legislation that went through Congress trying to protect children from Internet porn, on the grounds of free speech.You get all of this hypocritical hand-wringing like, `We're not in favour of pornography being delivered to children, but we just think that freedom of speech is even more important. So, much as we do not like it, this sort of thing just has to happen because it is a free society.' That might play in the US, but I suspect it does not, and Senator Ferris will make very clear the attitude of the US government. They do not think it is just a matter for parents anymore, if they ever did. There were sections of the industry who thought it was not a bad approach, a good start, but it is not the case around the world. It is not the case in places like Germany where, if you remember, I think it was the managing director of AOL in Germany who was sentenced to a jail term because of a failure to take action.There can be no doubt that the community expects us to take action and to take it responsibly. We think the industry code is a sensible approach. We are very encouraged, and we think it is a step in the right direction, that the Internet Industry Association have tabled a draft code at long last. We welcome that very much. But where is this concern, apart from those maniacs I mentioned earlier? Senator Bishop said that a `recent report said', so I asked him who it was and he said it was the National Australia Bank. That is about the only thing I have seen in recent months, and that was fundamentally wrong.That NAB, Arnold Bloch Leibler and Deloitte report was fundamentally wrong on three issues. It said that ISPs are required to monitor all messages passing through their systems; and they are not. As we all know, it is a complaints driven regime and that is a huge difference. I mean, if you expected every service provider to monitor everything on the Internet, it would be a chaotic situation. We have never asked for that and it has never been put in the legislation. Yet here we have three supposedly responsible industry players basically being sucked in by a bit of media hype, and not doing their homework. They refer to the government's claims that 96 per cent of Australians have access to ISDN—this is a bit peripheral—and, again, that is wrong. There is a capability but there is not access delivered. Their third factual error was that the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund had been increased by $60 million in 1998.If that is the report Senator Bishop is relying on, it is quite clear that this is not a serious work. This is really just a quick and dirty response to a bit of media driven concern. I am pleased therefore that they subsequently put out a media release congratulating the government and the Internet industry on their agreement—and that is not right either: there is no agreement between us at this point—to implement a code of conduct which will form the basis of a new Internet censorship regime. It is more that they have responded by putting a draft code on the table.The three organisations who last month issued a report building a stronger information economy for Australia said in a statement today that they believe that the code of conduct, when implemented through the government's legislative framework, would deliver the best possible outcome for the future. They said that the development had put to rest their concerns, which have been expressed to the government in their joint report. The National Australia Bank, Arnold Bloch Leibler and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu went on to say that they were looking for a bipartisan approach on this issue, confident that this recent development would achieve the important objectives of the legislation and the needs of industry. So there you have it. About the only report that Senator Bishop can point to—apart from these utterly fringe players who have no interest in the substance of the issue—is the one out there which is basically saying that they are happy with the current legislative framework and the way in which it is developing. I have not seen anything in recent times to contradict that.As far as I am aware, the bulk of the correspondence we get from community groups has been overwhelmingly supportive. I sign off a number of letters each week from interest groups around the countryside who basically say, `Thank God someone is doing something.' The notion that somehow you can just leave it to end user empowerment might go down well in caucus or at a few branch meetings but it means nothing. It is the very sort of thing we used to get slated for time and again. I urge Labor to have a good, hard look at itself on this issue and understand where the community stands. They do not want you to simply follow the Senator Lundy approach of `hands off; do nothing'. They want you to take responsible action.Of course, it goes beyond pornography. This is also designed to ensure that material that is criminal is excluded wherever possible. If you have a hands off approach, you do not do anything about that either. We have been through this many times and I have said that terrorist bomb recipes, paedophile lists and other things need to be dealt with specifically by Internet regulation. You cannot just leave this to the criminal code. The criminal code applies only to Australian suppliers. If the offence is committed within the Australian jurisdiction then, yes, we might be able to do something about it—although, there is a big argument about what constitutes publication and the like—but if it comes in from offshore there is not much that can be done.That is why industry codes of practice are very important in protecting not only Senator Bishop's 11-year-old daughter, who might just happen to have the benefit of parents who are concerned and IT literate and available at the appropriate time, but also kids who are on the Internet for hours on end, without any parental supervision. Parents are quite uncomfortable because all they do, in most instances, is pay the ISP bill at the end of the month and essentially vacate the field. They do not want it left to end user empowerment. They want a judicious mix. We are not saying for a moment that end user empowerment is not important. It is necessary but it is not sufficient. By all means we encourage industry in its various manifestations to take action to protect parents. This can be reflected in the codes but we want proactive activity on the part of those in a position to do something about it, and a recognition that government has a role to play and that we do not simply stand back and say, `We want you to throw a bit more money at people' or `We want you to get out there and run a big awareness campaign.' None of those things will do anything more than appeal to a portion of the educated elite.To say, for example, as Senator Bishop did, that 90 per cent of users believe that end-user filters are useful is saying nothing at all. As I have pointed out, filters are used by only a small proportion, but to say they are useful does not mean that is where they want it to start and finish. We agree they are useful but they are not going as far as you need to go to give people the protection they require.All I can say is that this motion is fundamentally misconceived. If we are required to table reports every six months, I will be delighted to do so. I do not expect Senator Stott Despoja to recant or resile, because she has essentially been running a single dimen sion approach on this issue for many months, but I do think that the Labor Party, with a higher degree of pragmatism and an awareness of community standards, could at least accept that this regime ought to be given a fair go.10:30:009228Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I should begin my remarks by responding directly to the claim of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that somehow the Australian Democrats or I would advocate unsuitable material being made available to minors—or anyone else for that matter—through the Internet. First and foremost, as the Democrats have said time and time again in relation to this debate, we do not advocate an entirely laissez-faire approach to regulation of Internet content but, all through this process—the debate leading up to the legislation, through that process, the committee et cetera—we have made clear that we have major concerns with both the mechanisms that have been proposed by the government and the extent of their interference in, say, legitimate expression of views and values. So it is unfortunate that, every time we have a debate similar to this, we need to make such an explanation for the purposes of government, but it is important to remind people that the Australian Democrats are not opposed outright to the idea of controlling access to objectionable Internet content. So that there is no confusion on that point, I will quote from the first two points—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—But you are no longer willing to repeal the legislation.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Mr Acting Deputy President, I did hear the minister in silence, so I hope the same courtesy can be extended. Okay, I will respond to the minister's interjection. I do not shy away from calling for the repeal of legislation that is undesirable or unworkable. I would quite happily see this government go back to the drawing board and get it right—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Are you calling for its repeal or not?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I expressed regret at the time, through the committee process and through the debate in the chamber, that there was a haste applied to this process that is comparable to the process with no other legislation that we have seen in this place that was as complex or took into account so many forward looking issues. So I am not suggesting that there is no place for legislation; on the contrary. I just want to see better legislation in this place. Attempts to alleviate the worst aspects of that legislation and attempts to improve that legislation, as pointed out by Senator Bishop in his remarks, were pretty much roundly rejected by the government. So attempts by the Australian Democrats and the opposition were rejected, but we accept the realities of the situation—and that is that this legislation is not going to be repealed. That is why, in an attempt to show cross-party or a multiparty response to this debate, you have a motion that is jointly sponsored by Senator Bishop and me today.I will return to the two opening points in the Australian Democrats minority report of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies inquiry into the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill. The first point was:1.1 The Australian Democrats do not advocate unsuitable Internet material being made available to minors.That is in black and white. Secondly:1.2 We oppose the restriction of adult access to material that would generally be acceptable to reasonable adults. We oppose the restriction of adult access to Internet content where that same content is available in other media.That was another objection we had to the legislation—the idea that different media were treated differently. Also, the debate all along has often failed to recognise the distinction between what minors can access and what reasonable adults in our society should be able to access.Subject to these two points, the Democrats' minority report continues to criticise the bill—as it then was—and the government's policy position as being undesirable and unworkable. It is unfortunate that this clarification is required every time we have this debate, but it seems that the government still have failed to understand this message. If they do understand this message, it is clear that they continue to adopt the fairly common practice of attacking the messenger. The Democrats are not opposed to content control, but we are opposed to the heavy-handed and inappropriate way in which the government have pursued their policy on this issue. I want to draw special attention to the government's political opportunism in pursuing this issue quite vigorously at the time they did—before the change of the balance of power in the Senate. Perhaps that was the reason for their haste and that is why we have flawed legislation.With those clarifications to one side, I will turn to the specific points that are mentioned in the motion before us. As I said, this is a multiparty response to the continued criticism of the government's Internet censorship legislation from a variety of different sources. I do not kid myself for a moment that Minister Alston is unfamiliar with the criticism and the sources of it—and not only from the Electronic Frontiers Association that he has been so heavy-handed with in his comments today. I must acknowledge too, I suspect, that the visiting professor, Nadine Strossen, the President of the American Civil Liberties Union, probably would not appreciate being told by the minister that she had been fed her lines on her visit to Australia. I suggest that the United States and that body in particular are perhaps a little more familiar with the far-reaching consequences of this legislation than the minister is aware of.Certainly, there was originally an Australian Democrats motion that drew attention to the professor's comments in relation to the legislation. And, as I said earlier, I do not shy away from the concept of repealing legislation that is either bad or unworkable—but I recognise that as a minimum we can set out to call on the government to do the three things that are catered for in subparagraphs (c)(i), (ii) and (iii) in the notice of motion—insisting that the government address the concerns raised by those industry and community groups, that we urgently revisit aspects of this legislation and that there are reports tabled on the effectiveness and consequences of the act in the Senate at six-month intervals.I would like to draw attention to the comments made by Professor Strossen during her visit to Australia in August of this year. As most senators would know, the ACLU has a long history in the United States of pursuing rights, including issues of discrimination, free speech and religious freedom. I take on board the comments of the previous speakers drawing the distinction between the culture—and the jurisdictional culture as well—in this country as opposed to America's. Professor Strossen's comments have reiterated a number of concerns which have been raised at all stages by the Australian Democrats and other groups in this debate. I acknowledge that her background is in a jurisdiction in which there are constitutional rights and freedoms and I am happy to postpone for now the debate as to whether Australians want or deserve a bill of rights. The Democrats' position on that is quite clear.As I have previously indicated, the absence of constitutionally guaranteed rights means we need to be especially vigilant in this country when it comes to the protection of rights and freedoms. The main thread of Professor Strossen's comments relates to `the draconian and regressive' nature of the legislation. Professor Strossen reiterated our concerns that `the Internet censorship legislation is vague and might reflect the values of those enforcing the laws'. The government has responded by claiming that our concerns about the Internet censorship regime are unwarranted, since the latest draft—and certainly Senator Alston referred to this—of the Internet Industry Association's code is significantly more flexible than expected. The IIA code is particularly flexible in relation to content control, but that is not the central issue. I will return to that argument shortly, because it actually reflects directly on one of the arguments that we have been hearing, certainly from the minister today and from the government generally.The reported comments of Professor Strossen indicate a range of additional concerns. She referred to the fact that it is not possible to draw a meaningful and coherent distinction between what should and should not be banned other than by allowing indi viduals to decide exactly what it is that they want to see. We already draw distinctions—and this has been referred to in the debate—of this kind in Australia in relation to the process of classifying or censoring offline material—that is, material that is not on the Internet. But there are certainly significant problems in carrying over that distinction to the Internet media.I also remind the Senate that the line chosen by the government for Internet media is not the same for non-Internet media. Those anomalies were very clear during the debate on this bill in the chamber and through the committee stages; and now, of course, members of the community and those in the industry are very conscious of those distinctions.With particular reference to the situation in the United States, Professor Strossen referred to the child protection argument which has been used both by the US government and by our government. She made it clear that this argument has already been rejected by the United States Supreme Court as an inappropriate counterbalance to the question of rights and freedoms. The primary reason for the rejection of this argument in the United States is a clear understanding that the Internet cannot be censored for children without censoring it for everybody. This is particularly fundamental because it goes directly to the type of legislation that is needed if a choice is made to restrict content. It was certainly clear at the Senate select committee hearings on the legislation that the government had chosen a superficially attractive model rather than a model that depended on the education and responsibility of supervising adults. So these comments that have come from Professor Strossen are just some of the many criticisms that abound about this legislation and that have appeared since the passage of this legislation three months ago.Another range of criticisms was found in the results of a Bertelsmann survey—which has been referred to by both the minister and Senator Bishop in this debate—that was recently released by the ABA. The results of this survey show that Australians are more confident about end-user content control than they are about control administered by Internet service providers, government agencies or web site producers. I will not go into those figures, because they have already been referred to in this debate. While that report did indicate—and we do not shy away from this—some general support for Internet content control in Australia, it also indicated very significant concerns with the model adopted by this government.The aspect of the legislation requiring the government mandated blocking of materials came in for particular criticisms. In a telling addition at the time of the release of the report, the ABA deputy chairman, Gareth Grainger, commented that a regime that required the blocking of content `was not a manifestation that we were prepared for'. The ABA came to the Senate select committee hearings with a strong reputation in this policy area, but it seems that even they were caught by surprise by the government's expedient shift to a fairly draconian content control policy.Professor Strossen's comments and the Bertelsmann survey are only two examples—but I think they are reputable examples—of recent criticisms of that legislation. I will not use all my time today to go through some of those widespread criticisms. Instead, I would like to expand on some of the recurring issues and criticisms in the context of the remainder of the motion before us.The most fundamental accusation which has been levelled at the legislation and the policy is that it will simply not achieve its intended objectives. Of course, that is covered very clearly in (b)(i) of the motion before us—that the act `will not achieve the government's stated objectives'. Evidence before the Senate select committee indicated that there were numerous problems with the construction of the legislation. Many of these problems relate to some of the incredible difficulties in regulating a medium which is not based within our jurisdictional boundaries. This is a major change from our experience in the regulation of traditional physical media.There is another thread to the `unachievable outcomes' accusation, and that is the sheer technical difficulty—perhaps the sheer techni cal impossibility—of regulating a medium which was created for the broadcast of messages but also for the sharing of information among a multitude of content providers and consumers all over the world. Of course, that very democratic nature of the Internet makes it very difficult to regulate. Putting aside the clear threats of some in the Internet community that they would work to make the legislation irrelevant—I am conscious of some of those groups and individuals but I am not promoting those actions—I must point out that it is possible to avoid the impact of this legislation altogether. It is possible to work around this legislation. So in that respect, it makes elements of the government's intended objectives and the legislation itself unworkable.Internet services are available which allow users to maintain complete anonymity and to request content via services located in more enlightened, if you like, jurisdictions. In addition to these pretty serious problems, there was clear evidence provided to the committee in the form of a CSIRO report which showed that content control was more likely to be successful when it was implemented closer to the end user. So we have evidence that backs up this claim.The government's desire for some level of control over behaviour has led them into a system which has quite eerie parallels with the content control mechanisms that have been adopted in some of the world's less free and democratic nations. As we heard during the committee's deliberations, we are adopting a range of measures, unworkable measures at that, that are inevitably being discarded in other countries. I do not know whether we seek to emulate some of these countries' jurisdictional controls or undemocratic processes, but the countries that have discarded this kind of legislation include Malaysia and Singapore. Why are we seeking to emulate the kinds of laws they have discarded for various reasons, be it desirability or the lack of workability? Both of those countries still have some degree of content control but their controls have been dismantled or reduced due do `demonstrations of community attitudes'. I certainly suggest that the committee's reports and evidence on those matters make interesting reading.Another major concern is the impact that this legislation will have on business in Australia. Those concerns are referred to in the motion at subparagraphs (b)(ii) and (iii)—that is, that the adverse impact of this legislation will affect our emerging e-commerce industries and Internet industries, which are strong employers of Australians and young Australians in particular, and that the act will discourage investment in information technology projects in Australia and will force Australian businesses offshore. They are concerns that the Democrats have explained from day one but still are very conscious of.There are three main impacts wrapped up in this. Firstly, there is already evidence that the act is sending some Australian businesses offshore. Before anyone suggests that I might be talking about undesirable business, I am actually talking about clean clients of some of the small Internet businesses in Australia, particularly in my home state of South Australia. They are moving their web sites and general Internet presence overseas to avoid any of the uncertainties that are created by this act.The second major impact on Australian businesses as a result of this legislation is the direct costs of preparing for the regime. Certainly those honourable senators, including the chair, who were involved in the Senate committee's deliberations know that this was an issue that cropped up. It was an issue that not only I asked about but also fellow senators asked about—that is, what are the costs involved for the players in this particular industry as a consequence of the passage of this legislation? Paul Budde, a telecommunications analyst, has done some work in this area which indicates that the compliance costs are likely to be in excess of $150 million and, even with these costs, he suggests that `complete compliance' would be only 10 per cent effective.The third impact on Australia's business environment is perhaps the most telling, especially in light of the government's continued rhetoric about establishing Australia as an Asian business hub. Other reports and surveys that have emerged in the media recently indicate that this act is causing a level of uncertainty which may jeopardise Australia's potential as a regional financial centre. Given this, it would be nice to see the government resolve these problems before we hear any more rhetoric about attracting high-technology business in Australia.I do not think anyone in this chamber would wish for us not to be a high-tech hub. I think everyone recognises, or at least I hope they do, that e-commerce and Internet industries are emerging visionary industries, sustainable industries; the kinds of industries on which we should be basing our future wealth, prosperity and employment opportunities. But you do not do that by—well, as a government, you are bereft of industry policy for a start—putting barriers and obstacles in the way. Even if the government are committed to some form of content control, certainly some kind of control over what minors can access through the Internet, then you must do it in a way that is less hasty, you must do it in a way that involves all the key players in the community and the industry, and you must do it in a way that ensures the act is not riddled with uncertainties that may provide obstacles to business opportunities not just for domestic investors or domestic Internet users but for people from other countries, from around the world, who are wishing to invest.I mentioned earlier that the government is now relying extensively on the reworked Internet Industry Association's code perhaps as a way of avoiding responsibility for this legislation. Yes, the code is significantly better than many people expected, but it must be placed in the context that it is one of the possible codes that could be registered. It is surprisingly soft on some of the more ugly problems which may have been foreseen, but the powers contained within the act are still available to the government and the ABA. A soft code may be able to sell content control better, but repressive and draconian powers are still contained within the act.I also note that one of the main reasons that a soft code is possible is the series of amendments introduced by the government on the day of the passage of the legislation in the Senate—again, another hasty introduction. These alternative access arrangement provisions were not before the Senate select committee when we investigated this bill and they were not part of the government's stated policy until they were seen that day of the debate in the Senate.I encourage my Senate colleagues to read the select committee's report. With all due respect to the chair, Senator Ferris—a very fair and able chair—I highly recommend the Democrats minority report in particular. That sets out numerous problems. We should not be standing by while this government does extraordinary damage to our reputation within the international community and also to the Australian Internet industry. This motion calls on the government to immediately address these and other concerns, and I commend it to the chamber.10:51:009233Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—This legislation has been attacked this morning in this chamber as an inappropriate attempt to censor the Internet. This is grossly misleading. We are simply recognising that service providers have a responsibility to remove illegal or highly offensive material once they are made aware of its existence. That is a very important part of this legislation. The Internet service providers are not currently required to monitor or classify the content accessed through or hosted on their sites.I have been listening with some interest this morning to the quotes from Professor Nadine Strossen, who visited Australia a couple of months ago. I am curious as to why she would come to Australia at that time to call for the repeal of our legislation. I was reassured this morning to hear Senator Stott Despoja say that she simply wants to go back to the drawing board and does not want this legislation repealed as in fact the original motion called for in this chamber earlier this month.The government's approach, our approach, goes out of its way not to be a regulatory burden on industry but endeavours to protect the community from child pornography, sexual violence and depravity, not to mention incitements to racial hatred, shoplifting and many other very unpleasant criminal activities. I was also pleased to hear Senator Bishop say this morning that he also recognises the principle that we do need to take a responsible attitude towards our children and our communities.Professor Strossen was quoted in the Financial Review on 22 August as saying that the legislation is `an open-ended licence for whoever's enforcing the law to inject their values into it'. I say to Professor Strossen that she should go back to the United States and take a very hard look at the values that are pervading her country. She should take account of her President's advice and start to work to return values—his words, not mine—to young people in school communities. This may be difficult for Professor Strossen, considering that her most well-known academic work is a book entitled Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex and the Fight for Women's Rights. This is not, I would suggest to the Senate, something supported by Vice-President Gore, who this morning is quoted as saying at a very large conference being held currently in Vienna that more responsibility should be taken by Internet providers themselves and:We must encourage the Internet providers to elaborate self-regulating measures.Mr Gore called for more responsibility to be taken by ISPs. He said:The Internet is fast becoming the most significant factor in the sexual abuse of children and the principal means to exchange child pornography.An AAP article this morning states:Child pornography on the Internet is rapidly becoming the key factor fuelling child sex abuse . . . I am very pleased and very reassured to hear Senator Bishop and also Senator Stott Despoja recognising that we do have a very serious responsibility in this regard. The article further states:European authorities are clamping down significantly on Internet porn.And it goes on to talk about how in fact they are doing that.We are actually a world leader here, in a very positive sense, not in a negative sense, as has been suggested by some people this morning. We are painfully aware of how young people's exposure in parts of the United States—Professor Strossen's home country—to highly offensive material on the Internet has led to definable tragedy. Both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who, sadly, killed some of their fellow students at Columbine High in Colorado had very extensive web sites and were known as competent Internet users. I believe the parents of at least one of those boys had absolutely no idea of what was actually going on in their own home, reflecting a problem that, I think, many families have.As the minister has said this morning, and I think Senator Bishop also picked up on it, many parents, unfortunately, are totally unaware of the intricacies of the Internet. They simply do not know how to work the Internet, and they are unaware of it unless they come across it in their working life or unless they take courses on it. Children in this country are highly dexterous on the Internet, and I admire them for it—I am afraid that I myself am a little slower on it.We had some very interesting evidence, as Senator Stott Despoja said this morning, from the Eros Foundation in this country, not a witness to an inquiry whom you would expect would necessarily support regulation on the Internet. But their evidence very clearly indicated that they are very worried about the explicit sexual violence that has been on the Net and the effect that that has on some of the sex workers in their industry. I commend them for making the points that they did in relation to that.I know that a feminist such as Senator Stott Despoja would not want to allow material that exploits women in a sexually depraved way to remain on the Internet, and that was the point made by Fiona Patten in her evidence. Quite simply, the proponents of the free speech argument carry very serious responsibilities on this issue and, to me, they seem to be somewhat reluctant to recognise that the wider community also has a responsibility to protect our children from harmful material. Responsibility on this issue, in my view, quite correctly rests with government, with parents and with the industry.We have been very careful to ensure that this legislation does not impose an unnecessary regulatory and administrative burden on the rapidly expanding area of e-commerce, and I note Senator Stott Despoja mentioned an assessment by one consultant that it will cost over $100 million. At no time was that evidence presented to the committee. In fact, as a safeguard in this particular area, a ministerial review of this legislation will be conducted before 1 January 2003, and this will determine exactly what effect the legislation has had on the Australian Internet industry generally. The actual extent of any compliance costs which this legislation may or may not impose on service providers will depend on the number and nature of complaints made to the ABA from 1 July 2000, and let us see what they are.Senator Bishop noted in his dissenting report, and he said it again this morning, that the government has `deliberately sought to create the impression that its measures would solve the problem of unacceptable content' on the Net. The government did not make that claim, and Senator Bishop and I have discussed this before. We accept that there is no 100 per cent foolproof blocking technology on the Net, that nothing will ever be 100 per cent effective in this area and that there will be hundreds and maybe thousands of people who will tunnel their way past the filters—and I am aware of all the information that appeared on the Net to show how this could be done. I hope the people who put that material on the Net are aware that this means that some parents may not realise that their children can still access this material.I say to Senator Bishop—and I said it to him before—does this mean we should do nothing? Simply because a law is not 100 per cent effective, should we do nothing? There are so many laws in this community—sadly, more and more—that are not 100 per cent effective. You only need to read the court pages of any newspaper to see that, but does that mean this government should do nothing? Does it mean that those laws might as well be repealed as well because they are not 100 per cent effective either? Is it a reason why we should tell the families of Australia that, in this emerging technological field, we should do nothing? Of course it is not and those opposite and the Democrats know it; the whole chamber knows it. That is why this is a very spurious motion.11:00:009235Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I will not speak for long because most of the issues have been canvassed during the debate. I simply want to acknowledge that there has been a considerable movement in respect of this motion from its beginning when Senator Stott Despoja put a motion down which called for the repeal of the legislation. This particular motion does not call for the repeal of the legislation.I do have a bit of difficulty because I support the key element of this motion. The key element that I see is that the motion calls on the government:. . . to table a report on the effectiveness and consequences of the Act in the Senate at 6-month intervals from the date of implementation of the regulatory regime.I support that strongly and, if I heard the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts correctly, he indicated he would be quite happy to make that report. I commend the comments made by Senator Bishop in respect of some of the matters that he detailed should be contained in that report, and I look forward to seeing those reports.One of the reasons I do that is that a real problem could exist amongst the community in respect of this legislation—that is, a problem might arise whereby people have a false sense of security that, because the legislation is there, it is going to cover the lot. That was not intended by the government, as I understand it, nor will it occur. The legislation on its own is inadequate to deal with the clear problem of unsuitable and offensive material going to children, in particular, through the Internet and also via email.On that point, I mention the submission to our committee from the AFA in the ACT. We obviously accepted that submission and considered it. It stated:A second case is where someone posts a message to a news group. It is common practise for "spammers" to scan news groups, obtain email addresses and send out unsolicited email. Generally this is just a note advertising a particular site, but as multimedia is becoming incorporated into email systems, it is possible to include graphic material in an email message. Consequently the risk of children being exposed to unsuitable material increases and needs to be guarded against. The "spammer" does not know or care who is the recipient of the email and in many cases uses a false email address and so is difficult to trace.There are difficulties. That is an issue which is going to be a growing problem. There is no doubt about that—it will be a growing problem—and obviously some attention needs to be given to that.I am pleased there is a substantial difference between this motion and that of Senator Stott Despoja. One thing that worries me about the Democrats' approach to this—which seems to be `an industry should reign approach'—is that they do not appear to condemn what is going on. In the May 1999 report of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999, the Democrats' minority report starts off:The Australian Democrats do not advocate unsuitable Internet material being made available to minors.I would have thought the appropriate word was `condemn' instead of `do not advocate'. I mention that because Senator Stott Despoja in her speech this morning talked about certain sectors of the Internet industry deliberately developing plans to get around the legislation. She indicated that she is not promoting that sort of activity. I would have thought it would have been appropriate to condemn such activity. It is very hard for me to gather from her speech this morning how the Australian Democrats propose to attack this real problem, this very grave problem, of Internet pornography and violence.I mention the issue of violence too. As I indicated in my qualifying comments in the May 1999 report, to which I have just referred, I made a point about the interactive violent material that is available. I said that an area which will need to come under closer scrutiny is the ready accessibility of graphically violent, interactive online computer games. Available figures indicate that they are growing in popularity amongst teenagers, children and young adults. We are talking about extremely violent material in some of these interactive games. There is interactive material in relation to pornography as well. There are innumerable studies which show that the constant viewing of this material does engender in the mind of the habitual viewer a callous and manipulative orientation towards women. So we do have a problem.In this motion, the six-monthly interval reports are an important feature, but I am afraid that the rest of it has been adequately dealt with by Minister Alston and the chair of the committee, Senator Ferris. I heard what Senator Stott Despoja said about the government acting in haste on this matter. Frankly, as we all know, the matter before the committee had been discussed for some time before the legislation was brought in. There was a report in 1997 about the matter, which essentially was a report being given consideration by the government, but the government did not include in its legislation provisions which would have taken up a number of the recommendations in the 1997 report. I made mention of that in my qualifying comments in the 1999 report.Finally, Senator Bishop gave a very useful speech. A number of points were made by him, but I think they were, to a certain extent, accepted by the minister in his response. Senator Bishop was clearly saying that there needed to be other measures undertaken urgently for the purposes of end-user empowerment, including education and the like. As I understood Senator Alston's response, he seemed to agree that this legislation of itself is not going to deal totally and adequately with the situation. There are other measures, including those mentioned of education, empowerment, readily available and adequate filtering systems and the like, that the government has under consideration, and I do hope that they are under active consideration.11:12:009236Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—in reply—In response to the various contributions to the debate, I thank all senators for giving serious thought to the issues raised in the motion. It is fair to say at the outset that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act is an act that the opposition looked at in the context of the times—`the times' being when the government had an imperative, for whatever reason, to gain the passage of that particular bill. We all know that the numbers changed on 1 July and a different dynamic now exists in this chamber which has a different effect and impact upon the government. It is no secret that the opposition has regarded the imperative to have that legislation passed prior to 30 June as somehow tainting the integrity of the legislation. We made those comments at the time, and we do not resile from them.It is also fair to say that Senator Harradine was somewhat critical of the bill as it was being discussed. He voiced the view that it did not go far enough in its intent or application. As I recall, he characterised it as a relatively modest attempt by the government to address this problem. I do not think those comments are particularly untoward. If one analyses the spectrum of positions in this debate, it is clear that you can start at far left field, if you like, with absolutely no regulation at all—that is, a totally laissez faire approach in that the market will deliver and consumers will purchase whatever is offered to them at a particular price. In between that you can have regulation which has varying degrees of effectiveness and purpose which will catch with varying degrees of material and varying grades, if you like, of treatment and punishment for breaches of those regulations. We then move to the extreme far right field where you block access to all content characterised as offensive, pornographic, racist or whatever which comes from offshore.The central feature of this debate is that nearly all of the offensive, racist and greatly pornographic material and the material that is targeted to cause great dissension in our society comes from Europe and the United States. That is a matter of fact. Accordingly, if you are going into the spectrum of effective legislation to target a real problem that exists, that legislation has to impinge somehow or other on the material that comes from offshore. The central issue, as we have said time and again, in this debate is that you might be able to have effective resolution of material sourced out of Australia in that the complaints driven mechanism whereby consumers make complaints to the ABA about inappropriate material sourced out of Australia and the industry codes of practice of varying degrees will have a significant impact on material sourced out of Australia. But that is only part of the problem. As we all know—and it has been underground in this debate as far as the government is concerned—the great bulk of offensive material comes from offshore. Yes, the government can claim credit for having an effective regulatory system of locally sourced content, but it can claim no credit at all for material that comes in from offshore. Indeed, it can claim no credit for solving the problem.Out there in the community, most people who pay attention to this debate think that the government's bill has achieved its purpose. But they are incorrect. That is the central problem in this debate as far as the opposition is concerned. If 90 per cent of the offensive material of whatever nature comes in from offshore but the overwhelming bulk of our population thinks that the government's bill is effective, as they think that there is a sound regulatory system for TV, newspapers or magazines—as there is—and they think the same system applies in outcome to regulation on the Internet, that is a lie. It does not serve the government well to continue this masquerade and to parade this information that the problem has been solved. That is why the opposition is particularly keen that paragraph (c)(iii) should be passed by the chamber today. As I understand Senator Harradine's comments and some of the comments made by the minister in the debate, they also agree.Whilst we say the legislation has been tainted and we view it through the prism of the context of the times in that the government had other imperatives in June this year, the second criticism we have is that there has not been informed community participation or debate. Every time I re-examine this issue, I am confirmed in that view. People who bother to raise issues say the government has solved the problem. The government has not solved the problem, and that is why paragraph (c)(iii) to table a report on the effectiveness and consequences of the act in the Senate at six-month intervals from the date of implementation of the obligatory regime is a critical piece of information.I have always been a strong believer that, when government wants to go into contentious social or cultural areas, a long process of public education about purpose, intent, outcomes, justification and need for government involvement in that particular area is worth while in itself. Indeed, the same argument applies in a lot of the areas of competition policy in economic debate. Over the last 15 years, there has been radical change in this country. As we witnessed in Victoria three or four weeks ago—and as we are witnessing now in the dairy industry debate, notwithstanding a massive transfer of $1.8 billion of consumer resources to producers to exit from that industry—there is now a serious danger that the reform, if it can properly be characterised as reform, will not proceed. That is because there has been, I suspect, insufficient education, public awareness, debate and discussion as to the need, the worth and the imperative to have that change in that industry. Similarly, in this discussion, it has been hidden to some extent that this is a debate driven by other imperatives. The opposition has not only been uncomfortable but opposed the position of the government in the final analysis. One of our core reasons for doing so is that there has not been that degree of community awareness, discussion or participation.The opposition views paragraph (c)(iii) as critical to that discussion over the next two years. To date, we have not had sufficient empirical advice from the ABA or the government about community and consumer attitudes on a range of issues. We have our views, and we have adopted particular positions. To some extent, the government has the same. The opposition is of the view that—by tabling a report every six months to address the objects of the act and the matters outlined in the minister's second reading speech and the opposition's second reading contributions, the issues identified by Senator Harradine and the various committee processes putting that into a regular format where it is published in the Senate, undergoes discussion and debate, as is tabled, and draws press comment and the like—you are going through the process of public education, public awareness and community participation.That may change the position of the opposition in two or three years time, if we should be the government of the day. It may indeed confirm the position that we adopted in the debates last June—that is, the legislation is unworkable and should be repealed. That is not our current position. We have an open mind. We see that there will be a wholesale review, as required by the act, in 2½ years time. We see the six-monthly tabling report on the effectiveness and consequences of the act as an important part of that debate. You will be able to develop, with the four or five reports that are tabled prior to the final review, some trend analysis and some sequencing of community attitudes and the effectiveness of the act.We urge passage of this motion. Little that the government has said today has dissuaded us from the worth of the entirety of the motion. I repeat my earlier comments that the opposition are of the view that paragraphs (c)(ii) and particularly (c)(iii) are critical. Accordingly, we urge passage of the motion before the chamber.Question put:That the motion (Senator Mark Bishop's and Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.11:27:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Quirke, J. A. *Ridgeway, A. D.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.29Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Vanstone, A. E.Evans, C. V. Hill, R. M.Faulkner, J. P. Calvert, P. H.Lundy, K. Minchin, N. H.O'Brien, K. W. K. Macdonald, I.Ray, R. F. Abetz, E.Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations923811:30:009238Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation.Leave granted.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—A story in the Age today states:Senator Woodley . . . said the Senate inquiry would be `extremely critical' of deregulation and said it would recommend that states not proceed with the proposal.Firstly, the report of the inquiry has not been tabled, and its recommendations have not been finalised. Secondly, the recommendation mentioned in the Age article is not one which is before the committee.I do not have a tape recording of what was a fairly long interview, but I do recall saying that I could not tell the journalist what the committee's report would recommend. However, in response to the journalist's query about the status of committee recommendations, I explained that the government was not obliged to follow what the committee recommended. I presume that it was in this context that the confusion occurred. I apologise to the Senate and the committee for any confusion I may have caused by the interview and its subsequent reporting in the Age.Committees9239923992399239McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of Senator Lightfoot, I present the eighth report of the Publications Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.923992399239Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 15th report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.Ordered that the report be printed.9239923923:32:009239Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I present an interim report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on East Timor.Ordered that the report be printed.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The situation in East Timor has unfolded in a dynamic and dramatic way this year, sometimes changing almost daily. Although some of the evidence taken in the committee's inquiry will stand the test of time; other parts of it, which relate to current events, will date very quickly. Consequently, the committee believes it is vital to report now on some issues while the committee's evidence remains current. The fact that both the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights have appointed commissions of inquiry into the violence in East Timor, following the popular consultation on 30 August this year, is testament to the seriousness with which the international community and Indonesia view the violations of human rights and the destruction of property that have occurred in East Timor.The post-consultation violence has resulted in a massive displacement of the East Timorese population. More than 233,000 East Timorese have been registered as displaced persons in West Timor camps. Many of these were forcibly transported from East Timor. Hundreds of thousands of East Timorese have been hiding in the mountains to escape the violence of the militias. Evidence indicates that not only did the Indonesian military give free rein to the militias, and aided and abetted them in the process, but the military planned the program of violence, destruction and transportation of people out of the territory before the popular consultation took place.The militia and military harassment of and violence against the East Timorese people and their intimidation of UNAMET staff, both before and after the consultation, were a blatant violation of the agreement concluded between Indonesia and Portugal on 5 May 1999. Under this agreement, Indonesia, at its own insistence, was responsible for providing security during the UNAMET deployment. The intensity of the violence, the destruction and the forced transportation of people out of the territory resulted in the United Nations, with the agreement of the Indonesian government, sending a United Nations force into East Timor to restore security and enable essential humanitarian aid to be distributed to the hundreds of thousands of displaced East Timorese.The committee is at pains, however, to distinguish between the TNI and alleged militia atrocities on the one hand and the government and people of Indonesia on the other. Clearly, the TNI and the militias acted against the declared intention of the Indonesian government in its operations in East Timor. Undoubtedly, neither President Habibie nor the people of Indonesia sanctioned these alleged crimes against humanity. The Australian Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all other parties represented in this parliament have clearly stated that Australia has no dispute with the Indonesian people. Australia has supported the United Nations' action in East Timor aimed at restoring security in East Timor and enabling the East Timorese people to restore their dignity.The committee noted that Australia's prominent role over the last year in relation to East Timor has consequently strained our bilateral relationship with Indonesia. Australia has been blamed for being forthright in seeking a role for the United Nations to provide security in East Timor, a responsibility which the TNI was unwilling to fulfil. The committee supports Australia's leading role in securing the United Nations' mandate and the sending of a United Nations force to East Timor.Indonesia has recently held elections as a step towards fulfilling its own democratic aspirations. Australia's interests are best served by fostering democratic principles and supporting the establishment of democratic institutions. Although the committee recognises the role of President Habibie in bringing on democratic national elections in Indonesia, and the popular consultation in East Timor, the committee received evidence that little could be achieved by way of rebuilding our relations with Indonesia during his period of caretaker government.When a new Indonesian President is elected later this year, the best long-term interests of both countries will be served by rebuilding the relationship based on mutual respect. In the meantime, broadcasting and publication by some Indonesian media outlets of false information about Australian policies and actions in relation to East Timor are harming our relations with Indonesia. In the absence of accurate news reports in Indonesian, anti-Australian sentiment is likely to grow, which affects not only diplomatic ties but also trade, education, tourism and other Australian interests. It is clear that Australia needs to respond to false news reports broadcast by Indonesian media outlets by providing in Indonesian and English accurate reports about the Australian role in East Timor.Radio Australia, which is part of the ABC, is Australia's short-wave broadcaster and has an enviable reputation throughout Asia for its independence, objectivity and integrity in news reporting. Radio Australia uses the transmitter at Shepparton to transmit programs to East Timor but the signal from the station is too weak to reach central or western Indonesia. The committee understands that Radio Australia is currently broadcasting one hour a day in Indonesian through leased offshore transmission facilities to Indonesia. This compares with about eight hours a day before the closure of the Cox Peninsula transmitting station in 1997. In view of the degree of the deterioration of our relations with Indonesia, the committee recommends: (a) Radio Australia increase significantly the number of hours transmitted in Indonesian; (b) the Australian government either lease additional transmission time from appropriate offshore transmission facilities and/or reopen the Cox Peninsula short-wave transmitting station near Darwin; and (c) the Australian government provide additional funds for the increased transmission.The committee believes that the parliament as well as the government have a responsibility to help bridge the differences that have occurred in our relations with Indonesia. The most effective way for parliament to contribute to this process would be for a parliamentary delegation to visit Indonesia in early 2000 to discuss issues of importance to both sides. The committee therefore recommends that the parliament liaise with the Indonesian parliament concerning a possible visit by a representative Australian parliamentary delegation in early 2000.Apart from restoring security to East Timor, urgent tasks for the international community are the provision of humanitarian aid to almost the whole population of the territory, and then the rebuilding of the structures of East Timorese society that were destroyed by the militias and the Indonesian military. A key element in both tasks is the need for coordination among the multilateral, government and non-government agencies which will be supplying and distributing aid. East Timorese leaders also need to be involved in the planning to ensure that East Timorese aspirations are fulfilled as far as possible.The committee notes with great concern the 233,000 or more East Timorese refugees held in camps in West Timor. Some of these camps are allegedly under the control of the militias. The East Timorese refugees in West Timor are a mixture of pro-integration and pro-independence supporters. Media and other reports of the killing of some pro-independence supporters in these camps by the militias and of the plans for the transmigration of refugees to other parts of Indonesia have generated considerable concern about the fate of the pro-independence refugees. As conditions in these camps are very poor, the refugees in them require urgent and substantial humanitarian aid. The committee believes that humanitarian agencies should be granted full access to all refugee camps and shelters in West Timor and elsewhere in the Indonesian archipelago to distribute food, medicine and other essential supplies to refugees and assist them in their return to East Timor, if that is their wish.On 28 September 1999, Indonesian Foreign Minister Mr Ali Alatas reportedly assured the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, that militia activity in the camps has ceased. Mr Downer was promised by Mr Alatas that aid agencies would be allowed to access refugees in West Timor and that the refugees would be free to return to East Timor. The situation in the West Timor camps should be monitored closely. If reports continue to be received alleging human rights abuses by militias or other parties, or the forced transmigration of refugees to other parts of Indonesia, the international community should as a matter of urgency pressure Indonesia to stop such actions. The TNI leadership has a responsibility to respect the United Nations mandate, as Indonesia agreed to do in the 5 May agreement, by not supporting the militias in any continuing campaign against East Timor. Moreover, the TNI should secure the western side of the border between West and East Timor to prevent the militias from crossing into East Timor. Should the TNI disregard the views of the international community and continue to support the militias in a campaign against East Timor, the international community should put pressure on the TNI to stop helping the militias.The committee fully supports the role and performance of Australian troops and civilian police in East Timor. Having presented this interim report to the Senate today, the committee will now continue with its inquiry. However, given the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the circumstances of East Timor, the committee may decide, if necessary, to present another interim report to the Senate. I wish to thank those who participated in putting the report together and the secretariat.11:43:009241Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I start by referring to the terms of reference of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee: the economic, social and political conditions, including human rights, in the territory; Indonesia's military presence in East Timor and reports of ongoing conflict in the territory; the prospects for a just and lasting settlement of the East Timor conflict; Australia's humanitarian and development assistance in East Timor; The Timor Gap Zone Cooperation Treaty; and past and present Australian government policy towards East Timor, including the issue of East Timor self-determination. These terms of reference were put down on 21 October last year.I have never before, in any inquiry I have been involved with in this Senate and outside the Senate, heard of such inhumanity by humans to each other. That has come through very clearly in the inquiry, both before the referendum and since. I quote the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he spoke last evening in New York at the United Nations. He said:The world has witnessed the most horrible cruelty visited on the island's population by people who were unwilling to accept the outcome of the vote.That has come through very clearly the whole way through our inquiry.I recognise the part that President Habibie has played in his efforts to bring democracy to Indonesia and the holding of the first democratic elections in more than four decades. Tribute should be paid to President Habibie for what he has done. Now Indonesia awaits the election of its next president. It was also President Habibie who decided to allow the people of East Timor to choose between greater autonomy within Indonesia and independence. These were momentous decisions. I will quote what our Minister for Foreign Affairs said yesterday at the United Nations. He said:Those were momentous decisions, decisions that reflect the massive strides that Indonesian society has made in just a few short months.Australia stood by the Indonesian people as they began their transition to democracy, and we will continue to do so in the years ahead.Regardless of the problems that have beset the transition process in East Timor, President Habibie and his administration deserve full credit for actually initiating that process.As I said, they were momentous decisions.At this stage I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister of Australia and also the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the job they have done in very difficult circumstances with a country very close to our shores. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have done it in an exemplary way, and this parliament—as is mentioned in a report—expressed unanimous concern for a country very close to us and set out what we wanted to do to help. The aid workers in East Timor need congratulations and thanks; our consular officials need congratulations and thanks; and our military officers and liaison officers who were in East Timor prior to the referendum and the Federal Police all need special commendation for what they have done.The peacekeeping force and transition force in East Timor would not have happened if we did not have the agreement put together by the ministers for foreign affairs of Portugal and Indonesia and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 1 at the back of our report states:Request the Secretary-General to put the attached proposed constitutional framework providing for a special autonomy for East Timor within the unitary Republic of Indonesia to the East Timorese people, both inside and outside East Timor, for their consideration and acceptance or rejection through a popular consultation on the basis of a direct, secret and universal ballot.Article 2 states:Request the Secretary-General to establish, immediately after the signing of this Agreement, an appropriate United Nations mission in East Timor to enable him to effectively carry out the popular consultation.Article 3 states:The Government of Indonesia will be responsible for maintaining peace and security in East Timor in order to ensure that the popular consultation is carried out in a fair and peaceful way in an atmosphere free of intimidation, violence or interference from any side.Article 4 states:Request the Secretary-General to report the result of the popular consultation to the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as to inform the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal and the East Timorese people.It continues in article 5 and article 6. Article 7 states:During the interim period between the conclusion of the popular consultation and the start of the implementation of either option, the parties request the Secretary-General to maintain an adequate United Nations presence in East Timor.That would not have happened either had President Habibie not actually sought military assistance through the Security Council. President Habibie has to be congratulated and thanked for having done that, notwithstanding some of the events that have happened before and after. Also mention should be made of the delegation led by the Hon. Tim Fischer to observe and report back on the referendum held in East Timor. He was assisted by the Hon. Laurie Brereton from the other place and Senator Payne and Senator Bourne from this place. Obviously, something will be said about their visit during this debate.I know time is short so I will finish by saying that it is a very difficult situation. Again, I wish to record what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in New York yesterday. He said:I am pleased to report that INTERFET's deployment has been smooth and peaceful, and that elements of the force are now spreading across the territory of East Timor.It has begun the vital work of bringing peace back to the troubled island, and of assisting in creating the right climate for the provision of the food, shelter and medical assistance that the East Timorese desperately require. This is the latest chapter in the United Nations' long association with East Timor, an association that has lasted for more than a quarter of a century.The process that has brought us here has been long and difficult, but at last we may be approaching a peaceful resolution of the tragedy that has beset the East Timorese people for so long.I will finish by quoting what the Prime Minister said in his address to the nation on East Timor. He said:Our soldiers go to East Timor as part of a great Australian military tradition, which has never sought to impose the will of this country on others, but only to defend what is right. They go with our goodwill and total support. We wish them Godspeed and a safe return home.As I do.11:51:009243Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I am very pleased to be associated with this interim report by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the situation in East Timor. In the past when I have been involved in committees which have issued reports that included East Timor, it has not always been as easy and comfortable to put down what I now absolutely know to have been the facts on East Timor. However, it certainly was with this committee and I am very grateful for that.This report includes a very short history of East Timor since its final days as a Portuguese colony. It is necessarily an extremely short history but I think it is quite good. We all know how the then Portuguese administrators were viewed by the rest of the world—and have been since then really—when they left East Timor in such disarray in 1975. Of course, that does not excuse the invasion by Indonesia which occurred soon after that. The way the Portuguese have been and will be viewed in history is nothing compared to the way the Indonesians are viewed now. I have used those terms deliberately, but I should not have said `the Portuguese have been viewed', which is what everybody has been saying for the last 25 years. In fact, it was not all of the Portuguese people; it probably was not even most of the Portuguese parliament. I should have defined it as being `those people in Portugal in power at the time who decided that was the way to get out'.Equally, and I think this has been fairly consistently acknowledged throughout this parliament, we are not talking about the Indonesian people, we are talking about some parts of the Indonesian military who have done an absolutely despicable job inside East Timor. The vast majority of the Indonesian people, and probably the Indonesian parliament, would feel just as badly about all of this if they knew exactly what was going on, and I fear they do not. In paragraph 2.5 of the report on the Indonesian invasion we say:The capture of Dili was accompanied by massacres, wholesale looting, rapes and indiscriminate destruction, which set a pattern for the conduct of the Indonesian armed forces which was followed over the next twenty-three years.That is absolutely true and it has only got worse since the vote, which was a wonderful experience because of the absolute courage of the East Timorese people, which was followed by terrible destruction, murder and the dislocation of the people.As well as including that short history in the report we also mention a few issues that we think are absolutely vital at the moment but will certainly change over the next few months as we finish this report, which we intend to do, and I will go through those briefly. The future of the militias is changing daily. We certainly hope the report we had the day before yesterday, I think, that Eurico Guterres, one of the militia leaders, has said, `Okay, stop fighting now' is correct. Although, when Senator Payne and I and others were in East Timor, we worked out that when Mr Guterres said the militia would do something it took about 36 hours until the complete opposite happened. We hope that will not happen this time. I do not know whether we are up to the 36 hours and so it may well. The militias are a real worry in East Timor, and particularly in West Timor at the moment.The next issue we address is the East Timorese refugees in West Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia. That is probably the biggest worry we have at the moment with this whole thing. That is a strange thing to say, with so much that is disturbing happening, but it is probably the most disturbing. These people fled either because of the violence or, more often, because they were deliberately taken from their homes to somewhere outside of East Timor. Most of them were taken to West Timor, particularly to Kupang. As senators will know, that is right at the other end of the island, and it will be very difficult—if you are walking back home it is a long way to go—for people to get back to East Timor. Mr Alatas has said in New York, I believe, that these people are free to go home, that there is no reason for them to stay in West Timor—or wherever else they were put by the Indonesian military—so I hope that will now be facilitated.Of course, that is still very much a wait and see situation. We do not know what will happen. I have not heard of anyone who has been able to get out of Kupang and back home to East Timor. There is very strong wording in this report that we believe the rest of the world ought to be watching very closely what happens in what are now huge refugee camps in West Timor and also what happens to the other refugees from East Timor. I hope those who were taken well away from the island do not get forgotten. At least the ones taken to West Timor are on the same island, and there is a possibility of them getting home—even if they have to walk, no matter how dangerous, and it would be very dangerous. But others who were put on Flores, a completely different island, or South Sulawesi or other places within Indonesia will have an even more difficult time. They will need help to get back to their homes in East Timor when they are rebuilt—or even to just get back to East Timor. We must make sure they get taken back. Indonesia has an absolute duty to make sure that these people are returned to East Timor. It was the Indonesian military who took them away and it should be Indonesia that takes them back. We have to keep watching and make sure that that happens.Of course, this situation could turn, and already is turning, into a huge humanitarian disaster. East Timor has been looted, destroyed and absolutely razed to the ground by elements of the Indonesian military and that has caused a gigantic humanitarian disaster area. But there is also a huge humanitarian disaster elsewhere inside Indonesia caused by people being deliberately taken out of East Timor. We have mentioned that aid must be coordinated. We have all seen in other areas where you get separate aid agencies—the big bilaterals AusAID and USAID, and others—going in and not coordinating themselves as they should reasonably do through the UN. Also, smaller NGOs themselves are not coordinating. It would be very useful if that were done and we have made a recommendation to that effect.I am very pleased that the committee has put in a recommendation with respect to Radio Australia which, as senators know, is one of my favourite topics. There just is no question that Radio Australia is desperately needed within the region right now. We have to be able to tell ordinary Indonesian people throughout Indonesia what is really going on and what Australian soldiers are really doing. We are getting false reports from the Indonesian newsagency Antara. I heard some more from Dr Mahathir this morning. It is outrageous what is being said about Australians, and it is outrageous that there is so little opportunity for the truth to get in there. There should be, as the chairman said, at least the eight hours a day of Indonesian language, news, current affairs and information going into Indonesia as there was before the Cox Peninsula transmitter was closed down—and I would hope Tetum could be broadcast into East Timor, but that is coming from Shepparton of course.I think this report is groundbreaking in many ways. It has used the term `Indonesian invasion', which we have all known for the last 25 years but nobody in the parliament has liked to say. It has actually used that term as if it is a fact, which it is. I am really pleased to see that. I was very pleased with the way senators were so concerned about this and understood what the real problems were—everybody worked so hard and worked together on this. Senator Brownhill was particularly interested in the 5 May agreement and brought it up time and time again—and very reasonably too. That is something we have attached to the back of this report that people should read to see how badly things went. I think that, now that we have something like this, we will be able to establish an honest relationship with Indonesia not based on anything other than the truth. That is very important.Finally, I would like to thank the chair of the committee—an excellent chair—who chaired absolutely reasonably and fairly all of the hearings I was at. I also thank the secretariat who, I believe, have done an excellent job on this report.12:01:009245West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I rise also as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to speak to this report. Although I was not able to get to the Darwin meetings and another meeting held here, I have found it to be an amazing situation that we started our hearings in July-August, before all of the troubles really came to a head, and that events have really overtaken a lot of the hearing material. But this interim report is a very important document. I hope that it does not become too dated too quickly, because we have been trying to keep up to date. I have concerns that yesterday, when we were reading and finalising it, the Indonesians had indicated that, as far as human rights issues and the resolution that was passed in Geneva were concerned, they would probably agree with the resolution; yet today's media is saying that they are probably not going to agree with it or do not think it is appropriate. That is of grave concern.This is a fluid situation. It is one that is shown with great depth and a great deal of detail in the media—probably something that could not have taken place 25 years ago when the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia took place and the media was not able to cover to the same degree as it is now able to cover these sorts of events. I would like to pay tribute to those journalists who actually stayed as long as they did in East Timor—I wish more of them could have stayed longer to bring to the world what was happening there. But it is very important that they are now back there bringing the pictures and stories out of East Timor to provide them to the rest of the world through newsprint organisations, the free-to-air stations, cable networks and radio. It is important that people are able to see what is happening, because it helps to galvanise people's attention and concerns.It is an interesting time in the whole of Indonesia. There are a few points that we need to keep repeating. The first one is that Australia's concern, anger or displeasure—whatever term you want to use—is not directed at the Indonesian people themselves; it is directed at elements of the military and the militias. I converse fairly regularly by email with an acquaintance in Indonesia. That is the one point that she keeps repeating to me and keeps seeking reassurance from me on—that we are not angry with the people of Indonesia, that our concerns and complaints are not with the people of Indonesia but with the militias. That is an important thing for everybody in this country to keep reinforcing.That brings up the very reason we should never have stopped Radio Australia's access to the region. We are losing an opportunity. We do not need Radio Australia just to get into Indonesia for the Indonesians to hear from us what we think is going on, to hear our side of the story; we have to get Radio Australia into the whole of the region. Dr Mahathir and the Malaysians need to hear our side of the story. The Filipino people need to hear our side of the story. The Thai people need to hear our side of the story. They are all our Asian neighbours, they are all members of ASEAN, and it is so important that our story and our views are heard—as they were on Radio Australia—in an objective manner in their own language but also in English in order to show to the people what sort of reporting and coverage you get when you have a media that has freedom of speech.In a number of these countries freedom of speech for the media is something they do not have. Radio Australia is the one means by which we can bring our story to our region, to the Asian part of our region—through short wave, which means it is accessible to everybody. Digital technology is fine if you have money to buy satellite dishes but for the average person, the person on the street that we need to make sure hears our story, it has to be through short wave.I was on this committee when we did the inquiry into the impact on our foreign policy of the cuts to Radio Australia. I have another friend who spent time in Cambodia when the situation there blew up a couple of years ago—and we did not have short wave going in so she was not able to hear Radio Australia. She was not living in one of the Western compound areas; she was living with the local people. She was not living in a hotel and therefore was not able to be contacted as easily. She did not have a phone on in her flat. Someone lent her a mobile phone and, when things became really serious, they cut out the areas for some of the cells, which included her area. To find out information from the embassy, she had to leave her residence and travel to a hotel using public transport. If we had had Radio Australia then, she could have just tuned into Radio Australia and heard our foreign affairs messages. So I feel very strongly about this. The same thing obviously happened last year in Indonesia when there were the riots. The same thing would have happened to our people in East Timor this time, because we do not have Radio Australia there. It is a method of providing information to the indigenous people of the area, but it is also a way, and a very important security measure, for the Australian expats and other Western expats living in the area to receive information that may be crucial to their safety and security.I feel very strongly about what has happened to Radio Australia in the past. I fully and totally endorse this particular recommendation, because we have to make sure that Radio Australia is heard, that our voice is heard. We do live in the region; we cannot deny that. We have a responsibility to make sure that a sensible voice is heard on what Australia's position is—not a message that has been filtered, thought about, documented, changed and distorted with interpretations by media from elsewhere where there is no freedom of speech and no freedom of the media. That is vitally important.Before I close, I would like to also say that this is a very important time for Indonesia. I guess that in the future history will judge whether in fact Habibie's very brave decisions were the right decisions, because this is a time of change and uncertainty, with the uncertainty of the presidential election outcome. I also am concerned—and I hope that it is not happening—that the incidents and activities in East Timor are not preoccupying everybody to the exclusion of people observing what may be happening in West Irian, Kalimantan, Ambon and Aceh; because there are other areas in Indonesia where there is uncertainty and some unrest. I would hate it if, during the time of increased concentration on activities in East Timor, observation of what is going on in those areas were being let slip. This is a very important time, and it is a very important issue for people to keep watching.This is only the first of the reports that this committee will hand down. That means we have a very important watching brief to continue to look at what is happening in East Timor and to continue to make sure that our voice is heard, but heard in a constructive manner. We have a very delicate balance to keep here. Australia does not want to be seen as the bovver boy of the region. We certainly have to be very conscious of our role within the region, of our responsibility to those who live in the region, and of our responsibility to be part of it and play a constructive role.We want to play not a superior role but a cooperative and constructive role in terms of our relations with other people in the region, because we are here, we do have to live here and we have to get on. It is going to be a very interesting and challenging time as we work through the issue of East Timor constructively with the incoming Indonesian President and the new assembly there and as we work with the rest of our neighbours to bring people to an understanding of what human rights and human dignity are all about.12:11:009246Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—In speaking to the East Timor interim report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee today, I think it is very important for this committee, of which I am a participating member, to report on an interim basis at this stage, particularly in view of the rapid pace of the movement of events in East Timor and around these issues.It is important in the context of this report to note the efforts of INTERFET in the last weeks, in the face of enormous adversity and also, from today's evidence, inaccurate media reporting—all of which goes no way to acknowledging the real level of threat on the ground.I welcome the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commission of inquiry agreed to this week. The committee's report refers specifically to the efforts of Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson in this context. There are many Australians who will be associated with that process, particularly lawyers, who are currently preparing themselves to assist. We should note in that regard their very important contribution.As have all the other speakers on the report this morning, I note again for the record that our concern over the destruction, violence and human rights abuses is not with the people of Indonesia but, very seriously—as the report acknowledges—with those in the TNI and the militias who have either encouraged or allowed the violence to occur or perpetrated that violence themselves. The processes from this point, through the United Nations, the efforts of the Indonesian government and INTERFET and what flows from that, must be constructive ones and must be constructively arranged between all of the parties.I would like to note that I believe the committee has heard from many valuable expert witnesses who provided an extraordinary amount of useful information for the consideration of the committee and the Senate. Without promoting any single witness over others, I would indicate what an enlightening opportunity it was to hear from James Dunn—Australia's last Consul-General in Dili, preceding James Batley's recent appointment—whom Senator Bourne and I also met on the ground in East Timor. His personal experience and the historical perspective that he was able to give the committee—as somebody who was there in the 1970s and understands these people and so much of what they have been through—was inordinately valuable. I would also say that his intense concern for the people of East Timor and their future is palpable.Secondly, the committee also heard from representatives of Paxiquest, Lieutenant General (Rtd) John Sanderson, in particular, and Mr Mark Plunkett and Mr Gary Wood. There is reference to some of their evidence in chapter 2 of the report. On the fundamental importance of the re-establishment of the rule of law, their evidence was compelling. On the need for the East Timorese to own this process and to be a part of it at ground level, their evidence was equally compelling. These are matters that have to be taken up now, not at the time of the resolution of the security situation or at some point after that. Systems need to be in place for the community to rebuild itself by that time.I want to comment very briefly on the process of the popular consultation, which is referred to in chapter 2 of the report. That process and its integrity is very, very important. The efforts of UNAMET and their workers in that regard and the strength of the vote, which is referred to in chapter 2, are now on the record. It is a permanent record of the decision of the East Timorese, and the sanctity of that ballot—the integrity of that ballot as overseen by UNAMET—is something that cannot be removed from history. It is there and it is from that point that we move on in the reconstruction of East Timor.One point to which Senator Bourne referred and which I also want to make a brief comment on is the importance of aid coordination, which is referred to in chapter 3 of the report. The evidence of Caritas, in particular, to the committee and the evidence that it is possible to observe from events of recent days suggest that this is fundamentally important for a successful effort in East Timor in this regard. I hope our comments and our observations go some way towards contributing to that process.Finally, I particularly want to acknowledge and thank the chair of the committee, Senator Hogg, for his very generous approach—and also other committee members for going along with that—in enabling me to participate in the committee hearings and the deliberations following my return from the Austral ian observer delegation to East Timor for the popular consultation. I am only a participating member of the committee and Senator Hogg has extended to me every possible courtesy, and it is very much appreciated.12:16:009248Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak on the East Timor interim report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. In doing so, I wholeheartedly endorse recommendations 3.54 (a), (b) and (c), in particular 3.54 (b), and also recommendation 3.57, which recommends that the parliament liaise with the Indonesian parliament concerning a possible visit by a representative Australian parliamentary delegation in early 2000. I will come back to that recommendation in a moment. I commend Senator Hogg for the work he has done on behalf of the opposition and, more importantly, on behalf of the parliament and all parliamentarians.On the issue of Radio Australia and, in particular, Cox Peninsula, I have noted that, apart from the executive government and about two ministers, we have tripartisan support amongst members of parliament to get Cox Peninsula reopened and to get an increase in Indonesian language broadcasting. I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and only recently we carried a resolution unanimously asking for Cox Peninsula to be reopened.I wanted to make a few remarks on this matter because, as a former chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I led a delegation to Indonesia in 1992 with 10 members of that committee which made major recommendations to the Australian parliament—and I must say the then government adopted many of them—and that report became, by all accounts, a major contribution to improving relations and understanding between Australia and Indonesia. We did not buckle on the issue of human rights or of East Timor itself. In the recommendations and in the description in the report we expressed our strong concern about human rights abuses in East Timor and about human rights abuses elsewhere in Indonesia. We also commented at the time about the important role of Radio Australia.Therefore, I commend the interim report recommendation that another parliamentary delegation go to Indonesia. I think that ought to be given the highest priority. Even if it does cost taxpayers, who fund all of our activities, some several tens of thousands of dollars, it would be money very well spent. The delegation should not just go to Jakarta; it should spend a good week to 10 days travelling through many of the provinces of Indonesia, as did the delegation I led in 1992. Over 10 days we visited at least eight or nine different areas of Indonesia. We were denied access to East Timor. We were let into West Timor and they let us fly over East Timor on the way to Ambon. But being there for that length of time and seeing a range of issues and people in Indonesia and the disparity in that diverse nation was most useful.Returning to recommendation 3.54, first of all, no-one can argue with recommendation (a) about significantly increasing the number of hours transmitted in Indonesian. It is true that, though short-wave radio is a technology that some people, including the present Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, claim is now outdated, it is still a major source of information to many people, many communities and many countries in Asia, South-East Asia and South Asia.Radio Australia has had a very honoured role over the last 50-odd years of providing unbiased, factual information to those countries where often, because of government censorship and restriction, people cannot find out what is going on in their own country. I think that is why the decision of this government in 1996-97 to gut Radio Australia is almost about the worst decision this government has made. This decision was foisted on Radio Australia because, when the government told Mr Mansfield to conduct his inquiry to find a way of saving $50 million from the ABC budget, the government had cut the budget first and then said, `Go and find where the money should come from.'He was forced to cut Radio Australia by his own statement: `The only place I can find a large whack of that money is out of Radio Australia because I have no submissions or hardly any submissions from Australians talking about Radio Australia.' I think he got 11,000 submissions and the minister at the time got 17,000 submissions—11,000 submissions is an unprecedented number—complaining about the cut to ABC services in Australia. So he did what might have been the obvious thing to do: Radio Australia was made the sacrificial lamb for the $50 million cut and the government got jammed. They had to accept it, despite the fact that there was outrage in Australia and overseas. Even countries that at times might have been critical of Radio Australia made representations to keep it going because they knew how important it was. The basic funding was cut in two areas: the first was reducing the number of hours in languages—and that was bad enough—but the most idiotic decision of all in pure wasteful terms was closing down Cox Peninsula.In the early 1990s, the Hawke and Keating governments spent $30 million upgrading the facilities at Cox Peninsula to boost the strength of the signal so that all of not only South-East Asia but also North-East Asia and South Asia could hear the signal clearly and without interference. It was a major investment. Just as it was finished, the new government walked in and turned it off and then said, `We're going to sell it.' Only a couple of organisations wanted to buy it, and the foreign affairs department said, `You can't let these organisations have that transmitter running programs out of Australia because it might create bad relations with other countries.' So they had to reject the potential leasing or sale to a couple of foreign private organisations, and quite rightly so. So the government is down to selling Cox Peninsula `for scrap'. It is a disgraceful decision, a waste of taxpayers' money running into tens of millions of dollars.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Unbelievable!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—It is an unbelievable decision, and it is a decision made by a government that prides itself on its frugality and the fact that it is cutting expenditure and trying to get a better bang for its buck, as it calls it, in government expenditure.It was a disgraceful decision, totally contrary to the national interest of Australia. Now that we have the crisis in East Timor, it is even worse than having Cox Peninsula closed down. It would cost the government no more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars to turn it back on, to put the maintenance men back in and to get it going within a matter of a few weeks, as I understand it. But the government still will not make that decision, yet it is willing to spend, quite rightly, an estimated $300 million to $500 million on our peacekeeping force in East Timor. We have already acknowledged that we may have to spend over $1 billion over the next two or three years rebuilding East Timor to a viable country.But they will not use a small amount of that—$200,000 or $300,000—to turn on Cox Peninsula because the hubris of this government, particularly the communications minister, will not let them admit that they made a dreadful mistake three years ago. This is why the communications minister particularly and the foreign minister will not agree to the change, despite the decision in the interim report of the joint foreign affairs committee. With every day that goes by, the national interest of Australia is put at risk.Finally, they may not think it important to have Radio Australia operating properly, but I just came back from three days in Hong Kong. Every day there were stories in the press in Hong Kong about the mess the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, had made of saying, `Australia will be the deputy sheriff of all of South-East Asia for the Americans.' You should see the lambasting he is getting in papers like the South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Standard. He has made a dreadful shemozzle of our foreign policy. This is why we need a decent radio broadcaster like Radio Australia independently putting a better view on behalf of Australia in these troubled times in South-East Asia. I commend the recommendations to the parliament and to the Australian people.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills9250r8719250Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.925012:26:009250Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 in three separate areas. The first is the introduction of an Electronic Lodgement and Payments system for refunds of Customs duty, the second is the introduction of a Customs duty deferral facility and the third is an extension to the length of Customs Agents licences from 1 to 3 years.Electronic lodgement of refund applicationsThe Electronic Lodgement and Payments system for refunds of Customs duty (ELOR) is an enhancement to the Customs import entry computer system (COMPILE). The process of automating the refunds system has been accommodated by this enhancement, and it will be accessible to users of the COMPILE system.In order to finalise refund applications under the present legislation, Customs Brokers and Importers must physically lodge the application at a Customs office for processing. Providing no further supporting documentation is required and a refund circumstance exists, it may take any where up to 30 days before Customs staff are able to manually process this request.In addition, this manual process is very resource intensive, with approximately 60,000 refund applications lodged across Australia in the last two years.The amendments proposed in this bill will provide a head of power for the making of Regulations to permit the processing of refund applications electronically. It is proposed that the Customs Regulations will prescribe the enhanced COMPILE computer system for this purpose as soon as this bill receives Parliamentary passage.As with other electronic reporting systems in the Customs environment, the new system will provide an electronic option; the existing manual lodgement system for refunds will still be available for any person who chooses to do so.The Government acknowledges the support from Industry for the ELOR initiative and places on record that the funding for the development, consultation, implementation, testing, training and post-implementation review has been provided by Industry through the Cargo Automation Development Fund.Customs duty deferral facilityThe second initiative dealt with in this bill relates to a proposed Customs duty deferral facility. At present, Customs duty on imported goods is paid before the goods are released into home consumption. However, there are no current provisions in the act specifying the time when Customs duty must be paid, nor are there any general provisions in the act allowing the payment of duty to be deferred.The proposed amendments will expressly stipulate the time when payment of Customs duty is required, and provide a mechanism for the deferral of payment of Customs duty by enabling Regulations to prescribe later times for the payment of such duty.These amendments will bring the Customs Act into line with the Government's GST legislation in so far as the latter creates a link between the payment of Customs duty and GST on imports. The GST legislation makes GST on imports payable at the same time, place and manner that Customs duty is payable. Where deferral of GST on imports is to be permitted under that legislation, these amendments to the Customs legislation will permit a similar deferral of Customs duty to be entertained.Customs Brokers Licensing SystemThe final element of this bill proposes amendments to the Customs Brokers Licensing System resulting from a review of that system undertaken by Customs, the Customs Brokers Council of Australia, and the National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee.These proposed amendments are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, and have the full support of the Industry groups mentioned.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned. Bills9251r892925112:27:009251Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Brownhill, I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings. I move:That the report be printed.12:28:009251Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I will speak very briefly to the motion. I just want to draw attention to the fact that the opposition recommends a minor amendment be made to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 which we believe would assuage some of the fears expressed in the committee's hearings by veterans organisations in relation to the proposal by the government to retest 1,750 existing recipients of the invalidity service pension.We believe that this would be a retrograde step. We propose that those who already have it keep it and that the new test apply to those who want it in the future. We are willing to support the test the government wants. The department estimates that, when the new test applies in the future, at least 600 fewer pensions would be paid over time by the veterans department. We believe that the new test is reasonable, but we think it is unfair and unjust and creates great uncertainty for those 1,750 who already receive the benefit to have to resubmit themselves to a further test. Therefore, we will propose an amendment which we will debate when the bill comes forward. We look forward to that debate, and we have no opposition to the rest of the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees92519251925112:30:009251Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I present the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee entitled Jobs for the regions: A report on the inquiry into regional employment and unemployment , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The tabling today of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee's report into employment and unemployment in regional Australia represents a major study into Australia's regional economies and the employment prospects for regional Australians. This inquiry was first referred to the committee on 4 December 1997. Progress was interrupted by the 1998 election and the committee's involvement in the inquiry into a new tax system held earlier this year. As the inquiry has extended over two parliaments, there have been changes to the committee membership over that time.The committee received 224 submissions and conducted 22 public hearings in regional Australia, covering all states. We visited many regional areas as diverse as Broken Hill, Burnie and Whyalla and many more between April and December 1998. Its deliberations provide a useful snapshot of the zeitgeist of regional Australia in the aftermath of two federal budgets—1996 and 1997—that saw widespread cutbacks on regional programs.The report, titled Jobs for the regions, highlights the importance of regional communities and the need for the Commonwealth to take a leading role in policies designed to develop regional economies. This consultation revealed the seriousness of the problems in regional Australia. It also highlighted the need for government to listen to regional Australians.The anger expressed by regional Victorians is not something new, nor is it limited simply to Victoria. Regional Australians have valid concerns and fears, and they have sent a very clear message to this government. Governments around the country—particularly the federal government—have been ignoring these concerns and fears for far too long. Governments have known about these problems and have simply chosen to ignore them.This report, the first major Senate report on regional Australia handed down since the Victorian election on 18 September 1999, lays down an important framework for action. It is imperative that the government acts on the findings and recommendations of the report. As I mentioned, extensive consultations were undertaken throughout regional Australia. The findings of this report provide a good insight into the impact of cuts to service provision and the rationalisation of Commonwealth government programs. The findings also highlight the need for a more consistent and integrated strategy to tackling regional development issues.I would like to draw briefly on some of the main findings of the report. This did not involve the imposition of regional structures from the outside, like past Commonwealth and state government programs. Many of the witnesses who spoke to the committee called for greater coordination between state and Commonwealth programs, with a common sense of purpose. Commonality of purpose would go a long way to providing policy stability and funding continuity, not to mention increasing the coordination between levels of government in addressing regional development issues. In developing coordination, the Commonwealth clearly has a leading role to play.At the same time as improving coordination and providing policy stability, there needs to be a government program dedicated to maximising the economic potential of regions. A strong commitment to assisting and developing regional economies must be made. There must also be acknowledgment that, for some regions, improvement or regeneration will be limited. Regions and regional centres with potential should be supported by financial and industry policies designed to maximise this potential. This does not mean the Commonwealth imposes a top down approach; rather, that it works to foster partnerships based on the idea of common purpose.The committee found that, in order for regions to maximise their economic potential, there needs to be greater government commitment to regional infrastructure. Despite the rhetoric of private sector operators taking on the task of providing infrastructure, most regions of Australia are crying out for adequate infrastructure in any number of areas, including transport links within and between regions; telecommunications; business support and development; and social infrastructure, such as education, training, health and child care. Without adequate infrastructure as the basis of a regional economy, it will be difficult to attract investment and maximise economic potential. Government must work to improve investment in regional infrastructure.The committee also found that cuts to many services in regional Australia, particularly labour market programs, had disproportionately affected regional Australia. The cuts between 1995-96 and 1997-98 amounted to approximately $1 billion, during a period in which many regional economies have undergone unprecedented crises.The government's Job Network has a number of inherent problems, based on the belief in the omnipresent power of the market. The committee heard evidence from many areas in regional communities that Job Network is simply unable to meet employment needs in regional Australia. This is the result of the one size fits all approach to policy taken by the government and the impact of successive and extensive budget cuts. As one submission noted:While it might be argued that spending cuts were necessary, it cannot be convincingly argued that the unfettered market is all that is needed to tackle problems of disproportionately high levels of unemployment and low or negative economic growth in many regions. The government must address the specific needs of employment seekers in regional Australia. As the committee's findings show, there is an important leadership role for the Commonwealth, particularly in providing regional Australians with the necessary capacity to develop their economies. Regional communities have a right to determine their own future, and capacity building in regional communities is critical. At the same time as developing capacity, the Commonwealth also has a role in providing relevant incentives to assist in the development of regional economies. It is all well and good to develop the vision and goals of regional communities but, unless you are prepared to provide assistance and incentive to achieve that vision, the whole process is wellnigh useless.Many rural and regional Australians who participated in this inquiry believed the Commonwealth government was the body best placed to play a leading role in regional development, in terms of both building capacity and providing regional economies with the assistance and incentive to achieve that vision. This government cannot stand by and idly watch the creation of, as Minister Anderson put it, `two nations'. Minister Anderson flagged his own fears of this urban regional split earlier this year when he talked about the development of two nations, yet the Jobs for the Region report would indicate that the government has done little to address these concerns.The onus is on the government to take up the challenge of creating jobs for the regions. The mood of the nation is exemplified in this observation made by the Labor and Democrat senators:Opposition and Australian Democrat senators on the Committee—and Senator Stott Despoja will elaborate—also wish to state at the outset their view that the Commonwealth Government must take increased responsibility both for regional development and for past policies which have contributed to regional decline. Many submissions to the Committee expressed disappointment at Commonwealth actions, such as the withdrawal of Commonwealth agencies from communities, and blamed these actions for initiating decline in those communities. The Committee's report contains reference to overseas experience in redressing rural and regional decline, and these experiences provide a useful guide for the Commonwealth to take action to review policies which have contributed to decline, and develop policies and initiatives to promote rural and regional development. Many rural and regional Australians who participated in this inquiry believed the Commonwealth was the body best placed to play a leading role in regional development. It is the view of the Committee that to do less would be to break faith with the many rural and regional Australians who participated in this inquiry for the purpose of conveying their desire for action to the body they believe to be best placed to take such action: the Commonwealth Government.In conclusion, on behalf of the members of the committee I proffer our wholehearted thanks to the secretariat, the membership of which has changed over the length of the inquiry, for their hard work and delightful company during what was a very onerous trek throughout many areas of regional Australia. I would like to thank them for their patience and effort in the preparation of this report, which was not as smooth as all of us would have wanted, but suffice to say we got there in the end.I also want to mention in my concluding comments one thing which was very interesting, certainly to me. As we travelled to many areas of regional Australia, the comment was made that regional Australians very rarely see Senate inquiries out in regional and rural Australia. They were very pleased that the Senate was taking an interest in regional and rural Australia to the extent that senators were prepared to travel long distances, often in very small planes, as Senator Tierney would recall, to visit rural and regional Australia. I think that says something about the process of Senate inquiries and something about the idea of bringing government closer to the people of rural and regional Australia. It is something I would urge other Senate inquiries to take very seriously. I again congratulate the secretariat for their work and thank other senators for their participation and input.12:39:009253Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I would like to start by taking up some of Senator Mackay's concluding remarks and also thank for secretariat for their long-suffering patience over this inquiry, particularly the final stages yesterday of hammering out agreement on various aspects between the parties. The inquiry does have a long and chequered history. It has been going on for two years. I well remember, as Senator Mackay referred to, two planes going across northern Tasmania—one with the Liberal senators in it and the other with the Labor senators in it. If either of them crashed, we would have had real problems with numbers in the Senate.But, certainly, we did visit quite a lot of places—19 locations over 16 days of hearings. I think we got quite a good outcome in the end, particularly when you look at the origins of this inquiry, which were entirely politically motivated. It was entirely set up to try to bag the Job Network before the last election. Despite all that, I think that at the end of the day we came up with a very good report. We do have agreement across all parties on 11 out of the 16 recommendations. There is dissent only on five. I want to deal with the fact as to why there is a difference in the approaches of the two parties.In the main, the report reflects a lot of what I have been saying about proper approaches to regional development in this country, and I have made five speeches in recent times along that theme. The key theme of the report is that the role of government must move from being a doer and director to a change leader. In line with the McKinsey report recommendations in 1994, there is a need for a bottom up approach, with leadership being vital at the business and the regional level. As I said, this report largely reflects that philosophy. It is reiterated in the last paragraph of the introduction where government senators say that, in underpinning this philosophy, the government must move from being a doer and director to a change leader in regional and economic development.Government senators therefore dissent from comments specifically related to what the Democrats said towards the end of that introduction. They say that the Commonwealth is the body best placed to solve all the problems in rural and regional Australia. It must be noted that, in making this point, the Democrats are coming from a totally theoretical position. I cannot remember them being there on any days of the inquiry. I might be wrong.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Senator Allison may have come to them.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Well, they were not there on any of the days I was there. It was interesting that they came out with that comment in the report and it is unfortunate that that comment was out of tune with the overall philosophy of what the rest of the people on the committee, who had been out there and seen what was going on, were trying to achieve.I want to briefly mention why we are disagreeing with some of the recommendations. Recommendation 6 relates to handing out free communication facilities to people in the bush. I think that is an insult to the pride and dignity of people in the bush, who struggle and who are fiercely independent. I do not think that is the way to go. Tied in with that is recommendation 7. People on the other side really could not help themselves on this one. It really had nothing to do with the report. It is all to do with the selling of Telstra, which of course the opposition do not want us to continue with. That is not in line with government policy, so obviously we could not agree with that.Recommendations 8 and 9 attack the government's Job Network and labour market programs, as does the whole of chapter 4. Therefore, government senators put in a dissenting chapter 4 because it was not in line with the facts. Despite the fact that the Job Network did have some initial teething problems, the performance of the Job Network far outweighs what had been occurring before the Job Network started. We have detailed figures on that in our dissenting report relating to job matching placements, Job Search training commencements, Job Search training and job matching placements, intensive assistance commencements, intensive assistance job matching placements and NEIS commencements. If you use those statistics to compare apples with apples, that shows that in the 12 months from May 1998 to April 1999 members recorded that around 177,000, or 54 per cent, more vacancies were notified and that over 72,000, or 43 per cent, more eligible placements were notified than under the old CES in its last 12 months of operation between May 1997 and April 1998.Government senators also dissent from the recommendation to establish an independent monitoring authority to monitor the operation of the Job Network. Here again, we see a partisan, politically motivated attack which would be a sheer waste of taxpayers' money, because it would put in another layer of bureaucracy to supervise what the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business already does.I am running out of time at this point, but I want to go through the recommendations that we agreed with and highlight again that we agreed with 11 out of the 16 recommendations. These very briefly relate to the following. No. 1 is for the greater involvement of states and local governments in the operations of the ACC. No. 2 is that the government should have a more coordinating role in the dissemination of information to local businesses. No. 3 is that the government should investigate strategies for attracting increased investment to regional Australia. No. 4 is that we put a higher priority on infrastructure in regional Australia. No. 5 is that funding formulae should be re-examined to place a higher priority on regional development. No. 10 is that the Commonwealth government should look further into strategies to facilitate the provision of structured training opportunities. No. 12 is that extra funding should be given to support TAFE. No. 13 is that training incentives are especially needed in regional industries. No. 14 is that the government should play a more pivotal role in coordinating regional development policy. No. 15 is that we should have a regional Australian summit convened periodically. Finally, No. 16 recommends that a ministerial council on regional development, involving all three spheres of government, be established on the basis of the COAG model.It is a pity, given that we had so much consensus at the end compared with how this started, that we could not have come to 100 per cent agreement. Reports from the Senate that have 100 per cent agreement have a lot higher credibility. But, seeing that on a number of these points there was party political point scoring which the government could not agree with, we had to dissent on those matters. Finally, I emphasise that there was a lot of agreement across all parties about the scale of the problems in regional Australia and the measures that are needed to address those.12:47:009255Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I assume that the Senate is continuing without adjournment. Is that correct?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—The intention was to allow you, Senator Stott Despoja, the opportunity to speak on this matter and then adjourn for the lunchbreak.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I would like to add to the remarks made by Senator Mackay and also Senator Tierney in terms of congratulating the secretariat. I also particularly commend this initiative, which was Senator Sue Mackay's. I would be very wary of suggesting that this was a politically partisan exercise, because I think, as Senator Tierney has pointed out, the outcomes of this report and the deliberative process have been very positive. I hope that it was intended that way all along. I certainly commend the initiative and the work of the changing secretariat throughout this process. Indeed, the two previous speakers are quite right in expressing that this was a long and intensive inquiry involving travel appropriately to enough rural and remote parts of the country to hear stories of those communities that have been under threat from industrial or agricultural decline and to hear potential solutions. Many of these stories, as has been acknowledged, were heartbreaking—of towns who lost their industry, their banks, their post offices and finally, in some cases, their populations. They are the towns most in need of support and whose testimony was the first to blame federal governments for perhaps failing to provide the support that they dearly needed.The latest Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business small area labour market figures highlight the difficulties still being faced by the bush and the need for coordinated action to redress regional and remote decline. Unemployment is as high as 37.4 per cent in these smaller markets, and double digit unemployment figures are still quite prevalent in regional labour markets around the nation. These figures also point to a divide between cities and regions and a growing need for government intervention. Many of the submissions to the inquiry pointed to the severe social problems which had ensued as a result of economic decline, including high rates of suicide, crime and depression. There is clearly an onus on all sectors of the community to prevent such problems from occurring and developing in future.This report includes a number of recommendations for government leadership, intervention and cooperation for further regional growth. These include recommendations for Commonwealth investigation of strategies to attract investment to regional Australia and a higher priority to be placed on infrastructure development. They also recommend that the remaining one-third of Telstra not be privatised and that the new enterprise initiative scheme be expanded. It is unfortunate that government senators do not necessarily agree with the latter recommendation. NEIS has been an outstanding success in seeding new enterprise and in encouraging job seekers to become small business people—something which the government and many others in this chamber would seek to support.The report also examines the effect of the competitive tendering out of employment services through the government's Job Network. This has certainly been an area of grave concern both to the opposition and to the Australian Democrats. The old CES based system offered a universal, freely accessible labour exchange service where altruism, not profit making, was a key motive in the provision of employment services to job seekers. The government's replacement of the CES and case management with Job Network is undergoing a second round of tenders at the moment. It would have been appropriate if the government had conducted an open review of that operation of Job Network prior to the commencement of the second tender round, as desired by a number of the employment service providers and community groups.Job seekers in rural and regional areas are particularly disadvantaged by the competitive tendering of services. Areas of lower employment will always fare badly under such a model. If employment agencies are paid only for employment outcomes, those areas with fewer employment opportunities and lower outcomes will obviously place employment agencies operating in those areas under considerable pressure to maintain services and basically remain viable.The spread of Job Network services also favours areas of high employment, as revealed in a study by Dr Paul Pickering and published by the Brotherhood of St Laurence last year. Dr Pickering conducted a number of case studies and included the following results in the report: South Australia, my home state, has the second highest rate of unemployment in the country. In May 1996 the CES operated a network for 31 offices and had 700 staff working to place people in work. Under Job Network, Employment National has less than 100 staff in 17 locations, and a number of these are merely shopfront operations. In Gippsland in rural Victoria funding was made available for only 3,600 FLEX 3—or intensive assistance—places at any one time, despite there being over 10,000 job seekers eligible for this assistance in the region.The inquiry heard complaints from people in rural areas that services were difficult to access, particularly where a mobile service was relied upon. The Australian Democrats strongly endorse the recommendation of this report for a comprehensive review of Job Network to analyse all aspects of the design and the operation of this particular network.The report also recommends—again, I understand, without the support of government senators—that a Job Network regulatory body be established to carry out the functions of the Employment Services Regulatory Authority, which the government disbanded when it got into office and when it implemented the Job Network system. The report before us today is long awaited and very much needed by regions looking for government assistance to help them re-establish themselves and adjust to economic change. The Democrats strongly believe there is a role for the federal government to provide leadership in relation to this objective.While Commonwealth-state divisions may be drawn by those seeking to shift this responsibility, the fact remains that an overwhelming number of people in regional and rural areas believe the responsibility lies with the Commonwealth. Just as the Commonwealth made the decision to rationalise a number of services to the bush—a move seen as the harbinger of decline by people in the country—so too should it reverse this decline. As the report states, to do less would be to break faith with the many Australians in rural and regional areas who viewed their participation in this inquiry as a means by which they could convey their desire for action to the body they believe to be best placed to take such action—the federal government.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Sitting suspended from 12.55 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice925792579257Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Senator Hill. Is the minister aware of the likely timetable for the presentation to the government of the Sports 2000 review commissioned by the minister, Miss Kelly? Can the minister confirm that one of the terms of reference for this review is that it should consider `the opportunities to increase off-budget funding of sport and recreation at the Commonwealth level'? Will the minister guarantee that this review is not, under the guise of this term of reference, just going to be camouflage for slashing Commonwealth funding to sport, including important programs for junior and women's sport and for the fight against drugs in sport?9257Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I can confirm that the minister has announced a task force to review the Commonwealth's involvement in sport and recreation. It will look at a range of issues, including the future funding and structure of sport and recreation. This will form a sound basis for the government's new sport and recreation policy. I remind the Senate that the recent federal budget assured sport funding for the next three years and the review process will develop a strong policy direction for the next 10 to 15 years. While our current system has served Australia extremely well over the past 25 years, the review and subsequent new sports policy are all about staying in front and ensuring that Australia remains a great sporting nation well into the next millennium.Some of the key priorities include: ensuring that Commonwealth funds are spent in the best possible way, increasing participation rates in sport, ensuring that the benefits of sport extend right across the community and making sport more professional. The government also has an interest in making the sport and recreation sector a true industry with greater opportunities and more rewarding career paths for those who are involved. On the basis of our record in government to date and that background information on the Sport 2000 task force, I hope Senator Faulkner's concerns have been put to rest.9257Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. My concerns have not been put to rest. Can the minister confirm that the review committee is chaired by Mr Ross Oakley of Oakley Enterprises, a company which is currently in legal dispute with the ACT Liberal government in relation to the Bruce Stadium fiasco? Is the minister aware that Oakley Enterprises is part of a consortium which charged $1.8 million for a marketing contract expected to raise $13 million in sponsorship, but which subsequently raised only $195,237, creating a 98 per cent shortfall? Given this abject performance in securing off-budget funding for the most significant sporting facility in the ACT, and the possibility of the Liberal ACT government taking legal action against Oakley Enterprises, what credibility can Mr Oakley's review possibly have?9257Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—My brief does not advise me who is the chair of the task force, so I will seek further information on that matter.92589258Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Yesterday, the minister mentioned a range of projects approved under the Prime Minister's Newcastle structural adjustment package. Will the minister inform the Senate about the support that the government has received from the people of the Hunter region for this initiative and is he able to announce any further projects for the region?9258Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Tierney not only for the question but also for his interest in Newcastle and its people. As I mentioned yesterday, the BHP smelter in Newcastle closes today with the ultimate loss of about 2,100 jobs. Many people have told me, when visiting Newcastle on a number of occasions in recent times, that perhaps that will be one of the best things to have happened to Newcastle in the long term. It will change the image of Newcastle from a smoky, dust-filled city to one that concentrates on lifestyle, recreation and high-tech industries. As I announced yesterday, it is this government's aim to help in that transformation. Yesterday, I announced a number of projects which will create some 840 direct new jobs in the Newcastle area and, ultimately, some 4,000 new jobs to replace the 2,100 jobs that will be lost.Senator Tierney has asked me whether we have any more good news for Newcastle. Today, I am very pleased to announce that the government, from its adjustment package for Newcastle, will be contributing $1.5 million to the Newcastle Harbour marina project. That project will provide, in construction, some 50 jobs over the next three years, with an additional 23 indirect jobs for that project. Once the marina becomes operational, there will be 20-plus permanent jobs and 37 indirect jobs, as well as a number of other jobs from the many new retail outlets that will open up around the marina. The marina complements the Honeysuckle project, which was transforming Newcastle some time ago. The marina project, as I say, includes retail out lets, tackle and bait shops, booking offices for harbour cruises, offices for yacht and boat brokers, chandlers, dry boat storage and maintenance support. The Hunter Valley Research Foundation has estimated that the marina will bring over $10 million to the region. This project and many of the other projects that we have announced in Newcastle have had strong support from the Prime Minister's social task force, a group of Newcastle people set up by the Prime Minister to help overcome this transition in Newcastle.As well, I am particularly pleased to say that this program for the marina development in Newcastle has received enthusiastic support from the Newcastle Trades Hall Council; from the Australian Workers Union; and from one of the local members, who is also the Minister for Gaming and Racing. It also has the approval of higher authorities, in that the Bishop of Newcastle has welcomed this initiative because of the good things in it for Newcastle—the new jobs, the different approach and the banner that it will put on Newcastle and job creation there. I thank all those people for their contributions. Again I thank Senator Tierney. I am sorry the Labor Party have ignored or criticised this whole program. Mr Beazley went there this morning, and apparently his solution was to do something about paying social service benefits more regularly or something like that. He had nothing for the future and nothing for the creation of new high-tech jobs in this area. It is a good project. Many editorials have said that Newcastle has a future. I conclude by quoting from today's Financial Review, which says, and the government agrees with this:There is good reason to think Newcastle will survive this historic closure and, indeed, may be the better for it.(Time expired)92589258Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Does the minister recall saying yesterday in response to a question from Senator Denman that child-care funding has not been cut by this government? Can the minister confirm that actual Commonwealth expenditure, as opposed to estimated expenditure, has progressively fallen since the Howard government's first budget? Does the minister deny that, according to her own department, actual expenditure on child care was $1,066 million in the 1996-97 budget, $999 million in the 1997-98 budget and is expected to fall to $989 million in the 1998-99 budget year?9259Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The government's strong commitment to child care is demonstrated by spending in the order of $3 billion in the last three years, 20 per cent more than Labor's last three years in office, the introduction of the child-care benefit on 1 July and the allocation of around $5.3 billion over four years to 2002-03, including an additional $600 million over three years from 2000-01. Expenditure is expected to reach $1.5 billion annually by 2002-03.9259Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister please answer the question? Does the minister deny that the department's figures show that actual budget expenditure fell by $67 million between the 1996-97 and 1997-98 budget years and is expected to fall even further in the 1998-99 year? Isn't it the case that the 1998-99 final budget outcome, at page 10, shows that there has been an underspend of $0.2 billion due to lower than expected Newstart and child-care assistance payments? Don't these figures prove conclusively that the minister's assertion that there have been no cuts to child-care funding is absolutely wrong? Is she plain wrong or is she misleading the Senate?9259Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have already given the facts to Senator Evans, but I will give him one more fact, that is, that every time governments of any colour make allocations for expenditure in any program they are, in a sense, making an estimate of the demand in the coming year. What I can tell the Senate is that the previous government did not always find that demand equalled what they were proposing, and in fact they were out just as much as they were in.92599259Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—My question is also to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Will the minister advise the Senate of any current initiatives of our government that will be of particular benefit to families?9259Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I appreciate that question from Senator Mason, because obviously this government has been very focused on helping families, and I cannot think of anything that you could do for families that was more important than bringing down interest rates so that they could afford a home—absolutely. The increased affordability of homes is one of the most significant of the outcomes. Choice in how families care for their children and how they combine their work and family life has been another significant achievement.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How many times has that brief been written for you? Did you have to rewrite the brief five times?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! You are totally out of order, Senator.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Tomorrow there will be changes to family allowance that will mean an extra 78,000 Australian families with older dependent children will receive the payment for the first time. That is a first instalment on a range of measures under tax reform to improve assistance for families. The changes which take effect tomorrow will extend family allowance to families with dependent children up to the age of 20, and to parents of dependent full-time students aged 21 to 24 where the student does not receive youth allowance or Abstudy. Eligible families will be able to receive $23.70 per fortnight for each dependent child aged 16 to 17, and $50 per fortnight for each dependent child aged between 18 and 24. This means, for example, an eligible family with a 21-year-old dependent student who cannot get youth allowance can receive an extra $1,300 per year to help with living or educational costs. Over 1.7 million families currently receive family allowance, and this measure means that many more Australian families will have access to the payment, providing further evidence of our government's recognition of the important role which families play in Australia's society. Families who are not receiving youth allowance for dependent children aged 16 to 24 years old will have until 30 June next year to lodge their claim for family allowance and receive back pay to tomorrow, 1 October 1999. This is the first instalment of the $2½ billion worth of additional assistance to families that is part of this government's historic tax reforms that come into play on 1 July next year.92609260Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services. My question concerns the 282 child-care centres that have closed under this government, and that figure is based on the government's own statistics. I ask: does the minister stand by her often-stated view that planning of new places can avoid oversupply in particular areas and that such local oversupply is one of the main causes of child-care centres closing down? Why then has the government decided not to continue with its cap on the growth of new places which terminates in December this year? Isn't the minister aware that the sector, particularly private operators, has good reason to fear that the Howard government's decision will itself result in unchecked growth in oversupplied areas causing even more closures and disruption?9260Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is a bit sad that it has taken Labor so long to realise that planning is pretty important in child care. After all, we inherited a system where there had been no planning and—ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Another lie.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Another lie.BE4Senator NEWMAN—As a result, we have had far too many centres opening in some areas and not enough in others. There was no support given to the opening of centres in rural and regional Australia. But the changes to the national planning system, which are at the base of this question, will significantly strengthen planning processes, particularly for regional and rural Australia, by improved links with local government and better information about developing child-care services in rural areas. The supply limit has been effective in bringing stability to the industry and slowing child-care centres' growth.The limit of 7,000 places was not met in the first year, nor is it likely to be met this year. With demand being well met in many areas, growth in new places is expected to be steady over the next few years. Not extending the limit will both increase choice for families and reduce industry regulation. Existing services will be able to expand based on demand. Because the government is keen to ensure that new growth is well targeted, it will be working closely with local government and other key sectors to encourage the establishment of services only in areas of high need. We are particularly concerned about the small number of oversupplied areas resulting from Labor's years of unplanned and unchecked growth, as I mentioned earlier.The government is looking at new ways to minimise any disruption to children and families in these areas, particularly where the market is working effectively to keep fees affordable for parents. That is a pretty important issue, because we must make sure that there are sufficient child-care places to ensure that the fees to parents do not go through the roof because of the pressure on a restricted number of places. Perhaps the opposition might start thinking about the parents in this. The government is going to monitor trends closely from the end of December until 1 July next year and will have the capacity under the family assistance legislation to reintroduce a supply limit for long day care centres, if necessary.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam President, I take a point of order. At the beginning of Senator Newman's answer to that question, I clearly heard twice called out from the other side, `Another lie, another lie.' I also heard the word `liar' used by someone over there. I do not know who it was, but under the standing orders I would like you to bring it to the attention of the other side that that is not acceptable behaviour in this chamber.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I certainly heard someone say, `That's a lie' in debate on the issue. I did not hear the other expression, and I would not know which senator to ask to withdraw it.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left are shouting when I am attempting to address the Senate and answer a point of order. You are behaving outrageously. I am not able to ask a senator to withdraw that statement as I do not know who said it. I would, if I had heard it.9261Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In case senators have forgotten, I thank the minister for confirming that the planning and cap arrangements will cease at the end of this year. I ask: is the minister aware that many new centres are built by developers who then sell them to investors, such as retirees, and that some of these developers will not care whether or not particular areas are oversupplied? How is this efficient or effective operation of the market? Minister, when will the Howard government take responsibility for stabilising the child-care sector?9261Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not think the senator listened to me very carefully, but I suggest he goes away and studies the detail of what I said previously. The statement that the senator made about investors is true in a very small area. He makes it sound as though that is what is happening across Australia. That would not be a true reflection of the picture nationally, but I recognise that there are some people who are seeing this as a good investment. That says something which rather gives the lie to the Labor Party's arguments about why some centres have closed. If it is a good investment, then obviously good managers can make child care profitable for the people who put their money into it, and effective and of good quality for the families who use those centres. Of course, all these centres have to be accredited. The government does not set the fees. Essentially, the market sets the fees and people who charge very high fees will end up not having customers. (Time expired)92619261Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Yesterday I asked a similar question and in his answer on the funding assumptions behind the proposed capital gains tax cuts Senator Kemp said:The overseas experience supports the conclusion that a lower CGT rate increases realisations.Today I ask the minister: is he aware that the US Assistant Deputy Secretary in charge of tax policy, Leonard Burman, in a new book concludes that short-term revenue gains from lower taxes will be modest, but in the longer term revenue will actually be reduced? Is the minister aware that this conclusion is also supported in research by the US Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office and the US Federal Reserve? Minister, isn't it fiscally irresponsible to continue to endorse the Reynolds report—upon which Ralph largely relies—against this greater weight of evidence?9261Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Lees is quite correct, there was a question that I answered in some detail on this matter yesterday. The point I made, and it is worth reiterating, is that the government was prepared to accept the recommendations of the Ralph committee. The Ralph committee was an independent committee. It consulted for over 12 months in the preparation of its report. The committee received a wide range of submissions and, on the basis of those submissions, it made certain recommendations to the government. By and large, the government has been prepared to accept the recommendations in the report. Mr Ralph obviously looked at this issue, and I think a study was commissioned, which you mentioned. It carefully went through these issues and made certain proposals to the government. One of the points made was that in the shorter-term the realisations would increase. That point was carefully argued and, as a result of that, the government was prepared to accept the recommendations of the Ralph committee. It seems to me that others may well have different views but, in the end, the committee had to make a judgment. As I said, the government was, by and large, prepared to accept the recommendations of the committee.9261Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has largely repeated yesterday's answer, and repetition does not make it right. I encourage the minister to consultant Mr Burman's book. It is a very thoughtful book; in fact, it thoroughly analyses—as you mentioned yesterday—the overseas experience in detail and openly contradicts your view; a view which, in plain terms, is largely bunkum. I ask the minister: isn't Australian Treasury more likely to endorse the views of Mr Burman and the US Treasury than those of a US think tank which has put Dan Quayle in charge of part of its research program? If so, aren't your government's views at odds with Treasury?9262Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will try to ignore some of the political points that were made in that supplementary question. There is no doubt about the integrity and thoroughness of Mr Ralph and his committee. They went through these matters very carefully. You can say you have found other people who differ, and that is fine. You can find other people who differ but, at the end of the day, Mr Ralph and his committee came to their conclusions. I will not repeat the answer that I gave yesterday because the answer that I gave yesterday was correct. I invite you to read the answer I gave yesterday. As I said, there is no-one who would question the integrity of Mr Ralph on this matter, and the recommendations of that report have been largely accepted.92629262Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. It concerns a report published last month by the Queensland Child Care Coalition based on a survey of 28 per cent of that state's child-care services which, between them, cater for some 40,000 children. Is the minister aware that the survey found that between July 1998 and March 1999 no fewer than 7,393 children were removed from child-care? Is the minister also aware that child-care costs were the main reason parents nominated for withdrawing their children from care, or reducing their hours? In her normal form, the minister has blamed the media, she has blamed the opposition for scaremongering and she has blamed previous Labor governments. When will she take her responsibilities for child-care seriously and properly tackle the child-care affordability problem?9262Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The claims that have been made by the opposition certainly of fee increases of 20 per cent since 1995 are exaggerated. They are based only on the small and more expensive community sector. Contrary to Labor's claims, the community sector represents only around 30 per cent of children in long day care centres and, as I have said before, fees are set by child-care operators and not by the government. In fact, the rate of fee increases for centres has halved under this government to four per cent per annum compared to the rate of increase of fees under Labor of 8½ per cent per annum. That might be food for thought.The government of course contributes significantly to the child-care costs of low and middle income families. For low income families with two children in full-time care, government assistance is around 70 per cent or $12,400 of the average fee in centres and around 80 per cent of the average fee in family day care. Labor conveniently ignores the fact that, of low income families receiving the maximum rate of child-care assistance, 49 per cent, or 86,700, use private centres while 42 per cent, or 29,900, use community based child-care centres.I give all of that information because that is the background to the question about a survey which was conducted in Queensland, which I would have some concerns about but I do not have the details of it in front of me today. But I do know that of all the areas of Australia that are suffering as a result of the lack of planning by the previous government, it is south eastern Queensland that is suffering the most. I believe most of the people who came to see the ALP today would recognise that is the area where there is a serious oversupply. It has lead to problems for operators and problems for parents. I put the blame for that squarely where it should rest, and that is with the previous government which was not concerned to see to it that areas of greatest need were encouraged to have child-care places and not areas where there were already plenty of places.9262Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister also aware that the survey found a continued shift to informal, unregulated backyard care and warned of a return of the latchkey child syndrome? If this government's child-care system is in good shape, as the minister constantly claims, why are parents consistently saying that they cannot afford high quality care?9263Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—They are finding the fees expensive, but I have told you that the rate of increase of fees has been considerably less under this government than it was under the previous government. And the government does not set them. Here is this claim again that the government or somebody is forcing families out of formal care. There is no evidence that children are being pulled out of formal child care. I will tell you why, Senator. The child-care rebate figures show that the proportion of families claiming for informal care has fallen from eight per cent to six per cent since its introduction in 1994 and, in fact, the number of children using child care has increased significantly from 460,300 in 1994-95 to 544,700 in 1996-97.92639263Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I am wondering if the minister is aware that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority's own fact sheet states:. . . it is not always possible to detect an irradiated ingredient when it is a component of a large food product or if—for example—an irradiated spice is blended with a large volume of non-irradiated spice.Given this, how does ANZFA intend to implement its recommendations endorsed at the August health ministers meeting to label all irradiated foods when detection is so difficult? And can the government really guarantee that all irradiated foods will be labelled, if irradiated ingredients are present and undetectable in the food supply?9263Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for the question. It is certainly an interesting question. The basic thrust is correct in the sense that the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, which is made up of the health ministers of the Commonwealth, states, territories and New Zealand, has considered and approved the standards for food irradiation. This standard has actually been under development since October 1992 and has been subject to extensive public consultation and discussion with community groups. Consumer concerns such as Senator Stott Despoja referred to about safety assessments and labelling were taken into account when developing the new standard. The standard applies very strict controls on the irradiation of food.The irradiation of specific foods must be approved by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council on a case by case basis—I would think that that would be the category that Senator Stott Despoja refers to. All irradiated food ingredients, no matter how minor, will be labelled, and approval will be subject to a demonstrated technological need. Applicants must also show that irradiation would not be used as a substitute for good manufacturing and food hygiene processes.The Senate may not be aware that food irradiation is a food processing technology that involves treating certain types of food with ionising energy or radiation. It is used to destroy bacteria and parasites that cause human illnesses. It can also make food last longer by destroying or inactivating insects or moulds and yeast that spoil food. It also works by delaying the ripening of fruit and vegetables and limiting unwanted sprouting of potatoes and other similar vegetables. Food irradiation is another way of preserving food to keep it safe and wholesome, similar to pasteurisation and freezing.Different doses of ionising irradiation have different effects. At low doses, the irradiation lengthens the shelf life of certain foods such as strawberries or prevents sprouting of potatoes. At higher doses, irradiation helps reduce amounts of harmful bacteria on foods such as dry herbs and spices or chicken. Therefore, there is a public health argument in favour of permitting the irradiation of food. For example, with imported herbs and spices which may be heavily contaminated with pathogens it provides a safe alternative to the use of toxic fumigants which can leave residue in food.The World Health Organisation and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation endorse the safety and utility of irradiation as a treatment for ensuring the safety of food. So I can assure Senator Stott Despoja that where irradiation of any kind is used—whether it be partially or wholly—those foods will be labelled and approval will be subject, as I said, to a demonstrated technological need.9264Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his response—in particular, his recognition that there is a distinction between cooking the food through irradiation procedures and actually sterilising the food and therefore there is a health issue for consumers. I acknowledge the minister's comments in relation to keeping consumers informed, but I must ask the minister: given your concern about informing consumers about what they are eating, why is it that the health ministers did not include, in their post-meeting communique, the decision to lift the 10-year moratorium on irradiated foods? Why was that not open to the public and the media? Is this just another issue like that of cadmium in peanuts, which was snuck through without proper debate while everyone else was focusing on the gene food decision?9264Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—A seven-year process has been gone through before this has been reached. I would assume that not every factor could be incorporated in a release from the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council or the health ministers. If there is anything further to add to the previous answer that I gave, I would be happy to supply that to Senator Stott Despoja.92649264Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is to Family and Community Services Minister, Senator Newman. My question concerns the minister's announcement yesterday in her Press Club speech of:. . . the establishment of a high-level Reference Group that will include senior representatives from the community sector, business, academia and government. Mr Patrick McClure from Mission Australia will chair the Reference Group . . . The task of this Reference Group will be to guide the development of a comprehensive Green Paper on welfare reform.Does the minister recall that she said yesterday that she could not remember when the decision was made to form this `high-level reference group'? Does the minister remember now?9264Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have had a number of conversations with Mr Patrick McClure from Mission Australia, who has agreed to chair the reference group. I have had a number of these discussions over some time. We have been considering the membership of the reference group for some weeks. Mr McClure accepted on Tuesday the invitation to chair the group, and I believe that he and the reference group will do an outstanding job.92649264Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—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 how the proposed reductions in capital gains tax rates will benefit the economy and improve living standards for ordinary Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals, and is the government giving any of these serious consideration?9264Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There is a myth out there that somehow the reduction in capital gains tax rates is not much more than a rort for the rich. This, of course, is a myth perpetuated by people like Mr Boucher, who yesterday indulged in the grubby politics of envy. I suppose it is not surprising that the chief poodle of the Evatt Foundation should make those sorts of remarks. But the fact is that the Australian Taxation Office says that 80 per cent of people who pay capital gains tax earned less than $50,000 last year—in other words, 448,000 out of nearly 580,000 individual taxpayers. Under $20,000 there were 151,000 individuals with taxable capital gains. Between $20,000 and $38,000 there were almost 200,000. So there are very significant numbers affected by any reduction in the capital gains tax rate. It is particularly important to look at what Mr John Ralph had to say about the impact of some of these changes. He said:What you have to do is look at the amount of capital investment that takes place in the country, because the more capital investment, the more jobs and the better for the whole community.The Australian Venture Capital Association said:Instead of $500 million a year now flowing into venture capital funds in Australia, that amount could quickly double or triple to reach up to $2 billion within the next few years.That is the sort of money that will be vitally important in stimulating investment, in driving new jobs—particularly in the IT&T sector—and in ensuring that that sector continues to grow at something like three times the rate of the general economy. Those innovative industries will now be much better placed to attract investment to grow, to retain the best people in Australia and, of course, to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of Australians.It is particularly significant that we should look at some of those taxation and revenue effects that Senator Kemp has been canvassing with the Senate in the last couple of days, because CGT related impediments are particularly important to start-up enterprises in the knowledge based industries and because profit tends to be reinvested rather than redistributed. We are talking here about savings, in effect—savings that are being ploughed back into those industries that are likely to be the Microsofts of tomorrow and are likely to generate enormous additional taxation revenue both for companies and individuals. As Senator Kemp also pointed out, the markets are quite sensitive to changes in CGT rates, and some of the elasticity surveys indicate that a 50 per cent reduction in the rate of CGT would imply a 35 per cent increase in eligible investments.I noted that Senator Lees was getting quite excited about suggestions that somehow one could not rely on the academic evidence to support the approach taken by the Ralph committee. But the facts are that in the United States, between 1978 and 1985, the top marginal CGT rate was cut from 35 to 20 per cent and, in that time, total individual tax receipts tripled from $9 billion to $26 billion annually. Analysis performed by the American Council for Capital Formation indicated that lower capital costs should induce more investment, faster productivity growth, higher GDP and increased employment. In 1995, the Wall Street Journal said that during the late eighties, when the rate was increased from 20 per cent to 28 per cent, CGT revenues fell. So capital gains taxation has a powerful impact on entrepreneurial activities. These are the industries that make possible new breakthroughs, new start-up companies and new jobs. They are high risk areas. They need the returns that are only available through attractive capital gains tax rates, and starting these new businesses does involve assisting entrepreneurs, informal investors and venture capital pools. (Time expired)92659265Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Can the minister confirm that on 1 October the number of women's organisations funded through the Office of the Status of Women will fall from over 20 to just four? Following cuts to 0SW of 40 per cent and cuts to the grants provided by the organisation of 50 per cent, doesn't this signal the final nail in the coffin for the Office of the Status of Women? Is this why Ms Pru Goward has announced her resignation less than two years into her contract—because leading an organisation that has no status with the current government has become such a farce?9265Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the question is no.9265Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam Prexident, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise who will replace Ms Goward and when that announcement will be made? Can the minister also reassure the Senate that the appointment will not be another Howard crony who will drag women's policy further back to the 1950s?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I have no objection to an additional question being asked, but how that can possibly be a supplementary question arising out of a one-word answer `No' I would have thought was beyond even the opposition's creativity.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is a question that arises from the original question—it certainly does not arise from the answer—in that it refers to the same person as in the original question.9266Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I will not dignify such a disgraceful attack on a public official with an answer.92669266Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Would the minister inform the Senate how the government's proposed changes to business taxation will help small business grow and create more jobs? Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals? What would be the impact of these if they were implemented?9266Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Howard government is keenly aware of the potential of small business to drive economic growth and create jobs. Unlike the opposition, we actually listen to the concerns of small business about issues such as changes to the unfair dismissal laws and youth wage rates. Small business is already benefiting from the hard decisions we took to bring the budget back into balance. Our actions have helped bring down interest rates and inflation to their lowest levels in the last 30 years.But we want to do more for small business. The small business initiatives which have been proposed by the government in the taxation area offer benefits to more than 95 per cent of Australian businesses and about 99 per cent of Australian primary producers. The benefits to small business include substantial cuts in company tax rates in two stages to just 30 per cent, reductions in capital gains tax which will encourage investment and saving, encouragement of venture capital industries, and a new simplified tax system to reduce paperwork and compliance burdens. It is all about giving small business the ability to grow and employ more people. As my colleague Senator Newman said yesterday, the best welfare policy is to create jobs for the unemployed. Small business is so important as an engine driver for job creation. I want to put particular emphasis on the fact that these measures will be a major benefit for primary producers and small businesses in rural and regional Australia.Senator Crane has also asked whether I am aware of any alternative policies. Unfortunately, no alternative policies are being put up by the ALP—the alternative government in this country. In fact Senator Sherry has told us that no policies can be determined until the backroom boys of the ACTU have made decisions on such matters at next year's Labor conference. For rural and regional Australia, that must be an enormous disappointment. Not only will the Labor Party not determine policies for the benefit of rural and regional Australia until after next year's conference; it also has a non-performing shadow minister for regional affairs.It is worth remembering that in practically all areas in which this government brought into this Senate changes for the benefit of rural Australia Labor voted against them. Labor voted against the Natural Heritage Trust, which is now repairing environmental damage in the bush. Labor voted against the cuts to diesel fuel taxes, which will now deliver major benefits to rural Australia in terms of lower transport costs. The next betrayal of the bush by the Labor Party will come if they play cheap politics over the new business tax reforms. There is another chance coming up through those reforms for Labor to finally turn the corner and say that they will do something for the benefit of rural and regional Australia and support the government in its initiatives to bring benefits to the bush.92669266Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services. The question concerns the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme, which is designed to financially assist eligible people to manage the significant costs involved with the purchasing of incontinence aids. I ask the minister: why are some clients of this scheme having to wait for over two months to receive the aids as ordered? What review mechanisms are in place to ensure the company involved is fulfilling its contractual obligations?9267Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—There have been some problems over the last year with the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme. The national provider of the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme, PQ Lifestyles, recently introduced changes to improve the level of service and the value for money for CAAS clients around Australia. Some clients were not aware that PQ Lifestyles had held the CAAS contract since 1997 as they dealt directly with a subcontractor. Changes to the subcontractors have raised concerns about confidentiality, timeliness of deliveries and changes to product cost. Subcontractors adhere to strict confidentiality provisions.The new arrangements resulted in client orders considerably exceeding the anticipated level of demand that produced delays in the delivery of some products. A few manufacturers were unable to meet requests for extra products, despite being alerted to expect peaks in demand. The department is aware that some former subcontractors are aggrieved and much misinformation has been circulated in New South Wales. Delays in delivery are being rectified. The department is carefully monitoring the situation, and the department also plans to review the administrative arrangements of CAAS this year.9267Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer, particularly her acknowledgment of the evidence that has been provided to me that some CAAS clients are having to wait up to two months to receive their incontinence aids. Given that these people do not generally have two months worth of aids lying around the house, so they actually have to purchase their own products as a consequence of the inadequacies of the supplier, will the minister agree to reimburse those people for those costs?9267Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I certainly am concerned about those people, Senator, as anybody would be. I have been pretty dissatisfied with the arrangements that have been in place and the problems that have occurred, partly through backbiting and fighting within the industry. To the extent of that, I cannot comment. I will certainly look at that. I do not know what the involvement and implica tions would be, but I will certainly have a look.92679267Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Would the minister please advise the Senate of the appropriate course of action a senator should take if they believe that they have material that is relevant to a criminal investigation?9267Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Payne for her question. As all senators should understand, there is a longstanding convention that debate on court cases and criminal investigations has to be treated very carefully in this chamber where there is a chance that the debate might in one way or another prejudice either proceedings that are before a court or an investigation that is under way. The reason for this is very simple.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It's not, and that's the problem.7E4Senator VANSTONE—I acknowledge Senator Conroy's interjection, but I am not confident that he is necessarily correct. He might like to check that before he interjects along those lines again. Senators have long recognised that debate on a matter that is either before a court or under an investigation could have some influence, especially in relation to an investigation. There may be matters pertaining to that investigation not understood by senators when they wade into deeper water than they appreciate they are in. Debate about matters under active criminal investigation is avoided and should be avoided to ensure that the investigation is not influenced, damaged or put at risk by some stupid senator wanting to grab themselves a headline.It is important that this be understood by senators. Apart from not wanting to put an investigation or a proceeding at risk, these matters are avoided or treated extremely carefully because the rest of us do not want to give the perception that senators, or members of parliament, would attempt to influence either investigations or the conduct of proceedings. 3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Give them the funds they need.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, cease interjecting!7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Conroy's outburst yesterday shows no respect for the conventions of parliament or, for that matter, for the opportunities he is given.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You hypocrite!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, you will withdraw that remark.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I withdraw.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Stand up and withdraw it, Senator.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I withdraw.7E4Senator VANSTONE—If Senator Conroy believes the statements he made yesterday, the appropriate course of action for him is to provide any evidence he has to the National Crime Authority. Of course, if Senator Conroy is not confident of everything he said yesterday—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. In answering this dorothy dix question, Senator Vanstone has consistently not addressed the chair, and she has not even attempted to address the chair. It does appear, in fact, as though she is trying to address Senator Conroy across the chamber. She ought to address the Senate through you, and I would ask you to rule in favour of this point of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I believe Senator Vanstone is addressing the chair, but she is not helped by Senator Conroy persistently interjecting. I do suggest that Senator Conroy not interject and that the minister ignore him in any event.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—He doesn't understand the difference between first and second person.7E4Senator VANSTONE—If Senator Faulkner needs some help with grammar, I can recommend a very good book for him. The Deluxe Transitive Vampire would be of great assistance to him. I am sure it would be. The Deluxe Transitive Vampire is a book even he could understand!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone, you must direct your remarks through the chair.7E4Senator VANSTONE—I was, Madam President. I was simply informing you that, if he needed help, I would be happy to give it. If Senator Conroy is not confident of the material he raised in this place, he should never have raised it. Parliamentary privilege is not a licence to come in here and say what you like with no responsibility whatsoever. It does not mean that and it never has meant that.In any event, the only thing that Senator Conroy has achieved by raising the issue is to create the appearance that parliament is to be used in one way or another to try to influence either investigations or, for that matter, proceedings that might be on foot. This is not his first time. This gentleman—if he can be called that—is a serial offender. Even I know the Labor Party took him off the National Crime Authority committee. Why do you think his mates took him off the National Crime Authority committee? We all know the answer to that.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much shouting in the chamber.7E4Senator VANSTONE—There were some vicious rumours that the Labor Party thought he was leaking material from the National Crime Authority committee, which would be surely beneath such a senator. All we have here is a rogue senator trying to grab a headline. If Senator Faulkner cannot exercise proper leadership, as he never demonstrates in this place, and pull him into line, Senator Ray will take you on his knee and give you a smack. (Time expired)92689268McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Can the minister confirm that the Gold Medal Disability Access Strategy is administered by the public relations firm IPR Shandwick and has a budget of $2.1 million? Can the minister inform the Senate how much was paid or will be paid to IPR Shandwick as their fee for services? Does this fee come out of the $2.1 million, or is it an additional amount? Can the minister outline the outcomes IPR Shandwick are expected to achieve for their fee?9269Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I did have some information here; I just do not know if I can find it quickly. IPR Shandwick are the successful tenderers for the Gold Medal Disability Access Strategy. I believe, from memory, that your figure is wrong, Senator. I have heard that figure quoted before, but I believe the figure is something like $1.2 million. By far and away, the majority of the expenditure will be on seminars which will be held in every state and located in the state capitals. The first of them has already been held in Hobart. I launched this program at Stadium Australia at Homebush some weeks ago. I am very pleased with the involvement of both the business and the disability communities in this because what it is about is making sure that businesses recognise they are losing a lot of business by not catering to the needs of people with disabilities. Something like one in five people in Australia have a disability. If you are a small business person or a big business person and you are ignoring that market, then you are mad. There are things you can do to increase the provision of goods and services to people with disabilities, as well as improving your bottom line.I use this opportunity to tell anybody who happens to be listening this far along in question time that they should contact my department or IPR Shandwick, find out about the disability access program, find out about a seminar which will be held in their capital city and come on board. The program will culminate in about June next year with gold medal awards to businesses which do provide excellent access for people with disabilities—and not just the very visible disabilities. People who have hidden disabilities are in some ways more disadvantaged than anybody because nobody takes any care of them. They are not getting really good service.9269McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for the response she has given me so far. I wonder if you would consult with your advisers and confirm the amount, whether it is $1.2 million or $2.1 million. Could you also inform the Senate how much of that amount—$2.1 million or $1.2 million—has been allocated towards each of the symposiums that are being held right across the country?9269Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I know I have not seen that latter figure, but I have seen the total figure and I can get you that certainly. I will see what I can do in terms of the break-up of the total amount, but that is the budgetary amount.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous9269926915:03:009269Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have an additional answer to a question Senator Harradine asked yesterday, which I will table.926915:04:009269Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman), to questions without notice asked today.BH4HILLSenator Hill—You did that yesterday.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—For Senator Hill's information, we actually asked different questions today and got different answers. I wish to concentrate on the question of government funding to child care. Again today, the minister tried to use what are basically misleading statistics to justify the government's position on child care. I think it is about time the government came clean on what is happening with child care in Australia. The Howard government's cuts to child-care funding are beginning to come home to roost. We are beginning to get the statistical information that displays what impact the cuts made in the first couple of Howard budgets to child-care funding have been on child care in Australia.The minister likes to quote statistics that are based on comparisons with 1994-95. She released a report only last month which used statistics that were more than 12 months out of date, because they were the last available statistics that failed to show the picture of what was occurring in Australian child care.What we do know is that child-care funding is falling, child-care places are falling and the number of child-care centres are falling. These are not opposition statistics; these statistics I am using today are from the minister's own department. What we do know for the record is that actual expenditure on child care in 1996-97 was $1,066 million, that actual expenditure on child care in 1997-98 was $999 million and that the department's last estimate was that expenditure in 1998-99 was $989 million. So the department's figures disprove what the minister again tried to claim in the chamber today: that expenditure on child care was rising. Federal government expenditure on child care in Australia is falling, and the government's own statistics show that.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—That is not true. You know that is not true.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Senator Knowles, I am happy to debate the statistics with you any day, because you refuse to use the latest information.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Evans, address the chair and, Senator Knowles, cease interjecting.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—The government released the final budget outcome papers for 1998-99 last week. They show that there was a $0.2 billion underspend on Newstart and child-care assistance. I have not been able to get the breakdown on those figures as to how much of that is child-care assistance, but they are consistent with the department's earlier figures, which show that the real expenditure on child-care funding in Australia by the federal government has fallen in the last three years. On each year it has been less: $1,066 million to $999 million to $989 million. For the minister to come in here again and claim that child-care funding is going up is just not true. It is misleading the Senate; it is misleading the Australian public. There is a drop in funding to child care because of the cuts made by this government to child-care funding and because of the squeeze they put on child-care assistance when they froze it for two years.Senator Hill interjecting—AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I know she said that it increased, Senator Hill, and she misled the Senate, because it has not. Your own figures prove that it has not. I am not quoting ALP figures. I am quoting the government department budget figures—your own budget figures.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I thought that accusing another senator of misleading the Senate is out of order unless it can be proved.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I just proved it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The use of the word `misleading' has been used quite frequently before. It is unparliamentary to say `deliberately misleading'.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I am happy to be guided by you, Madam Deputy President. What I know is that the figures of the minister's own department prove that child-care expenditure in Australia has fallen in each of the last three years—the department's own figures. I have quoted the figures. I will be interested to see if any senators opposite use actual expenditure. I suspect they will use budget expenditure—estimates. Now that we have the actual expenditure we know it is falling. The other thing we know is that Australian families know it is falling, because they are feeling the pressure. They know that the gap between the assistance and the payments they have to make for child care is widening. They know that the cost to them of child care has increased because of the government's cutbacks. They know, because they are feeling the pressure. In particular, families with more than one child in child care are finding it just too expensive to afford child care because of the government's cutbacks.That is putting stress on families. It is making women make decisions about leaving the work force or reducing their hours. It is putting stress on grandparents and other relatives who are forced to care for children because people cannot afford formal care. The number of children, the number of centres and the expenditure on child care are all falling, and it is all proved by Department of Family and Community Services figures. The minister keeps on trying to use budget figures that were produced last year, but actual expenditure has fallen. The numbers in care have fallen. The number of centres has fallen. Yet the minister refuses to address the problems confronting child care in this country. It is putting real pressure on Australian families. (Time expired)15:10:009271Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—On 1 September this year Senator Evans gave another speech in which he stated the myths he has repeated today. It is just unbelievable that he can get up here month after month—it is not even a month; it is the same month—and repeat the same myths that he did on 1 September this year. To come in here and claim that funding has been reduced, that child-care places are fewer, that places are less affordable and that there is more unregulated child care is just unbelievably wrong. How can someone get it so badly wrong? But he does not want to listen. On 1 September he stormed out of the chamber. He is now going to storm out of the chamber. Is it any wonder he does not learn anything!As I said on 1 September, the government's commitment to child care is demonstrated by the spending of $3 billion on child care in the last three years. That represents 20 per cent more than in Labor's last three years in office. But what is Senator Evans doing? He is standing over there with his back to the chamber and his ears firmly shut yet again. He does not want to know. He will never learn. The fact of the matter is that, with the allocation of around $5.3 billion over four years to 2002-03—including $600 million in additional funding over three years from 2001-02 and 2002-03 with the introduction of the child-care benefit—expenditure is expect ed to reach $1.5 billion annually by 2002-03. Yet Senator Evans consistently comes in here and does not reflect the facts as they are.Only in August this year Minister Newman was forced to repudiate the allegations that Senator Evans had not only been making in this chamber but which he also peddled outside to the media, who, of course, in their typical style, repeated them very faithfully. But there has been more money for child care in each of the last four budgets than in Labor's last year of office. The government assistance that has been provided to families has in fact reduced the cost of child care for families. A low income family paying average fees for two children in full-time care would receive over $12,000 a year in taxpayer funded assistance. That covers about 75 per cent of their child-care costs. For a middle income family, the taxpayer funded assistance is around $10,000 or about 60 per cent of their child-care costs.Since 1996—in other words, since Labor lost office—there have been 130,500 extra child-care places. If Senator Evans ever wanted to listen, he would find out the facts as opposed to what he maintains religiously has been reduced. So, as I say, there is an extra 130,500 child-care places since this government came to office. The disreputable way in which the Labor Party ran the child-care policy whereby they simply opened up child-care centres in areas of electoral need—in other words, where they had marginal seats that they needed to win as opposed to real areas of need—was just absolutely and utterly unbelievable.Yet we had a question today, of which I could not believe the breathtaking stupidity, in which Senator Forshaw said, `How dare people go and invest in child-care centres! How dare they!' Yet, what he does not know and does not want to know is that most people—in fact, 70 per cent of people—have always gone to private centres, not the community based centres. If someone else wants to take a risk and open a child-care centre with their own money as opposed to taxpayers' money, can anyone tell me the problem with that, because they are not going to open in an area where child care is not going to be viable? They are risking their own money, not the taxpayers' money. But of course old trade unionists and Labor people like Senator Forshaw and Senator Evans would not understand that sort of risk. They also would not understand the way in which areas of need are paramount. (Time expired)15:15:009272Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I also wish to take note of the answers given by Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. In doing so, I would like to refer to the minister's speech which was delivered on 29 September at the National Press Club. We have probably been a bit unfair on Senator Newman with regard to her not delivering the green paper—although I do note that Senator Hill has a big pile of green paper and he did, by way of interjection, inform me that he was on the task force. Whether he is amending it or not, I am not sure. We have been a little bit unfair on Senator Newman because I think she did actually deliver the green paper in her speech. It is just a matter of being able to decipher the code in which it is written. I would really like to try to decipher this coded speech which has been written and provided. It says:It is this commitment to social and economic participation and the need to best utilise our national resources, which leads us to continued welfare reform.This is really code for, `We're going to give these bludgers less.' It goes on to say:And in doing so it must be said that businesses, communities, families and individuals all have important roles to play in reforming the welfare system.This is code for, `The rich get more, the poor get less.' She then says:I don't want to be misunderstood here. We should be under no illusions. The globalisation of the economy is an irresistible phenomenon that no Australian government should seek to deny. Indeed, it would be counterproductive to do so.This is code for, `I'll be clear here. I need to reduce welfare more.' Going on down the page, she says:Mindful of these pressures the Howard Government has embarked upon a range of challenging and difficult policy agenda. We have reformed the tax system, so that it supports our new economic and social structures—not those of the 1930s. This really means, `I like the 1930s.' The minister went on to say that she has six reform principles:In addressing welfare reform I see six key principles which focus the mind and provide rigour for policy makers. These principles are:1. maintaining equity, simplicity, transparency and sustainability;This really means they will be unfair, complicated, opaque—and yes, sustainable. Yes, we will give the minister `sustainability'—one out of four so far—because that is just like the GST. No. 2 reads:2. establishing better incentives for people receiving social security payments . . . This really means that recipients will be given a free birch branch with which to flail themselves when they are on their way to `establishing better incentives'. No. 3 reads:3. creating greater opportunities for people to increase self-reliance and capacity-building, rather than merely providing a passive safety net;This means that the hours for the Work for the Dole program will be from half-past-I-can't-see to half-past-I-can't-see. Then we go on to No. 5:5. providing choices and support for individuals and families with more tailored assistance that focuses on prevention and early intervention;This is the no-option choice. And, finally, No. 6:6. maintaining the Government's disciplined approach to fiscal policy.This is really the bottom line. It means, `There's no more money for you.' Further into the minister's speech, she illuminates us even further with regard to what the real agenda is:Of course, some older unemployed people need help to get back into work or to remain active in the community.Old age work for the dole—we know that is the next plan. This is from a minister who was awarded the ABC Elaine award. She was awarded that for making the most unhelpful comment in regard to women. During the 7.30 Report , the minister said, in response to a journalist's question about who people should trust and believe, `They should believe me because I'm from the government and I've got departmental statistics which were put out to try and prevent this sort of nonsense.' And the sort of nonsense we are talking about is exactly what my colleague Senator Evans highlighted: the fact that this government is in fact spending significantly less on child care than previous governments. The fact is that it has tried to hide it, and this minister is continually trying to hide it by saying, `Well, it's budget estimates.' (Time expired)15:20:009273Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—If there is anybody you should not believe, I would have to say that it is Senator Murphy, because he really has failed to understand at all what the minister had to say yesterday at the Press Club. The government does not see social welfare as an endpoint; it sees it as a beginning and as a springboard to get people back into a better way of life and back into the work force. That is because we believe that the best kind of welfare is a job, where people are earning money and able to pay their own way. The coalition, may I say, has always had a strong track record on social reform. We have improved family allowances, rent assistance and the automatic indexation of pensions—something Labor could have done if it had really delivered on its so-called social policies, but it never did. It left pensions at an abysmally low level, while we have pegged pensions forever at 25 per cent of the average male weekly earnings so that the pensioners get their money increased as the CPI and wages go up.Let us have a look at Labor's general record. Labor has never been serious about stopping fraud and non-compliance in the social security system. Labor was quite happy for people to go on rorting the system. Getting two lots of social security under different names and all sorts of other malpractices that went on under the Labor government were never seriously investigated or sought to be prevented. The previous Labor social security minister boasted that he had solved the problem of people cheating the system.Despite this, the coalition, since it has been in office, has been able to save taxpayers $1.1 billion since 1996 by closing Labor's loop holes and has reduced the benefits of 640,000 people who were receiving too much or who were—in more simple, direct terms—rorting the system. Labor broke its election promise to take all age and service pensioners out of the pension system within days of the 1993 election. Labor opposed the genuine coalition measures aimed at ensuring the social security system is fair and targeted to those most in need.Labor wasted $2.4 billion in payments to people who were not entitled to benefits. Under Labor, the unemployed could get the dole without putting anything back into the community. We have established the Work for the Dole system, which not only gives people a sense of dignity but means that they are contributing to the community and that they get away from the deadening welfare dependency that the Labor social security system promoted. Let us look generally at what the coalition have done. The coalition have initiated family tax payments covering 1.75 million children in low income families as part of the family tax initiative which delivered $1 billion in tax cuts to families. Our new tax system will deliver $2.4 billion in extra money to low income families. We have implemented a waiting period for migrants before they can receive social security. Most migrants will now have to wait two years before accessing welfare benefits other than family allowance and Medicare.Labor were quite happy for people to come into this country from overseas to access the social security system because it was so generous and so weakly tested in terms of need. Senator Murphy mentioned child care being reduced under the coalition, but the coalition have allocated more funding to child care than Labor did. We have given $5.3 billion over four years, to 2002-03, to fund 70,000 additional places in each of the coalition's first three budgets. We have a record which Labor cannot in any way claim to equal. (Time expired)15:25:009273Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—In one of my previous lives I had a great deal of contact with child-care centres as I was president of the local family day care association. As a result of that, I have many contacts in day care groups and I get many calls from people who have concerns about child care. Just this week I received a call from a young Tasmanian woman who is now working here in Canberra. She is a sole supporting parent who works hard, and she has a responsible position but is not terribly well paid.She is concerned because it is impossible for her to find a place for her child in care next week—during the school holiday period here—that is not prohibitive in cost. She is a mother who is not draining the public purse. She works full-time. She works a second job to try to save money so that she and her child can have a holiday. She has no contacts in the ACT, because she is new to the place. She does not want to put her child into any backyard care facility, which I believe is becoming an option for people who are not able to afford the prohibitive cost of child care under this government. The week after next, she and her son are going on holidays. That means that she will have to try to find somewhere to place him for a week, which will eat into the money that she had saved for their holiday. She was greatly concerned about this.There is not adequate funding for child care in this country at the moment. This young woman happened to ring me because she is a Tasmanian and because of my previous contact with day care. She is a classic example of the following. Pam Cahir from the Early Childhood Association said on the 7.30 Report on 25 August:Some parents are being forced out of the workforce. We do know that. They don't want to be out of the workforce, they want to be in the workforce, but it costs too much and it's cheaper for them to cut back days and to stay at home.The lass who rang my office this week is one of those people considering having to leave the work force. It is not just happening with single mums; it is happening with married couples who are both on low incomes and who find it virtually impossible for them both to work. The government has voiced mutual obligation in an extremely feeble way. On the one hand, it does not want welfare dependent people but, on the other hand, it is unwilling to adequately provide the structures and supports needed for people to maintain independence with dignity.Child Care Australia reports the closure of 280 child-care centres since 1996, and a Productivity Commission report showed a reduction of just over 10 per cent in spending on child care per hour between 1995-96 and 1997-98. The implications of the government's response to child care are further supported by Roberta Ryan from the University of New South Wales, who stated on the 7.30 Report:We became very aware that the changes that the Government made for funding arrangements for child care were having significantly negative effects . . . Average income earners are increasingly finding child care unaffordable.This is exactly what this lass was finding. She is probably an average income earner, but she is a sole supporting parent, so she does not have another income to rely on, apart from the extra work she does so that she and her child can have holidays. Roberta Ryan went on to say:At $40 a day, on average in the Waverley local government area, those fees for full-time places over 50 weeks a year, cost more than the best private schools in Sydney.(Time expired)15:30:009274Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—This issue is obviously of concern to the opposition. A couple of weeks ago I gave my first speech on a motion to take note of an answer on this issue.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—It is of concern to us, but not to you.84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Let me get to that in a minute, Senator Murphy. I want to do two things: I want to outline the facts on child care and then address some of the issues raised by Senator Murphy.The government's strong commitment to child care is demonstrated by several things. It is demonstrated by spending in the order of about $3 billion over the last three years—which is 20 per cent more than Labor spent in their last three years in office; the introduction of the child-care benefit; and the allocation of around $5.3 billion over four years to 2002-03, including an additional $600 million over three years from 2000-01. Finally, expenditure is expected to reach about $1.5 billion annually by 2002-03. I found Senator Murphy's remarks today on policy reform interesting. It is good to see the Labor Party concentrating on policy reform.Welfare, as so many other things in politics today, is undergoing reform. Senator Mackay spoke about the Liberal Party in the 1950s. Today, in fact, it is the Liberal Party that is the party of reform—7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—It is still in the 1950s.84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—whether, Senator Crossin, it is in industrial relations, taxation or economic policy. It is not enough, in the context of welfare policy, to suggest that welfare should be spent endlessly without a focus on trying to move people off welfare. The mind-set that welfare is simply about endlessly providing an income—admittedly a small income—is blinkered.Senator Carr interjecting—84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—There is actually something more important than governments providing welfare.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What is there?84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Getting them off welfare, Senator—that is the difference between us.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!Senator Carr interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, that is enough from you. Will you cease interjecting. Senator Mason, ignore the interjections, direct your comments to chair and do not respond.Senator Hill interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I do not need any help from you, Senator Hill.84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—I will just repeat that message because it is an important one: there is something more important than providing welfare, and that is getting people off welfare. This government has done that through sound economic and social policies that have seen unemployment rates continue to drop over the last decade. As Senator Newman said today, this government has embraced the philosophy of mutual obligation, and that has meant several things: first, that welfare will be provided to the people who need it, in return for something—in return for their commitment to assist themselves, if they are able. Second, in practice, this means that, in the context of benefits paid to people who are unemployed, those people will actively seek employment and actively train for the purpose. The community will provide security, as it should, but the community expects that beneficiaries will help themselves—that is the difference today.Only in this way can this country enjoy the cultural shift that has occurred in the field of economics and industrial relations, and there will be a cultural shift in welfare. It will be a shift from a culture of dependency to a culture of having a fair go and having a go—a shift from a culture of entitlement to a culture of mutual obligation.Senator Murphy interjecting—84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—It is funny that Labor Party senators keep interjecting. This philosophy has been adopted by the Labour Party in Great Britain. They call it reciprocal responsibility. Every single thing that the left faction of the Labor Party believes has been eschewed by Mr Blair, and he is quite right. The Labour Party in Britain believes in reciprocal responsibility in the context of welfare. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents9275927510000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of the Senate for 1998-99.Ordered that the report be printed.927515:36:009275Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In accordance with the order for production of documents that was agreed to on 12 August 1999, I want to table some documents. Is that in order at this point in time?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—In accordance with the order for production of documents that was agreed to on 12 August 1999, I table the Skehill review of the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Laurie Foley to the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance, in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I seek leave to make a very short statement on the documents.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Was notice given that these documents were going to be tabled?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The minister can table documents on order at any time, Senator Carr.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The normal convention is to let the opposition know that these documents are being tabled so that we can get the responsible spokesperson here in the Senate to assist the minister with his consideration of these matters. That is a procedure that has served the Senate well. I would ask that in future the minister follow that practice. I am more than happy to grant him leave at this point.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order, I have the documents here. No-one will be able to look through them now.Senator Carr interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I am seeking leave to make a very short statement about the tabling, that is all.Leave granted.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I have already tabled a large number of documents in relation to this return to order. The review I am tabling today completes the government's response. The material considered by Mr Skehill in his investigation is, of course, canvassed in the body of the report. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority commissioned the report after concerns were raised about Mr Laurence Foley's appointment to an executive position in the authority.Mr Foley was a member of the CASA board immediately before his appointment. The Skehill report concludes that Mr Foley breached section 21 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act which relates to the disclosure of material personal interests. The report however finds that the breach of the act was an inadvertent act of omission rather than of commission and that Mr Foley did not seek inappropriately to conceal his interest. The report finds that Mr Foley's appointment as an assistant director was not inappropriately influenced by his membership of the board. Further, his failure to comply with section 21 of the CAC Act had no effect on his appointment.The CASA board has considered the report. It criticised Mr Foley by stating that it viewed his omission with disapproval and expressed concern that the omission could reasonably give rise to a perception of lack of judgment. Given Mr Skehill's conclusions, however, the board has invited Mr Foley to resume his duties.Committees92769276927615:39:009276Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: No. 8 of 1999—CSIRO Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, New South Wales—Joint Research Complex for CSIRO Molecular Science and Food Science Australia; and Report No. 9 of 1999—CSIRO Division of Building Construction and Engineering Development Works at Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, New South Wales. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I move:That the Senate take note of the reports.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—CSIRO Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, NSW—Joint Research Complex for CSIRO Molecular Science and Food Science Australia (Eighth report of 1999)CSIRO Division of Building Construction and Engineering Development Works at Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, NSW (Ninth report of 1999)Madam President, the reports which I have just tabled concern proposals to construct new facilities for the CSIRO's Division of Molecular Science and Food Science Australia and CSIRO's Division of Building Construction and Engineering Development.Both are to be constructed at Riverside Corporate Park at North Ryde in Sydney.The Riverside Corporate Park contains the largest aggregation of CSIRO research activities in New South Wales. Long term planning envisages development of the corporate park, within CSIRO precincts, to provide modern research facilities.Land surplus to CSIRO requirements has been developed and infrastructure and site services have been upgraded or replaced for sale to private sector companies. Further rationalisation and consolidation of CSIRO facilities is planned.The estimated out turn cost of both proposals is $59 million dollars.The Committee has recommended that the works should proceed as proposed.The first report, the eighth of 1999, concerns the construction of a new joint complex for the Division of Molecular Science and Food Science Australia. This will replace predominantly old and substandard existing facilities at North Ryde that are now inadequate for conducting modern scientific research.The new facilities will provide accommodation for 220 Food Science Australia and Division of Molecular Science staff plus long-term visitors and students. Facilities will also include amenities, support services and infrastructure which will be shared among all CSIRO divisions within the central precinct of Riverside Corporate Park.The estimated cost of this proposal is $49 million dollars.By way of background, Food Science Australia and the Division of Molecular Science undertake wide-ranging strategic and applied research for industries which play a vital role in the continued economic growth of Australia. Both Divisions are housed in facilities which are inadequate and cannot be adapted to contemporary and future research requirements. North Ryde is regarded as an ideal location for both organisations which are required to interact with companies and universities located in the Sydney area.The Committee has concluded that a need exists for the provision of modern research facilities for the two Divisions which would benefit from being collocated. In terms of the scope of the proposal, the Committee has concluded that it will provide both Divisions with much needed modern research laboratories and ancillary facilities. The extent of the complex can be justified being necessary to meet current and future requirements. CSIRO staff were involved in some detailed planning of the proposed joint complex.A noteworthy feature is the location and height of the Joint Research Centre. These will combine to create a strong architectural statement whose immediate impact will be tempered by the setback from Delhi Road and tree plantings. The question of the profile and heights of exhaust stacks arose during the inquiry and the Committee has recommended that these features should be re-examined to reduce their visual impact.As is normally the case, CSIRO consulted widely with State and local government planning authorities in order to meet planning requirements.In relation to the wider coporate park, the Committee has concluded that CSIRO has implemented extensive initiatives to minimise the environmental impact of the development of the corporate park site. These measures include extensive stormwater management and the provision of a substantial portion of land as a flora and fauna reserve.The second report, the Committee's ninth of 1999, concerns the replacement of predominantly old and substandard facilities with new state-of-the-art accommodation for the construction materials laboratory and fire technology complex of the CSIRO's Division of Building Construction and Engineering.The facilities proposed in this stage of the replacement program will accommodate 70 research and support staff and comprise modern research facilities and management and administration offices, together with industrial scale technical areas and testing bays. More specifically, the development will include:. Fire Testing Facilities—Technical and Testing bays and support areas;. Structural Fire and Testing facility;. Reaction to Fire Materials facility;. Fire Safety Performance Evaluation facility;. Construction Materials Facilities—process bays and laboratories; and. Central Facilities—reception, meeting rooms, office and support areas.Madam President, the Committee is satisfied that the proposed development is necessary in order for CSIRO Building Construction and Engineering to continue to meet its objectives of supporting, advancing and improving the operation of industries relating to the built environment. The Construction Materials research team, which provides strategic support to Australian concrete research, is currently housed in temporary laboratories at Riverside Corporate Park. It is essential that new and improved laboratories be built in order to support the growth in the important area of CSIRO research in advanced cementitious technology.The Fire Science and Technology Laboratory enhances the competitiveness of Australian industry and public safety through performance prediction methods, measurement technologies and technical advances which result in improvements in the built environment.Existing fire research and testing facilities are constraining the CSIRO's current capabilities and will not enable fulfilment of future local and international market needs. The proposed new facility will focus on new science capabilities in fire suppression technology, including methods of extinguishing large industrial fires such as the Longford gas fire and the fire at Coode Island in Victoria.Madam President, while the Committee supports this proposed development it notes that some concerns have been raised by community groups about the likely adverse impacts of the development on the local environment. The Committee took evidence from these groups as well as from various local and State authorities and is satisfied that the CSIRO has planned and will implement numerous conservation measures which will ensure the preservation of a healthy local environment.The Committee has recommended that the CSIRO continue to supervise development works to ensure the local environment is fully protected, and furthermore that the CSIRO give community groups an opportunity to contribute their views to the environmental management plan currently being developed for this project.Madam President, I commend these reports to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.927810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Economics Legislation Committee—Substitute member: Senator Greig to replace Senator Murray for matters relating to resources Economics References Committee—Appointed: Senator RidgewayDischarged: Senator MurrayParticipating members: Appointed: Senator Murray Discharged: Senator RidgewaySubstitute member: Senator Greig to replace Senator Ridgeway for matters relating to resourcesEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee—Substitute member: Senator George Campbell to replace Senator Carr on 8 October 1999Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Appointed: Senator BartlettDischarged: Senator AllisonParticipating members: Appointed: Senator Allison for matters relating to communications and Senator Ridgeway for matters relating to arts Discharged: Senator BartlettSubstitute member: Senator Stott Despoja to replace Senator Bartlett for matters relating to information technologyEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Participating member: Senator Ridgeway for matters relating to artsFinance and Public Administration References Committee—Appointed: Senator RidgewayDischarged: Senator MurrayParticipating members: Appointed: Senator Murray Discharged: Senator RidgewayNational Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Appointed: Senator GreigDischarged: Senator BourneRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Participating member: Senator Greig for matters relating to fisheries and transportSubstitute members: Senators Calvert and Gibson to replace Senators Crane and McGauran on 5 October and 6 October 1999, and Senator Bartlett to replace Senator Woodley from 5 October till 10 October 1999, for the committee's inquiry into the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon Superannuation and Financial Services—Select Committee—Appointed: Senators Conroy, Hogg and Sherry.Bills9279Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills: Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999Bills9279r8739279Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.927915:42:009279Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The purpose of this bill is to apply aspects of the Commonwealth's competitive neutrality policy to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC), which is a key Commonwealth statutory authority in the Government's integrated approach to promoting and supporting Australian exporters.EFIC does this by providing a range of insurance and finance facilities where these are not normally provided by the private sector. It has had an important part to play in the Government's strong commitment to assisting Australian exporters during the Asian economic crisis, most notably through the National Interest Account facilities agreed to by Cabinet for Korea and Indonesia. More generally, EFIC support over the past five years has underpinned some $34.5 billion worth of exports to more than 150 countries and involved some 1,200 exporters, many of whom have been small and medium sized businesses.As the Prime Minister announced in the Government's "Investing for Growth" statement in 1997, the Government has reviewed its ownership of EFIC and concluded that the interests of exporters are best served by a strong EFIC under existing ownership arrangements. EFIC's role during the Asian economic crisis has amply demonstrated the merits of this decision.At the same time, the Commonwealth's competitive neutrality policy requires that government business activities do not have net competitive advantages over their private sector competitors simply as a result of their public ownership. EFIC's activities in the short-term insurance area potentially overlap with those of private insurers, although such an overlap does not occur in respect of EFIC's medium- to long-term activities. The Government is concerned to ensure that, to the extent possible, consistent with operating a viable business, EFIC does not enjoy a net competitive advantage. This accords with the Government's desire to foster the development of private sector insurers.This bill therefore applies a debt neutrality charge, guarantee fee and tax-equivalent payments to EFIC's operations in the area of short-term insurance contracts. The bill also removes EFIC's current exemptions from the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 and Insurance Contracts Act 1984 in relation to such operations. These changes will assist in providing a more even competitive situation for the development of the private market.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Miscellaneous927915:42:009279Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—At the request of Senator Carr, I move: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.'Mr Djerrkura's comments come as a result of a report commissioned and released by ATSIC; an independent analysis of the proposed changes to Abstudy. Before I go on to make some comments about Abstudy and the findings of that report, I want to put on record some figures which show the state of Aboriginal and indigenous education in this country. This is, I think, a record which is not only a national disgrace but also an international disgrace. The record of participation and attainment rates by indigenous students in this country leaves a lot to be desired, particularly because the current policies of this government do not seek to reverse the figures that I am about to read.In 1997 the Australian Council for Educational Research conducted a test of reading skills. It showed that effectively 81 per cent of the indigenous sample failed those tests at year 3 level compared with 27 per cent of the main sample, and that 77 per cent of indigenous students at year 5, compared to 29 per cent of the non-indigenous population, failed that test. The situation is worst in remote areas. In particular, I draw people's attention to the Katherine region of the Northern Territory. The literacy survey in that region has exposed functional literacy levels of just seven per cent among indigenous students compared with 70 per cent for the general population.Let us have a look at higher education. Despite increasing numbers of Aboriginal students enrolled, there is a 56 per cent dropout rate which depletes their ranks by the end of their first year, according to a 1996 report. This compares with 24 per cent for the general population and 25 per cent for the migrant population. I am sure there may well be triumphant notes from across this chamber later in the debate about the increased numbers of indigenous people actually enrolling in higher education and TAFE courses to the tune of around 3,000 nationally. But that figure conceals the fact that just under half of those enrolments are in bridging programs and students are often beamed up from secondary school in an attempt to get them into tertiary education.With secondary school education, a 1994 survey showed that nearly half of indigenous people aged 15 and over had either received no formal education or had reached year 10 level, and that the year 10 certificate was the highest qualification achieved by 30 per cent of our indigenous people. The retention rates for indigenous students are poor. In 1996 the apparent indigenous retention rates compared quite unfavourably with that of non-indigenous students. Seventy-four per cent of indigenous students attend year 11 compared with 84 per cent of non-indigenous students, and only 29 per cent of indigenous students compared with 72 per cent of non-indigenous students complete year 12.In the Northern Territory the situation is a national disgrace. There are no remote communities that provide secondary schooling to indigenous students. Some—and very few—provide post-primary education to students out bush. But by and large, those people who live in the central parts of this country in the Northern Territory and in the Top End need to travel to either Alice Springs or Darwin to attend boarding school for their secondary education. During this time that means that they are separated not only from their family but from their land and their culture. It is not surprising that many teenagers and their families are not prepared to make this move. In 1996 only one Aboriginal person in Central Australia completed year 12. Former Senator Bob Collins is currently conducting a review of Aboriginal education in the Northern Territory and that review will be welcomed when it is handed down. In the process of conducting that review he has said that a 15- or 16-year-old Aboriginal student leaving a rural school has the literacy ability of only a six or seven year old.So why are we at this point? Federal governments have implemented an Aboriginal education program, known as IESIP, where millions of dollars have been handed out to state and territory governments each year. Let us have a look in particular at the Northern Territory government and its handling of that money. Through the estimates process we have discovered that 48 per cent of those funds are hived off by the Northern Territory government under the guise of administrative costs.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is just a disgrace.AW5Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—Yes, an absolute disgrace. We have been given a breakdown of those costs. In estimates I have actually pursued vigorously why it is we reached 48 per cent. Quite a significant percentage of that goes to capital and expenditure upgrade and housing maintenance. I fail to understand why the federal government has not called the Northern Territory government to task over the misuse of this money. For example, why was the Northern Territory government the last government in this country out of the state and territory governments to produce performance indicators for the current Aboriginal education program agreement that they signed? In fact, as late as only a couple of months ago, it produced performance indicators under that agreement.ATSIC pointed out in their submission to Bob Collins during his review that they believe the Northern Territory government was contravening the indigenous education agreement entered into with the Commonwealth for the third triennium from 1997 to 1999. During a recent Senate committee inquiry travelling around Central Australia we discovered that other state and territory governments take off only 20 per cent of the funds for administrative costs. Yet the Northern Territory government has continued year after year to go unchecked, unaccounted for and blatantly misusing and misdirecting these funds for some other purpose. It has made a commitment to the progressive introduction of indigenous language teaching in more schools over the current triennium, but we are all too aware in this chamber of its recent decision to abolish the bilingual education program in the Northern Territory. As part of the AEP contract, a specific performance indicator was included which dealt with the need for the Northern Territory government to make indigenous language accessible within the educational experiences of indigenous children. As the triennium finishes in 1999, the Northern Territory government will be required to negotiate a set of achievable targets with the Commonwealth.Let us have a look at what they have done with bilingual education, before I turn very quickly to the recent changes in Abstudy. On 1 December last year the Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training, Peter Adamson, announced the decision to cut bilingual education programs and to replace them with English as a second language program. Bilingual programs have run in the Northern Territory for 26 years. They operate at 17 of the 91 remote Aboriginal schools and during 1998 around 47 per cent of all students were enrolled in community schools operating a formal bilingual program.You may well ask what that has to do with indigenous retention rates and indigenous performance rates in education. You need to realise that communities in the Northern Territory who have bilingual education have requested it. They have wanted it. It has been an initiative of those communities and was first introduced 26 years ago. What is important about that is the technique and methodology used in those bilingual schools. It is far easier for students in those schools to be able to understand the mechanics of literacy, reading and writing when they first learn that in their own language, then to translate those skills into English or into a second language. It is done in New Zealand and it is done comprehensively throughout America.There is no evidence to suggest that those Aboriginal schools in the Territory with a total English curriculum are achieving any better rates. In fact, under the MAP tests used by the Northern Territory government, there is evidence to show that some bilingual schools perform better than some of the completely English schools in some of the urban areas. There has been no evidence to show that bilingual education is not working. In their submission to the review into Aboriginal education, ATSIC said:. . . bilingual education forms an integral component of the educational aspirations of many Aboriginal parents in relation to their children's schooling.That is something that parents across this country would all want. We all demand at some stage, as our the children go through school, an input into the kind of education and the quality of education they receive. The submission further said:ATSIC recommends that, in line with the local, national and international support for the program, the Aboriginal Education Review Team consider this issue in detail as part of the Review Process. Mandawuy Yunupingu stated in an article in Time magazine on 22 February 1999 that he believes the decision to discard bilingual education will hasten the demise of fragile Aboriginal languages and the culture they underpin. He says:It's assimilation born again. It takes away from our people the power to do the empowering.Oxfam—the network of international aid agencies, which includes Community Aid Abroad—claims in its report titled Education now: break the cycle of poverty that the decision to abolish bilingual education represents a clear breach of government obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. An aspect of that convention talks about protecting and respecting the rights of indigenous people.So we have a decision by the Northern Territory government to abolish its bilingual programs which is a clear breach of the International Declaration on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the international covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights. What have we seen from the government? Nothing. No comment and no attempt by Minister Kemp to pull the Northern Territory government into line and get it to reconsider its decision to abolish bilingual education.There has been no comment on the subject and no meetings with the Northern Territory government. There have been no questions about accountability, and no evidence or proof that bilingual education is not happening. There has been inaction and silence from members of the government when there is clear evidence that it is not bilingual education that is the cause of some of the problems inherent in Aboriginal communities. What is happening? Bob Collins, in conversations that I have had with him, has said that the problems in Aboriginal communities are complex and that there are major issues that do not just go to the kinds of programs, the nature of programs or the delivery of programs.Luke Slattery in an article in the Australian in November of last year very aptly describes the situation. His article is headed `No year 12 joy for Aborigines'. I have already explained to the Senate that in 1996, in Central Australia, only one person completed year 12. I think Luke Slattery sums up the situation when he talks about Aboriginal students being on a `slippery dip' that begins with chronic truancy, drug abuse, crime, youth suicide, life-term unemployment and domestic violence within their communities. That is at the heart of where things are wrong in terms of Aboriginal education in this country. That is coupled with a lack of accountability by state and territory governments in terms of what they do with their money and, of course, inexplicable changes to the support network provided by government, as we now see with the current Abstudy changes.Let us have a look at those changes because they are all part of the melting pot that ensures that these kids on this slippery dip, as Luke Slattery puts it, are pushed down the slide at a faster rate. The Abstudy changes imply that the federal government is abandoning its equity targets for indigenous Australians in the tertiary sector. The changes will result in more than $18 million being cut from the Abstudy budget. The changes will expose a gap in student support at the state and territory level as indigenous students seek safety net alternatives to Abstudy assisted education.An analysis regarding the changes to Abstudy was undertaken by the Institute of Koorie Education at Deakin University. It was commissioned and released on behalf of ATSIC. The study found that the changes, which are due to take effect on 1 January next year, will benefit fewer than 1,000 young and single students, who represent a small proportion of the total Abstudy student population. On the other hand, they will significantly disadvantage more than 14,000 indigenous students in the tertiary sector. This is amidst a climate, which I have outlined, of where indigenous students are not participating and are not succeeding in our education system. The government has decided to drive another nail in the coffin in terms of its changes to Abstudy.Mature age students make up about 80 per cent of the TAFE and university indigenous student population in Australia. The majority of these mature age students are women who, in turn, make up almost half the total TAFE and university Abstudy population. What is it about the changes to Abstudy that pushes ATSIC to make these announcements and for Gatjil Djerrkura to make the kinds of statements he has made? The main problem behind the Abstudy changes are that they just do not recognise where Aboriginal people are at in terms of their study and in terms of what is happening with them.Pushing the Abstudy changes into alignment with the Youth Allowance and the Newstart Allowance, as this change will do, does not recognise that the majority of Aboriginal students in TAFE and tertiary education do not get there after year 12. It does not recognise the fact that Aboriginal people tend to enter the TAFE and tertiary education sector long into their mature age life. They do not reach years 11 and 12; the figures show that. They re-enter the education experience when they are adults, when they are in a situation where they are either having or have had a family and their community supports them.The changes to Abstudy do not recognise the way in which Aboriginal people choose to study or can study in this nation. Aboriginal students do not simply move off the track of year 12 into tertiary education; there is a significant break at that period of time. These changes do not recognise that. From a firm base of community and family support and direction, mature age indigenous students undertake further study, not straight after year 12, and it is study that is most connected to qualifications that contribute to their community's development and autonomy. The changes to Abstudy next year will in fact diminish the effectiveness of this study support scheme in terms of its continuing contribution to indigenous community development—as determined in the past by the members of these communities themselves through their participation in further study.The impact of the changes to Abstudy in 2000 will be a sharp decline in the overall enrolment figures in TAFE and university courses by mature age indigenous students. From the total savings and costs calculated from the data analysed, the reduction to the Abstudy budget will be as high as $18 million in the year 2000 at 1 January and about $18.8 million by March of the same year. But the effect of that in the long term is that people will not be able to afford to return to study. If you push it in line with the Youth Allowance and Newstart it simply reduces the amount of money that these people will be paid. It reduces the financial support for those indigenous community members most ready and equipped to contribute to their community's economic, social and political determination.The research project conducted by ATSIC considered the matter of alternative programs of support for the categories of students and found that they will be disadvantaged by the Abstudy changes in the year 2000. The key finding relevant to this matter is that these alternative programs, where they exist, will not act as a safety net for the losers from the changes to Abstudy. So we have perhaps a jigsaw puzzle of indigenous education in this country: we have bilingual education being cut and we have misuse of funds under IESIP by state and territory governments—in particular, the Northern Territory government. We have low retention rates. We have students who cannot make it through the system and complete years 11 and 12, and now, to top it all off, we have an attack on the tertiary system. (Time expired)16:02:009283Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise to also speak on this general business matter. I am a little curious as to why this has been brought up at this point in time. In the Senate we currently have a major inquiry into indigenous education. The inquiry has completed its hearings and we are about to draft a report. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is about to announce a very comprehensive review and redirection of the Aboriginal education program, with greater resources and higher emphasis on cooperation between the state, territory and federal governments—I will outline that a little later. Also, I find this curious in light of the sweep of national events that are on at the moment and in terms of the Labor Party's record on indigenous education.The record of the Labor Party showed that, after 13 years of government, 80 per cent of year 3 students could not read adequately, 70 per cent of year 3 students could not write adequately and 75 per cent of year 5 students could not read or write adequately. So, having had 13 years to have a go at this problem, the record of the Labor Party is absolutely abysmal. It was that very poor record which the Senate inquiry went out to examine. We went out to see what was the actual state of indigenous education and what measures we felt were necessary to try to improve the situation.We moved right across the country, although the Labor Party showed their great interest in this matter by trying to truncate the inquiry. We did not go to two states, and they actually wanted to cut out Western Australia as well.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—That is not true.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Yes, it is, Senator. It is very true. It is true that there was an enormous amount of resistance to extending the inquiry to see Western Australia. It was only through a protracted period of negotiation with Senator Carr that we actually managed to get to Western Australia. I am very glad we did, because I found that leg of the inquiry probably the most informative of all. How could you leave out that state, given that two per cent of the Australian population is indigenous while in Western Australia it is six per cent? So how could you leave out a state like that? Yet that is what the Labor Party wanted to do.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—That is a misrepresentation.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator, if you had turned up to the Senate committee meetings and spent as long as I did negotiating this matter, you would know it was very true. There is some good news on indigenous education. A lot of people take the view that not much progress is being made, but the reality is that there has been, in a number of areas, a considerable amount of progress. One of the things that we were reviewing in particular was the implementation of the Aboriginal education policy from 1989—and therefore the review was timely as a 10-year benchmark on how that program had been progressing. We did find a very patchy record. There were improvements in quite a wide range of areas but there was also movement backwards in a number of others—hence the need for us at this time to refocus on indigenous education policy and see if we can improve some of the educational outcomes.We did cover a very wide area of Australia. As I have mentioned a few minutes ago, we finally got to Western Australia, where we went to Kalgoorlie and Geraldton. In the Northern Territory, we went to Alice Springs and to a number of settlements up to 400 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs. We went into the Torres Strait Islands and also into Northern Queensland, to Weipa, Townsville and Cairns. We went to Adelaide and into western New South Wales, to Brewarrina and Bourke. That range of locations helped us to gain quite a good assessment of where the problems were in terms of indigenous education and what some effective strategies to address this matter might be.We did find overall on the inquiry—and there is considerable evidence in the Hansard transcripts of that inquiry to back this up—that indigenous participation rates in all forms of education have improved. This has been an upward trend since 1986. The proportion of indigenous people aged 15-plus with a qualification has increased in all categories. There has been a 40 per cent increase in indigenous school enrolments, and that trend has been going up since 1991. It has gone up over that time from 72,000 to 102,100 in 1998. VET enrolments have almost doubled, and that has been an upward trend since 1994, going from 23,000 to 44,500 in that time.There has been a 60 per cent increase in higher education enrolments, and that has been an upward trend since 1991, moving from 4,800 to 7,700. I think that is one of the heartening trends: the leaders of this coming generation of indigenous people are moving into the higher levels of education at a much more rapid rate than they have in the past. When I was a senior lecturer at a university, I noted that trend starting very much in the late 1980s, and we set up an Aboriginal unit to assist the students there with tertiary study. They were moving into a whole range of faculties, including groundbreaking work in the field of medicine. We had at Newcastle the first Aboriginal graduates in medicine, and that trend has continued since that time.The other areas where there has been an improvement over recent times relate to both primary and secondary education, and again the trends have been upward over the past 10 years. Primary school participation rates for indigenous children are now approaching those for non-indigenous children. They have moved up to 82.4 per cent in 1996. The non-indigenous rate is 87.9 per cent, and so that gap has closed quite considerably. In secondary schools, participation has been slowly improving. It has been moving up off a lower base: 54.3 per cent in 1986 to 60.5 per cent now, compared with a non-indigenous participation rate of 84.4 per cent. So there have been considerable improvements in a number of areas. There have been, as our inquiry found, advances in some areas and not much movement in others.We now come to a time when we have some considerable challenges still before us, despite those improvements that I have outlined. In terms of secondary education, although the numbers involved in secondary education have gone up considerably, we still have problems with the completion rate, particularly through to the end of year 12. We have just under one-third of Aboriginal students staying through to year 12. Less than 20 per cent of year 3 indigenous students are meeting reading standards. The year 12 indigenous students' retention rate is less than half that for non-indigenous students. Indigenous students are less likely to achieve a post-school qualification. Qualified indigenous people have higher unemployment rates at all qualification levels, and indigenous students are absent from school more often than are non-indigenous students. So there are challenges before us.Over the past three years, the federal government has moved to meet these challenges by increasing the resources that it is putting into indigenous education. Funding has been increased by $100 million across education portfolios—$100 million above the funding in Labor's last year of government. Estimated total spending is now $338 million for the years 1999-2000, compared with $288 million in Labor's last year of government. This funding is for Abstudy, the VET sector, higher education, the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Program and the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program—one of the programs that Senator Crossin referred to a little earlier on.In the 1999-2000 budget, there is provision for more than $1.1 billion over the next five years to provide programs to improve educational opportunities for young indigenous Australians. Funding for indigenous education will remain at record levels for at least the next five years. The budget provides for an additional $71 million over the next five years to improve indigenous education provision, on top of the existing programs of spending. Funding for the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program will be boosted by $50 million over the next five years, and funding for the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Program will be boosted by $2 million in 1999-2000 to a total of $62.2 million.Since coming to government, the coalition has recognised that there are challenges and has committed extra resources, but there is more that needs to be done. Particularly as we move towards reconciliation, we are going to make very determined efforts to improve the gains that have been made already in this area. Achieving educational equality for indigenous Australians remains one of the principal educational challenges that still face us. All Australians have a right to an education which allows them to choose from the same range of opportunities, and it is within our capacity as a nation and as a government to ensure that the rights of indigenous Australians are met. This achievement will secure a stronger, more united and more reconciled Australia.Over the past 30 years, despite some public perceptions to the contrary, there has been considerable progress. There is a perception that public expenditure on indigenous educa tion has not been achieving its goals and that, for many indigenous children, English is not only a second language but also a foreign language. There are problems of poor health, low self-esteem, the breaking up of families and communities and the demise of indigenous languages. These contribute further to these perceptions.It has become clear over time that extra funding and resources cannot be relied on alone to achieve educational equality. Despite the commitment of all Australian governments to deliver educational equality, there is considerable variation in the overall pattern of improvement across government systems to the extent that progress at the national level is difficult to report. As we moved across the different states, we certainly saw evidence of those different patterns. Standards of educational infrastructure and service delivery to indigenous students vary greatly across the country. One of the great challenges is to bring these up to standard in some of the more remote areas of Australia. That is why, in our view, the government is now embracing a new, energetic and forward looking approach to the whole issue of equity. We believe that this is not a generational thing but something that can be achieved in a short time with the right strategies.The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, is in the process of finalising a comprehensive strategy that will make significant inroads into closing the gap in educational outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians by the year 2004. Given that there have been ministerial council meetings on this until now, I am surprised that this motion has come before the Senate today. The Commonwealth government regards as unacceptable the continuance of significant educational inequality among different groups of Australians and rejects the view that the achievement of educational equality for indigenous Australians must necessarily be seen in the long term.I believe that, as a government and as educators, we have the tools available to markedly accelerate achievement in educational equality over the next five years—the target set by Dr Kemp. The approach has a number of elements and will be spearheaded by a national strategy on indigenous attendance, literacy and numeracy. The minister proposes to launch it later this year. The approach will reach agreement at a national council level through the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, MCEETYA. This council will resolve national education policies and related issues, including the development of an enhanced mechanism for national reporting and the development and implementation of high quality standards in education infrastructure and service delivery to indigenous students.The national literacy, numeracy and attendance strategy symbolises the government's resolve to accelerate the pace of change and make significant progress in closing the gap between the learning outcomes of indigenous and non-indigenous students by the year 2004. We intend, in this strategy, to link the achievements of educational equality to the national reconciliation process and require that education providers who are funded through the Commonwealth government's supplementary indigenous programs from 2001 to 2004 focus on accelerating the closure of the gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous students in educational outcomes in literacy, numeracy and attendance. Given the comments of the head of ATSIC which triggered this motion from Senator Carr, I think the opposition would certainly welcome this government initiative. We may be able to achieve with this strategy something that they could not achieve in their time.Work is well advanced in preparing each of the elements of the strategy. We have won a commitment from all state and territory ministers of education to make the achievement of educational equality for indigenous Australians an urgent national priority. In reaching the decision in April this year, the ministers also established a task force on indigenous education, chaired by the Commonwealth, to report by early in the year 2000. Australia now has a stable national policy environment on indigenous education, and we intend to build significantly on this. In April of this year, all ministers reaffirmed that, consistent with previous decisions regarding the national literacy and numeracy benchmarks, all indigenous Australians leaving primary school should be numerate and be able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level and every indigenous child who commenced school in 1998 should achieve minimum acceptable literacy and numeracy standards within four years.The shift to national standards in the reporting of educational outcomes has exposed indigenous education problems at their source and revealed the barriers that need to be overcome to achieve educational equality for indigenous Australians. The MCEETYA task force is identifying a range of related issues and will provide appropriate advice to the ministerial council for the strategies for implementing this in the year 2000. I certainly hope the opposition will join us in supporting this type of approach.We have the opportunity at last, through the leadership of Dr Kemp, to create a national framework for Aboriginal education. We have the opportunity to implement a cooperative federal model to actually achieve this. The objectives and the goals are commendable, the time frame is achievable and to improve on educational outcomes and help Aboriginal people achieve their aspirations will be one of the greatest steps we can take towards Aboriginal reconciliation .16:21:009287Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to speak on this motion about retention rates for indigenous Australians in our schools. Anyone who has anything to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education will know that the concerns that Mr Djerrkura expressed this week are very real, but they will also know that solutions are not easy. The Senate education committee, as Senator Tierney said, has just completed the hearing stage of its inquiry into indigenous education. I would hope that the recommendations of that inquiry can show us some way forward. Senator Crossin rightly complains about reductions in Abstudy and the bilingual program in the Northern Territory, but I hope today's debate does not just come down to political point scoring. I think this issue deserves a tripartisan approach, and it is not a matter that either party in government can claim to have had all the answers to.I do not believe there is an education issue in this country which is as complex as this one. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their relationships with education are as diverse as could possibly be imagined. The education experience at Badu Island in the Torres Strait is very different from that at Weipa, Kalgoorlie, Maningrida or Yuendumu, and the list goes on.Some of the issues which work against the best efforts of educators are health, language, remoteness, poverty, social dislocation, the cultural inappropriateness of our school system, the lack of jobs and prospects, post-secondary schools for Aboriginal children, community attitudes to education, incarceration rates, alcohol abuse and racial discrimination. Just a couple of weeks ago in Kalgoorlie, I spoke with the head of the education council, an Aboriginal man, in that community. He told me his education was a good one, but his sacrifice for that was being one of the stolen children. He had been taken as a two-year-old from his family and educated in the mission at Kalgoorlie, not knowing that he had three brothers and sisters in the same place. He was left at the age of 13 to fend for himself. He was sent off into the wide world with nobody to support him. So, whilst his education may have been a reasonably good one, he sacrificed a great deal for that. He told me that many of his fellow children from the community from which he was taken ended up being those who were on the fringes of society, had serious alcohol problems and suffered from very early death rates.There are enormous problems for teachers, too. Those indigenous people who have been trained as teachers are often snapped up by government departments—they seem to be the worst offenders. If these people return to remote communities, there is no special consideration for them. For housing, for instance, many will be forced into crowded dwellings which make it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to cope with the work which is needed out of school hours and to perform as teachers in communities. There are indigenous teachers, particularly females, who do not have authority over some skin groups and especially some boys, particularly those who have been through initiation. Indigenous teacher aides are absolutely essential in many of the schools the committee visited. They are essential to make these places welcoming for indigenous students. Yet there is no career path for these teachers and the wages are very low. In some schools they are treated very differently from white teachers; they do not have access to staff rooms and the like. In a number of the schools we visited, indigenous people were utilised in schools through CDEP projects. That seemed to be very successful in most places, although, again, the income for those people is extremely low and would hardly allow them to be able to build their own houses or live in a manner which we take for granted.Madam Acting Deputy President, I recall that you and I visited a very small and remote community up in Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory called Jimarda where there were indigenous teachers. They said to us that their biggest problem was that the visiting white teacher did not come often enough. When we quizzed them on why this was a problem, it seemed that, during the times when there was no white teacher there for a range of reasons, those teachers had no authority within the community. We also heard, as I recall, that the white teacher who came a few times a month was a very young woman. She drove from Maningrida to Jimarda, which is a very long distance, and she brought with her—as well as many of the provisions required by that community—a tent, and that was where she stayed when she was in that place. I could imagine that, in an environment where there were no services, running water or electricity, this would, indeed, be a very harsh environment in which to teach. Often the white teachers who are sent to these remote communities are very young and inexperienced, and in some places they find themselves being head teachers in small schools.The committee discovered that there are still schools which bring students into the school. They shower, clothe and feed them and, as far as possible, they integrate them into what is largely a white school environment. Schools are trying a range of measures to keep children in school. Some schools are collecting children every day, often providing them with breakfasts and other support. Others say that this is simply taking the responsibility away from the parents and is not, in the long term, sustainable and that the question of getting children to school needs to be a collective responsibility of the community. The fact remains that you cannot teach hungry children. So, one way or the other, for the sake of those children we need to make sure that they are able to function effectively within the classroom.A school just out of Geraldton has an annexe, which apparently is funded by a generous benefactor I think from Victoria. This annexe provides children at that primary school with meals, health services and clothing—if that is what is needed by the children who attend. It is up to those children to refer themselves to this annexe, and they can do that quite comfortably. That is where they get the sort of support that children in so many families in this country take for granted. This school has solved, for instance, the problem of scabies, which affected the whole community, by teaching very young children how to treat this ultimately life threatening disease.If one thing is clear to me it is that we have to have a holistic approach to Aboriginal education: housing, health, sanitation and nutrition must all be improved. Children cannot learn if they are distracted by unbearably itchy skin, by blocked sinuses and by nits. And they cannot learn if they cannot hear, and so many indigenous children are deaf from infections in their respiratory and olfactory areas. If glue sniffing is rife, then these children may have already damaged their brains. Returning to the issue of scabies, I recall going into the community health centre in Jabiru and asking what the most serious health problem was amongst the Aboriginal community and it was scabies—95 per cent of children and therefore their families had scabies.In all of the committee's travels, I do not recall seeing one indigenous child with reading glasses. One reason might be that their eyesight is very good, but I somehow doubt that that is the case.Aboriginal children are very shy and often they come to school with no English at all. There are few schools in remote areas with specialist ESL teachers, yet English is for many of these children their second, their third, their fourth and even their fifth language. The obstinate Northern Territory government is closing down bilingual programs in spite of the very obvious success of those programs, and that is highly regrettable. However, there is some good work being done in South Australia. There are nine languages and there is some degree of teaching material prepared for schools in four of those languages. That is quite considerable, I understand. That is from a total of 50 languages that were once spoken in South Australia.I found it extraordinary to go into largely Aboriginal schools and hear principals tell us that they were expected to deliver LOTE programs—languages other than English—and in many places the designated language was Indonesian, which was extraordinary, given that the language of the Aboriginal community of the area was not spoken. It seems a great pity to me that white students in this country have not learnt an Aboriginal language. I understand that that happens to just a handful of children in some schools, but it is still very rare, just as it is rare for white teachers to speak an Aboriginal language.I recall even as a child in this country that New Zealand Maoris would arrive and put on programs for primary school children and we all trotted along to those programs and oftentimes learned words from indigenous languages in New Zealand, yet none of us knew any words from indigenous languages in this country. There are indigenous groups who do not want their languages taken up by white people and taught to their children in schools, but in other communities they very much want that to happen.At a school in the Central Desert there was a preschool program that I recall which concentrated on oral English, and children who went through that year of preschool were very much more successful in subsequent years in primary school. But the complaint from the school was that they were operating this program on a grant and there was no guarantee that they would be able to employ that teacher, who was developing great expertise in this area, the following year. School after school told the committee about their endless search for money and grant applications.Federal initiatives to set up homework programs were a great success in some areas and completely useless in other areas where students saw them as a form of detention and there was very little involvement. Some schools, we heard, use that money creatively to find other ways of assisting Aboriginal students to study.The committee went into some schools in even quite remote areas which were well equipped, neat and tidy and others which were in serious states of disrepair. We heard that many of these schools had enormous difficulty in attracting any funds for capital works. There was one school in particular where there was not even adequate electricity to put the lights on in every classroom and have an air conditioner going in the staffroom at the same time. It seemed to me to be very puzzling the way in which money for capital works, which is largely federal money, is divvyed up amongst school communities and a lot of that seemed to have something to do with the sort of politics in the town.The problems, as I said initially, are extremely complex in this area. I do not want to pre-empt the report, which the education committee will deliver shortly, but I hope this will lead the way forward and help us to improve the outcomes for indigenous students. There can be no doubt that there must be more indigenous teachers and we must find a way of taking teacher training closer to them in their communities. There is no doubt in my mind either that schools must be made more culturally appropriate. Many schools are still run on a largely white line, and we must be more creative with the way we make these schools comfortable for students to come into and thrive.Finally, I think the lesson which is also very clear from the work the committee has done is that communities must be involved in decision making in the school. Those schools we saw that were doing better than others all had that very important community involvement in decision making. They were part of school committees and they were very much enthusiasts for education, and that is important in passing on to communities the importance of education for young people.16:36:009290McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—I rise to speak on this motion to draw the Senate's attention to the disastrous state of indigenous education and the concern about the government's proposed changes to Abstudy. In the motion, Mr Djerrkura's quote was in response to a release of an ATSIC commissioned report entitled Analysis of the proposed changes to Abstudy on indigenous students . The report was commissioned by ATSIC through open tender and was won by the Institute of Koori Education and the Research Institute for Professional and Vocational Education and Training from Deakin University, along with the Gordon Institute of TAFE. These institutes are regarded as highly respected organisations, respected for their understanding of the complexities of indigenous education and for their methodology. They can and should be regarded as providing an independent and authoritative evaluation of the proposals. The results from the report are very concerning, and I can understand Mr Djerrkura's concerns which are the subject of this motion.The report's terms of reference essentially were to assess the impacts of the changes to the Abstudy arrangements and to ascertain if other programs will fill the gaps caused by those impacts. The findings of the report, as I said, are very concerning. The benefit will be only to a very small number of people in the Aboriginal education community—those who are young and single. In 1998, there were 730 students who were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and who were under 21 and 165 students who were single and living at home. Those are the students who will benefit from these proposed changes.The clear majority of students will be disadvantaged. As Senator Crossin has described, those students particularly who will be disadvantaged are the mature age students, who make up 80 per cent of TAFE and university students, and most of those are women. Fifteen per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander TAFE and university students are mature age and on sole parent pensions, and 3,045 of those types of students will be disadvantaged. Those people who are most likely to undertake tertiary education are mature age students with family responsibilities. This demographic does not fit the non-indigenous, largely middle-class pattern of access to higher education, which, it would seem, is the model being used by the government in its aligning of access to support for students, whether they be indigenous or non-indigenous.The report identifies that, in the year 2000, up to $18.1 million may be lost from indigenous student support and, further, that existing programs will not act as a safety net for those whose access to financial support is diminished. What was the government's response? Essentially, as we heard the other day in question time, it was to shoot the messenger. In question time on Tuesday, Senator Herron accused the report of working from inaccurate figures. He said:The . . . 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.My advice is that the authors were very careful to check the alignments they were making between Abstudy as it currently exists and as it will exist with Youth Allowance and Newstart. I am advised that the authors used DETYA sample data to derive the number of students in each category. The sample provided was directly from DETYA's own statistics. The actual sample was two-thirds of the total population of Abstudy tertiary beneficiaries in 1998, and it matched the key characteristics of the total Abstudy population. It is a significant sample and cannot be discounted. Senator Herron then said that the report was:. . . flawed largely because of the premise that all students currently enrolled in courses will continue into 2000 . . . I cannot understand his comment. Is he saying that, all of a sudden, we cannot predict the indigenous access to higher education? The evidence certainly does not support this.Between 1986 and 1991, enrolments of indigenous students in higher education grew by 148.7 per cent compared with 28.3 per cent for the general population. As a proportion of total higher education enrolments, the number of indigenous students rose from 0.3 per cent in 1981 to 1.2 per cent in 1996. Year 12 retention rates for indigenous students rose four percentage points between 1992 and 1996 while they were falling for non-indigenous students. The indigenous retention rate is now 32.1 per cent compared with 72.7 per cent for the general population.Whilst those figures are not brilliant, they show a steady increase. Since 1991, the growth of access of indigenous students to higher education has been steady. The only times when there have been glitches in this growth have been when there have been changes in support for access by indigenous students. The mid-1980s, when HECS was originally introduced, and 1997, when the first Abstudy changes were made, were the only times when that steady growth pattern was changed. This sensitivity to change clearly indicates that indigenous students are highly reliant on government support and respond to changes by removing themselves from study. Perhaps that is what Senator Herron meant when he said that we cannot predict participation rates in the year 2000 because that is when the changes to Abstudy will be effected.I turn now to the impact of any loss of participation by indigenous students for our community. The final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was released in April 1991. The report highlighted the lack of success in the formal education system to deliver equitable outcomes for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. The report inextricably linked education and training to the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in custody.The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody endorsed the 21 goals of the AEP—the national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education program—established in 1990, and it emphasised the importance of the policy as a way of ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples achieve a greater degree of control over education services. The AEP sets out 21 long-term goals under the following aims: involvement of Aboriginal people in educational decision making, equitable access to educational services, equitable participation in education and equitable and appropriate education outcomes. A national review of the effectiveness of the AEP was held in 1993. The review showed that, although improvements had been made in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation and outcomes with regard to education and training, the improvements were inconsistent across sectors and between states and territories.The Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs established an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Task Force which developed the national strategy for the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, which Senator Tierney referred to earlier. At the ministerial council meeting in 1995, the commitment to the AEP was reaffirmed. In December 1995 the ministerial council endorsed the national strategy, established a number of priority areas and agreed to an outcomes focus for work in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education and training. The Commonwealth core national performance targets for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education and training focus on culturally inclusive education, attendance targets, retention rates and completion rates and are very similar to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.I am concerned, though, that the implementation of the changes to Abstudy will undermine the ability to attain those agreed retention rates and completion rates. The impacts on mature age students' access to higher education and the impacts on rural and remote students' access, who have to relocate in order to attend their study, are significant and real. In particular, I am concerned about female mature age students, who in many respects are the ones who will be the Aboriginal teachers who are so sought after in our state education systems. Those people have provided enormous breadth to the education system. They are, as I said, extremely sought after, and they are highly respected by students, both in rural and remote settings and in regional centres such as my own town.I am also concerned for 140 people who will be significantly impacted by the changes to Abstudy. These people are elders who are currently enrolled in universities around Australia. They are currently receiving pensioner support payments as a part of their Abstudy, but they will lose those payments if they have to move into alignment with the mainstream support, as proposed by the changes to Abstudy.These people offer so much to our education system. In fact, I think we receive more from them than they receive from attending their university. They are providing a link between their indigenous community and the education community. They are providing the validation of indigenous knowledge within the non-indigenous framework. Importantly, they are providing the leadership for appropriate curriculum development and design, which is so important to meet the first AEP goal of involving indigenous people in educational decision making. Many of these people study in the humanities sector and the natural resource management sector, and it would be an absolute tragedy if any of them were forced to remove themselves from the education system as a result of the Abstudy changes.I would now like to move to what should be the model for dealing with, as Senator Allison said, a very difficult policy area—that is, making sure we can improve the access rates to education for indigenous people. It is true that, whether it be in education or health, where the government and the community work together, especially in indigenous affairs, the potential for maximising the outcomes is improved immeasurably.I would like to commend a number of Queensland programs that were initiatives of the Queensland government and that have been very successful, in my view, in improv ing access for indigenous people. The first program is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Tertiary Aspirations Program, commonly called AITAP. It was developed in 1987 as a Queensland Department of Education initiative in conjunction with the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training on the recommendation of an organisation which has now moved on, the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Consultative Committee.AITAP's vision is equity for and empowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through success in education—something I am sure we all agree with. AITAP has encouraged and inspired Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from across Queensland to succeed in secondary schooling and to continue this success on to further study and careers. AITAP was developed to address low retention rates and subsequent low representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in tertiary courses.In 1987 there were five pilot schools in the AITAP program; by 1998, this had grown to a total of 100 schools. They are drawn from primary and secondary schools, and they are in the government and non-government sectors. In 1997 the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Unit in Queensland assumed responsibility for the coordination of AITAP programs in schools.The outcomes have been very significant. There has been an increase in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in the AITAP program; there has been an increase in their capacity to participate in academic, social and cultural programs within the education system; and there have been enhanced socio-cultural and learning outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students who participate in the program.The second program, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Careers Aspirations Pathways Program, is a more recent development. It was only developed in 1998 as an initiative of Education Queensland, once again in conjunction with DETYA. The program complements the AITAP program. Its aim is to achieve equivalence between indigenous and non-indigenous students in terms of their retention levels and also to provide enhanced pathways from school to tertiary education, TAFE or an apprenticeship or traineeship.Once again, this collaborative approach to the issues facing indigenous people has been successful. There has been success at progressing the goal of enhanced educational outcomes. They have been measured by improved retention rates between year 7 and year 10—a very difficult period—and then an increased retention rate to year 12.I also want to very briefly compliment a small program operating at Cairns West State School in Cairns. It is named the Alternative Schools Program and is an excellent example of a bottom up, community based approach to solving the problem identified at that school of low attendance rates. The school worked with the Cairns City Council, the broader community and particularly the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community to first of all identify that there was a problem with children remaining at school and then ensure that the education being provided by the school was going to keep them there once we got them to go to school.We have been able to establish an alternative school in a shopping centre close to the school. We have done that in Cairns West by cobbling together pieces of funding from all sorts of places, including the Cairns City Council. The results are excellent. I understand that the committee went to Cairns West State School when they were in Cairns recently but, unfortunately, it is an example of the community doing its job to solve a problem and getting very limited support from government. I reiterate that the way to solve these issues is for communities and governments to work together on identified problems and with agreed solutions. The Cairns West State School is where the community has had to take the burden by themselves.I now return to the issue of the Abstudy changes and my concern at the motivation for the shift in the government's policy. Many commentators have seen the obvious similarities between the aligning of Abstudy to mainstream non-indigenous funding programs proposed by this government and the announcements by the former member for Oxley, who regularly said that indigenous students should not receive special benefits. She did not understand that people who are disadvantaged need extra support to overcome that disadvantage, and I would suggest that neither does this government if it continues to pursue changing the policy of Abstudy to limit access by the most disadvantaged Australians to education, which I, as a former teacher, believe is the key to their potential economic development.16:55:009293Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—I rise to speak to this motion with somewhat of a feeling of superfluousness. I had the privilege of listening to Senator Tierney's excellent, comprehensive and well-balanced speech earlier on the matter of indigenous education and the problems faced and how we can look forward to try to resolve them. However, a number of other speakers also touched on other issues, and I believe that this requires us to reinforce what Senator Tierney has said. The problems presented by indigenous education are well recognised but, more importantly, they are not new problems. They have been around for many years. As indicated by the statement which prompted this motion—that is, the statement by the ATSIC chairman referring to three decades of effort—indigenous people are still facing the same education shortfalls there were before.As this is a longstanding problem, we are obviously not looking at simple solutions to it. But before I get into that, let me again look at the magnitude of the problem. I will not quote other information, but I want to quote what ATSIC submitted to the Senate inquiries into indigenous education, and Senator Tierney has already referred to it. Their submission quoted a 1994 study which showed that nearly half of indigenous people aged 15 years and over had received no formal education or had reached year 10 level. Year 10 certificates were the highest education qualifications achieved by almost 30 per cent of indigenous people. Only one in six indigenous people had obtained qualifications after leaving school. The retention rate at that time was 33 per cent for indigenous students compared with 75 per cent for all students. While the respective figures have changed since then—that is, since 1994—in practical terms the gap is still quite huge. Finally, only 5.5 per cent of the indigenous school age population were participating in years 11 and 12. The participation rate for non-indigenous people was more than double this rate.As Senator Crossin said, this situation is not just a problem; it is a national disgrace. It is important to recognise that it is a national disgrace because as a nation, as a community, we need to recognise that it requires a national effort to eradicate it. It is not an effort which can be made overnight and it cannot be done by any single party. So it is important to recognise—and I urge senators on all sides to recognise this—that it requires a joint effort. All of us need to focus our minds on this effort.I would like to make some comments on points that other speakers have raised. Firstly, we need to recognise that education is not a single stand-alone issue, especially in the case of the indigenous population. It is well recognised that many factors, including poverty, ill health and low self-esteem, contribute to the educational disadvantage of the indigenous people. However, from evidence given to the Senate committee inquiry I mentioned earlier, one of the major factors that many people have not recognised is that inadequacy in education can arise from having a low expectation of gaining a beneficial outcome from education. That can really discourage young people of the indigenous population from continuing their participation in the education process.We need to look at indigenous education as a whole range of solutions rather than simply saying, `We have a low retention rate or we have low achievement, and therefore let us throw in some more money or focus in on this point and we will solve this problem.' Education must be recognised as part of the life cycle. Unless you have developed a knowledge of what education can mean to you in your life and also have some expectation of achieving those aims, no-one will participate in it.One of the issues which Senator Crossin particularly raised and which Senator Allison also raised is that indigenous education seemed to be a particular problem in the Northern Territory. I think that is perhaps an unfortunate focus to be given on that, because education is not something where you can simply say, `We demand a particular result, otherwise we will not put any Commonwealth resources into it.' What Senator Crossin seemed to be suggesting was that the Northern Territory government had wasted or illegally diverted Commonwealth resources away from indigenous education.However, that suggestion ignores the fact that education is not a Commonwealth responsibility. The Commonwealth has no facilities to actually provide education, even though the Commonwealth does have responsibility for the indigenous population. The Commonwealth can only purchase services from other providers, because any service provided directly from the Commonwealth may not meet local conditions. Senator Allison referred to a federal initiative of providing afterschool studies facilities. She mentioned that in some cases it was highly successful, but in other areas it was regarded as an imposition. That demonstrates how, over a large national population, a particular proposed solution might not be useful.Another area, which other speakers have appeared to focus on concerns the proposed changes to Abstudy. This is also the basis of the statement by the ATSIC chairman, which this report is supposed to have shown, that the proposed changes would drastically disadvantage indigenous students. In fact, Senator McLucas characterises the federal government as shooting the messenger. But in this particular case it is not an accurate messenger: of course, shooting the messenger never solves the problem but, if the messenger brings you the wrong message, it is reasonable to banish the messenger from the service. In this case, this report started off on a biased footing: it is starting from the point that is critical of the government's decision to align the Abstudy payment, living allowance and pensioner education supplement with mainstream benefits. The basic finding of this study claims that alternative programs of student support will not provide a safety net for Abstudy's losers and warns of widespread confusion in the community about indigenous education. But the simple fact that such a statement can be included in its conclusion indicates that it started off as a commentary rather than as a factual analysis. The ATSIC study also contained a number of inaccurate assumptions and has in many cases extrapolated too much from insufficient data. I know Senator McLucas said it was extrapolated from the government's data, but the problem with extrapolation from existing data is that the base data—the population data—changes all the time. It is not a fixed population.In forecasting, it is always dangerous to take an existing situation—particularly of a population, which can and does vary—and then project it forward. In all reputable forecasting processes, it is always necessary to regularly and frequently update your projection according to the changes in the base population. This report fails to do that. We believe that the breakdown of the affected population is inaccurate and that the calculation of the financial gains and losses that would result from the proposed changes for the student population is not correct. The conclusion about the financial impact of the proposed changes—that the Abstudy budget could be reduced in 2000 by as much as $18.1 million—is a fraud, largely because, as the minister reported to the Senate, the premise is that all students currently enrolled in courses will continue into 2000.84LMCLUCASSenator McLucas—Next year!86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—It is a significant overestimation of the number of pensioner education supplement beneficiaries. I hear Senator McLucas criticise this particular comment. It is not a mistake to assume that the current student population will stay on into 2000, but the assumption is not just that the number of students will continue into 2000 but also that their conditions will remain the same into 2000. That is flawed. The report also emphasises the importance of changes to the pensioner education supplement but overestimates the number of pensioner education supplement recipients by 49.1 per cent, citing 7,900 recipients rather than the actual number of 5,297.The report acknowledges the availability of mainstream related entitlements such as rent assistance and the continued availability of Abstudy supplementary benefits. These considerations are not given due weight when determining the impact of changes, and the supplementary Abstudy payments are ignored in the comparison with youth allowance and Newstart. The forecast has to be varied according to changing conditions. No one set of forecasts should be taken as gospel. What do we do in this situation? I urge senators to consider that the government's policy relating to Abstudy—and other programs, as well—is to focus on outcomes.The government's policies are outcome driven rather than input driven. The purpose of indigenous education assistance programs is to emphasise key issues, such as literacy, numeracy, attendance and a greater involvement by parents and also by the children themselves—in other words, by the whole indigenous community—in indigenous education programs. The government is looking forward to a community involvement in the education program rather than just saying, `You are a student; you are not a student. If you are a student, you get particular support; if you are not a student, you do not get that support.' That is quite wrong.We can only achieve the best results by getting the whole community involved, and that means a substantial change in how the community views education. This comes back to my comment earlier that you cannot use fixed data to forecast in changing conditions. Your criticism, Senator McLucas, of the minister's response is simplistic. I would refer to some of the examples Senator McLucas gave on the various successful programs—as she herself pointed out—in Queensland. Senator McLucas said that those programs had been successful because they had had community support and involvement. They were not simply cases of a government throwing money at the problem. Throwing money is never enough: you can keep on throwing money without ever achieving anything.On the issue of throwing money, if the senators on the other side of the chamber are intent on using that as a benchmark, they only need to look at the funding provisions in the last three budgets brought down by this government. Senator Tierney commented on those earlier. The government has brought down increases of approximately $100 million across the education portfolio over the last three years. The total spending in the budget brought down for the year 1999-2000 was about $388 million—compared with just under $289 million in 1995-96, the last Labor budget.Most of this funding has gone into Abstudy for higher education support funding, VET sector funding, indigenous education direct assistance programs and indigenous education strategic initiative programs. They are all focused on particular outcomes. The government has focused over the last three years, and proposes to continue to focus, on outcomes and trying to achieve the best result for the indigenous population. Regardless of your political leaning or geographic location, you must agree that indigenous education is a national disgrace. It will take a national effort to solve this problem. Going back to sectorial interests and point scoring will not help us achieve that result.17:15:009296Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I endorse most of the comments that have been made in this chamber this afternoon in relation to the national significance of this issue. The debate before us is of vital importance to this nation. However, I cannot really begin my remarks without commenting on expressions such as `throwing money'. We must be very wary of such a catchcry in this debate because, with all due respect to Senator Tchen, I recall very clearly the budget of 1996—the first budget from this government—and subsequent budgets where there were massive cuts to education and training at all levels in this nation. In terms of higher education specifically, I think cuts totalled around $1.8 billion. I also remember the Abstudy cuts of $48 million executed by the then minister for higher education, Senator Amanda Vanstone.So I think this is one area that we do not see money being thrown at, although I concur that it is not simply an issue of resourcing and funding; it is an issue of community support and national response and leadership. But I tell you, resources do help, especially when we know categorically—through studies that have been conducted not just in this decade but in preceding decades—that, if there is one thing that assists particularly disadvantaged groups and those people from lower socioeconomic groups to participate in higher education specifically—but also in other areas of education—it is student financial support. That is one area where we have seen the government preside over a number of financial cuts. There have been cuts to resources, and that is of great significance and concern in this debate.It is well accepted—or at least I hope it is well accepted—that education is the key to opportunity. It leads to better employment opportunities and greater income possibilities and therefore to a better lifestyle and better health. Australia's indigenous people, who have been denied many of those opportunities for a long period of time—or, at least, since the arrival of non-indigenous people two centuries ago—deserve the same, if not greater, access to education as other Australians. I acknowledge that we may have to reconsider and be wary of the forecasts that we make in this debate, but I tell honourable senators that these statistics speak for themselves. They are a shameful record of the situation in terms of indigenous people's participation in all aspects of higher education, primary and secondary education, and vocational education and training in this country.Sadly, recent studies verify that indigenous Australians do not have the same access to education and that they are constantly, it seems, under threat of having their limited access restricted further through proposed changes to Abstudy and the proposed restructuring of postgraduate higher education. We are yet to have this debate in any detail, but obviously, as we anticipate various papers from the government the next month, it is another key area that requires examination.A discussion paper published by the Australia Institute and released yesterday paints a greatly disturbing picture of indigenous people's standard of living and the inefficacy and insufficiency of current levels of funding for indigenous income support, education and health. The position of indigenous people relative to other members of Australian society has long been a source of national shame. Yet, despite recent recognition of the need for greater indigenous control of indigenous affairs and for better targeting of resources, the situation has not improved. We know that Australia languishes far behind many other developed nations in the living standards of our indigenous people and when it comes to reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.The discussion paper published by the Australia Institute, conducted by Max Neutze, Will Sanders and Giff Jones and titled `Public expenditure on services for indigenous people: education, employment, health and housing', debunks myths which have been perpetrated in recent times over the level of funding for the benefit of indigenous people. It reached a number of conclusions relating to funding for indigenous education. First, public expenditure on education for indigenous persons between the ages of three and 24 is 18 per cent higher per capita than for non-indigenous persons—partially due to higher per capita costs of providing education services in rural and remote locations—and lower than average incomes, leading to greater average needs for assistance to students. Second, equity considerations require that there be additional expenditure on the education of those who are the most disadvantaged in our community—and the most disadvantaged educationally. Third, against the background of significant disadvantage and pressing need, an additional 18 per cent expenditure per head on the education of indigenous people can be seen as a very modest contribution to reducing that disadvantage.The report also concluded that, while indigenous people benefit more substantially than other Australians from specific programs—which is to be expected, as these programs are generally targeted—they benefit substantially less from many much larger general programs. Any advantages gained by indigenous people from public expenditure are small when compared to the disadvantages they suffer in each of these areas. Indigenous Australians, as Senator Lyn Allison pointed out in her remarks earlier, are less likely to attend school and more likely to be early school leavers, with lower rates of post-secondary education.The study reveals some truly terrible statistics. In 1993, according to the national review of education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, only 33 per cent of indigenous children who were enrolled in year 7 actually completed their education compared with 76 per cent of non-indigenous children. The post-secondary education participation rates are even more woeful. Of those indigenous students enrolling in year 7, only 6.6 per cent went on to university compared with 23.6 per cent of non-indigenous Australians. Even in New South Wales, where there has been greater exposure of indigenous people to non-indigenous society than in most parts of Australia, retention rates from year 7 to year 10 in 1996 were 77 per cent for indigenous student and 94 per cent for non-indigenous students.According to the 1996 census, only two per cent of the indigenous population had bachelors degrees or above, and only 13.6 per cent had some post-school qualification. So it is clear that there are significant barriers to indigenous participation in education and that many of these barriers have yet to be overcome. Much more needs to be done to provide indigenous people with greater access to education opportunities, and there must be no backsliding in this respect—certainly not of the kind perhaps envisaged by the proposed mainstreaming of Abstudy or the proposed alignment of Abstudy with youth allowance.In May this year the Institute of Koorie Education at Deakin University conducted an analysis of the effect on indigenous students of the proposed changes to Abstudy for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commis sion. I heard the remarks in the chamber earlier by Senator McLucas when she referred to this particular study. The findings of this report should give the government—certainly the ministers, be it Dr Kemp or Dr Herron—and other people involved in this debate some cause to reconsider some of these changes. The key findings of the analysis include the following. The changes will advantage significantly indigenous TAFE and university students who are under 21 and independent and single, and those 21 years and older living at home.Combined, the group of indigenous students to be advantaged numbers a mere 895 students. However, the changes will significantly disadvantage indigenous TAFE and university students who are 21 and older, independent, single or with a partner, with or without children, and those in receipt of a parenting payment, a disability support pension or who are studying as part-time pensioner students. This group numbers 14,760 students. In other words, only the young and single stand to reap any benefit from the proposed changes. Mature age indigenous students, who comprise almost 80 per cent of TAFE indigenous students, are most likely to suffer under the changes. These changes will place further barriers to indigenous participation in education. Unlike many non-indigenous students, many indigenous people return to study rather than pursue a continuous education pathway. These changes will make this return to study far less accessible.The government's pursuit of equity targets for groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education has had mixed success in recent years. The equity in higher education figures for 1998 reveal that, while progress has been made in increasing the participation of women and those people from non-English speaking backgrounds, similar gains have not been made for people from low socioeconomic backgrounds or indigenous people. I wonder if increasing fees and charges is something that we can attribute that lack of success rate to. It is a significant failure. Again, the aligning of Abstudy with youth allowance and the discrimination against or disadvantaging of those large numbers I referred to earlier is likely to be exacerbated by these proposed changes.A report released last week by Bob Birrell, Ian Dobson and T. Fred Smith of Monash of University into access to youth allowance revealed that too many students and young unemployed people from low socioeconomic backgrounds are being denied income support due to the overly harsh eligibility criteria for the youth allowance. That is no surprise to many of us in the chamber who know perfectly well that while the concept of creating a mainstreamed allowance—that is, streamlining benefits that previously existed for young people or young unemployed people or young people involved in education and training—was a good opportunity, it was a lost opportunity for this government, because the government simply used it to create the lowest common denominator payment rate in some respects. In doing so they certainly alienated or marginalised those people under the age of 18. Therefore, 16- and 17-year-olds who are not involved in some form of education, employment or training are thus in most cases not eligible for benefits. I wonder what will happen to those young people. I dread some of the analyses and assessments that we have yet to see of how they and their families are coping. The results of that report are not that surprising.This study clearly shows that the youth allowance is failing non-indigenous students. They have a higher rate of participation than do indigenous students, so why the government expects aligning Abstudy with the youth allowance will increase participation rates and opportunities for indigenous students is completely beyond me. It is absolutely illogical. I suggest that the government may once again be using those changes to income support for students—in this case indigenous students—as a revenue raising measure.In relation to higher education, again the statistics are of grave concern. When it comes to participation rates—and this is according to the higher education report for the 1999-2001 triennium, so they are government figures—indigenous students are underrepresented in bachelor degree and post-graduate courses. They are more likely than other students to be enrolled in sub-degree courses or enabling courses. The number of indigenous students in higher education may have increased—and we acknowledge that—from 4.4 per cent from 7,461 in 1997 to 7,789 in 1998, but this total represents 1.2 per cent of all higher education students. So, despite that increase in enrolments, indigenous people are still blatantly underrepresented in higher education, as they comprised 1.7 per cent of the population aged 15 to 64 years at the 1996 census.I believe, as does my party—and, I hope, many other people in this chamber—that education is the key to many opportunities in life. It is the key to a democratic and enlightened society. It is also a passionate belief that we share that education should be available to all. It should be publicly funded and it should be accessible. Putting fees, charges and other obstacles or barriers in the way of entry to and participation in education institutions not only disadvantages the whole community but in particular those people who traditionally are underrepresented or unrepresented or from low socioeconomic backgrounds, non-English-speaking backgrounds or indigenous backgrounds, people with disabilities, and women until recently, given the figures. So why this government would seek to reduce or change one component that we know does assist people to enter education and participate successfully—that is, student assistance and financial support—I do not know.I strongly urge the government members to consider the proposed changes and to review the state of indigenous education in Australia today. I urge the government not to backslide in any way that would see a reduction in the amount of funding and resources that are allocated to such an area. I commend the general business topic for debate today. The Democrats support the motion before us. We condemn, as it says in the motion, the gap between rates of retention for non-indigenous students and those for indigenous students and the fact that that has not only increased but is expected to worsen. I hope that is a situation we do not have to confront, but that relies not only on the goodwill of the government but also its leadership and guts so as to ensure that it does not.17:30:009299Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I rise tonight to support the motion in the name of Senator Carr. I would like to share with the Senate my experiences of a visit to Broome a few months ago, in the company of the shadow minister for education, Michael Lee. We were given the opportunity to attend a presentation by students to the board of governors of the University of Notre Dame. As I recall, almost all of the eight or nine students were of Aboriginal origin and were mature age students. Only one of them was male. They told us that they had returned to education so that they would be trained as teachers. As I was listening to the presentations, it became obvious that a number of these students, particularly the women, had been through some of life's difficulties and had had a rocky road—until they decided to take control of their lives. By doing that, they decided to do something not only for themselves but for their communities: to become teachers.Both Michael and I were advised that a number of the teachers who teach in the north-west of Australia are of European origin and that Aborigines have traditionally only been the teachers' aides. Notre Dame University, which is headed by Sister Pat Rhatigan, is trying to train Aborigines to go back into their communities and teach their own people rather than be assistants to white teachers. I think that is commendable. And it is commendable that those people had the courage—after, as I said earlier, going through some rocky times—to go back and try to better themselves and to do something for their communities. As I understand from the information that we have received via the ministerial council, of any group in the Australian community, Aborigines are the most likely to return to study. The rest of the population does not. That is commendable.I also recall from what was put to us there that, unfortunately, even though resources are being made available for Aboriginal education, the number of young males that are not making themselves available for teaching or for school is actually lower now than it ever has been since Aboriginal education was taken up as an issue by the Commonwealth and state governments. I know that the people in the north-west of Australia are very concerned about this phenomenon. They believe that putting indigenous teachers into indigenous communities will, in a great way, assist in making sure that these young men avail themselves of education and that they will come back to the schools and be able to make the contribution to their community that we all expect education to train us for.That is why I am a bit disturbed about the actions of the government in taking away this assistance to people who are on the lower socioeconomic scale in this country. Even the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, at the ministerial council held in Alice Springs in September of this year, mentioned the issue in the paper that he presented. I am sure this has been quoted earlier but I will quote it again. He said that only 13.6 per cent of indigenous people had a post-school education, whereas the general population's statistic is 34.4 per cent. I know that goodwill and positive ideas about what people would like to see happen for Aborigines extend on both sides of the House, but the actions that are being taken now by the government in reducing this opportunity for indigenous people to be educated will have serious ramifications.As I said, with the board of governors at Notre Dame, we heard some fairly harrowing tales of people who had been through some of life's rough stretches. But they had decided to do something about it. Through scholarships and Abstudy, these people have been able to lift themselves up, to get away from that dependency that we hear so much rhetoric from the government about. The way that the government is performing on that issue is something that we will see the detriments of, not the benefits of, in the years to come.As it has no doubt been reported, the report from ATSIC prepared by Wendy Brabham and Associate Professor John Henry from the Institute of Koori Education in Deakin University outlined who would be advantaged by these changes to Abstudy and who would be disadvantaged. Essentially, the people who will be disadvantaged are the ones that are in the colleges, the TAFEs and the universities now. Eighty per cent of the indigenous students enrolled in universities and colleges now are people of mature age.They are the ones that have had the courage to go back and try to do something with their lives. They are the ones we should be encouraging rather than discouraging in the operation of the schemes and benefits that the Australian government provides. As Senator Stott Despoja mentioned, about 900 people will be advantaged as a result of these changes but 15,000 indigenous people will be worse off. I do not think we would like to see that, and I am pretty sure that those students who struggle as a result of their continuing education would not like to see that. Even though we have been grappling with our past, it is sad that we now will take even more benefits away from those disadvantaged indigenous people.I repeat again and again that it took a lot of courage for those men and women to present themselves for education. I believe that, if we help them lift their stature and the way they see themselves, we will reap the benefits of that in our own community. We need to train these people so that they can go back into their communities and lift the stature and standing of the people that they live with and the community they are part of. The government is putting a huge hurdle in the way of courageous men and women.The resolution that has been outlined, which is from a press release by Mr Djerrkura, is a sad one and is saying to us all to wake up to ourselves, to look at our consciences and do something that is right and proper and assists in the healing that we have commenced in this country. If we do not do things like this, and we continue to take away opportunities for indigenous people that we previously gave them, I fear the situation will not be as good as it should be and that what will happen is that those communities will slide further and further into despair.It is up to us in the Australian Senate and the Australian parliament to say to these people that we are with them and that we will encourage them and do everything we can to make sure they no longer have the dependency that we hear so often from the government that they have. These mature age men and women need our assistance. I would hope that well-meaning members of the government who have a lot of goodwill and commonsense will see the error of what Dr Kemp is doing and persuade him to reinstate this very good scheme that trains people to look after themselves.17:40:009301Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Two weeks ago in Perth I had the good fortune to open some extra extensions to the Clontarf Aboriginal College. It was a very moving ceremony because there is a real commitment in that college to the advancement of young people and to the advancement of their goals in life. Many of the students at that college are having a second go, almost, at education because many of them had dropped out and were on the path to nowhere. Those students now are well and truly on the path to achievement. I could not help but notice that the statement of belief and commitment for the students had in its final paragraph these words:With those rights and choices I have made, I also accept responsibility. I know that there are expectations of me to respect the rights of others and to make a firm commitment to being a member of the Clontarf Aboriginal College community.I believe those words—`rights', `choices', `responsibility', `expectations' and `commitment'—say it all. They also say it all from another perspective: that Aboriginal communities themselves are sick and tired of the handout mentality.Let me quote an Aboriginal elder who, in referring to Labor's 13 wasted years in government, made it quite clear what he thought of Labor's approach when he said:Socks up to the knees people, government people, told us that the sit-down money was our right, when we knew in our heart that land and work was our right. The sweet lolly idea of sit-down money and welfare services was really the biggest highway to a short life of rubbish food, gambling and tobacco and alcohol abuse.That, I think, reflects the concern that many of the Aboriginal communities have.While most of the Labor Party seek to maintain their paternalistic and destructive welfare approach, there is one lonely Labor voice arguing against it. The member for Werriwa in the House of Representatives, Mark Latham, said:This is the tragedy of groups that after a long period of disadvantage and defeat start to see the world solely in terms of victimisation. They pursue a politics of symbolism and self-justification rather than the real world of results. Legal rights become a substitute for personal responsibility. As they see it, the system is always at fault, never the individual.How true is that of this debate today? This carping, ever carping, Labor opposition do not want to look at their own record. In their 13 years in office, Labor spent close to $16 billion on indigenous specific programs. People might say, `That is pretty good.' But there is absolutely no commitment to outcomes, and that is just inappropriate. Throwing money at the system does not solve the problem. You have to make sure that the money is targeted.The thing that really used to disturb me—when going to many of the towns in the Kimberley, for example, in my state of Western Australia—was that a lot of money was being poured into those towns but very little of it was ever getting to the communities that it was designed for. That just did not seem to worry the Labor Party. They set up a bigger and bigger bureaucracy, and they did not care that in the communities, where the money was supposedly targeted, people were still sitting in the park under the tree—in bad health.Despite this massive expenditure, the living conditions and health standards of indigenous Australians did not markedly improve. We cannot look at simply one aspect of this. We cannot look just at education; we have to look at the total picture. When this coalition government was elected in 1996—as I say, after 13 years of Labor grandstanding—the life expectancy of Aboriginal people was 15 to 20 years less than for the general population, infectious diseases were still 12 times higher than the Australian average, indigenous infant mortality was more than three to five times higher than that for other Australian children, only 33 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children completed schooling compared to the national average of 77 per cent, 120 remote Aboriginal communi ties did not have an adequate water supply system, 134 communities lacked appropriate sewage disposal systems, 250 communities were without electricity and 176 communities had unsealed roads. And the Labor Party can come in here and preach about the poor work that is being done, when this year's funding of indigenous specific programs of $2.2 billion is an all-time record high.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Hang your heads.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—That is very true, Senator Ferris. They should hang their heads in shame. To listen to the nonsense that has been trumpeted here today without any concern for their record and what they left as a legacy to the Aboriginal community after 13 years is nothing short of disgraceful. The difference between the coalition and Labor is that we are carefully targeting that funding to the key areas of health, housing, education, employment and economic development. The minister, Senator Herron, who happens to be in the chamber at the moment, should be congratulated for making sure that he has been able to secure that increase in funding that has led to that all-time record high allocation. You would never know about this if you just listened to the nonsense that has been said by the Labor opposition here today—and every other day, for that matter. They simply do not care about self-reliance. The coalition government have made indigenous health, housing, employment, education and economic development important priorities.One of the things to do with education is making sure that there is something for Aboriginal communities to do. The number of indigenous apprenticeships and traineeships is an example of the success of the coalition approach. When we came to office in 1996, there were just 800 indigenous apprentices and trainees Australia wide—not just in one state but right across the country. Three years later, this number has grown to between 5,000 and 6,000. And yet, here we go: the Labor Party are still complaining.It is hard to imagine exactly what it is the Labor Party really want. If they were really serious about it, they would have done what the coalition government is now doing, because expenditure on indigenous education programs will be increased by $16.3 million in 1999-2000. The Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program will target indigenous students' literacy and numeracy competencies and school attendance levels.As I said before, literacy and numeracy aspects did not seem to worry the Labor government. They just did not worry them. As long as they were throwing money at the problem, they thought the problem was going to be solved. But once they decided that there was going to be no benchmark for outcomes, there was going to be no measure whatsoever, they abrogated their responsibility. They just said, `Oh well, we've given the money away now. We don't care what happens.' And that is exactly what happened. They did not care what happened—and very little did, because we had more and more people, supposedly coming out of school, not having any literacy or numeracy skills. The most basic fundamental question then has to be asked: how are they ever going to compete in the open market? It is one of the cruellest jokes that could possibly be played on a community. The Aboriginal communities themselves fully realise that they have this problem. They are not saying, `Give us money and everything will be resolved.' They are saying, `Give us money and make sure that it is spent where it is needed, we can measure the outcomes and we know precisely what is happening.'Senator Hutchins, who spoke immediately prior to me, was talking about the wonderful achievements of Notre Dame University in Broome. They are, without doubt, really starting to see some gains. But the only way they are seeing those gains is by making sure that there are outcomes—not by just gobbling up the money and saying, `Whacko, we've got the money. Now let's do with it what we like.' They are actually saying that they will do something with it.In 1995-96, Labor spent $136 million on indigenous health. This year, the coalition is spending $222 million on health care for indigenous Australians. Since the coalition came to office, as I say, the number of apprenticeships has gone from 800 to between 5,000 and 6,000. These sorts of things all dovetail because, if there is not good health, if there is not an improvement in basic health standards, how can one expect students to be able to achieve and go on to bigger and better things? But, once again, `Throw money at education. Throw money at this or that. Do not worry about the outcomes and do not link them together—and we have done our job,' was the mentality of the Labor Party.A report released by the Australia Institute, a left wing think-tank, was entitled Public expenditure on services for Aboriginal people. The report analysed the 1995-96 budget—the last budget of the former Labor government—and was highly critical of Labor's indigenous programs and the outcomes from their spending. For example, in relation to housing programs, it says about Labor's 1995-96 housing policies that `existing housing policies are inequitable and inadequate'. The report was also critical of Labor's efforts in education and health. As a report card on Labor's final year in office, it makes compelling reading.The Howard government acknowledges the high level of indigenous disadvantage, and that is why we are addressing that need in a practical and targeted way. There is absolutely no point in the Labor Party going on at length and saying that things are not being done. They cannot truthfully deny that things are being done, and done very constructively.The coalition priorities and initiatives are really focused on a number of basic areas but they are starting with the question of literacy and numeracy. The other aspect of that is, of course, to improve school attendance for indigenous students. Once again, you can provide the infrastructure, the teachers and the resources but, if the students do not turn up, what is all that for? Therefore, part of the outcome test is whether the students themselves attend school. The coalition is also tying spending to outcomes in education programs for indigenous students and so, for the first time, there are established performance targets for educational progress in these programs.Once again, progress is being monitored and not just the end result. What we found after 13 years of Labor is that, when you look at only the end result, the whole system has failed. If there is no check on the way through, what is going to happen? At the end of the day, you are going to say, `Sorry, but it went wrong. Who cares? It doesn't matter; the money is spent.' That is not what the coalition is doing. The current budget made, as I say, a major contribution of over $1.1 billion to improve indigenous education over the next five years. It will remain at record levels for the next five years with an additional $16.3 million in 1999-2000 to current spending. Therefore, I think it is important that this whole question really be looked at in terms of reality and not in terms of fiction. It is dreadful to have listened to this debate and to have heard how many simply untruthful positions have been put today.17:56:009303Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I have listened with great interest this afternoon to the debate on indigenous education; and, in the few minutes that I have, there is nothing more timely than to speak about a clipping from today's Adelaide Advertiser . I am happy to report that it is on page 3. It is a photograph of a very optimistic young indigenous woman and it says `Role model with a vision for her people'. This is Elsie Fisher, an 18-year-old Aboriginal woman in year 12 at the Kaurna Plains school in Adelaide. Just today, Elsie was named as the South Australian Student of the Year. She is strongly involved in youth indigenous issues and very committed to changing attitudes towards indigenous people. She says, in some very positive quotes in this story, `I am very proud to be a role model for the younger Aboriginal kids. I want to inspire my peers and highlight the achievements of young indigenous people to help break down the stereotypes that exist in the broader community.' Her award is part of a South Australian competition run by Exodus Youth Services, recognising the contribution of all students and focusing particularly on those who have achieved a personal best.Who better to personify and reflect this government's policy towards indigenous education? She is one of the great success stories that are now becoming apparent throughout Australia, because we have changed the way governments approach indigenous education. We have appropriately and correctly targeted literacy, numeracy and school attendance as the foundations for closing the gap between indigenous educational outcomes and those of the wider community.I have held roundtables with indigenous women in a number of regional centres in South Australia and I have spoken of them in this place before. One of the themes that has run through each one of those roundtables is the desire of all indigenous women to provide their children—their sons and their daughters, and sometimes their grandchildren—with greater opportunities for education than they themselves had, more effectively targeted and better delivered.Perhaps one of the most telling quotes that I have heard in this place on this issue over the past few weeks came from Aden Ridgeway when he talked about breaking the self-defeating cycle of dependency by way of our national indigenous literacy and numeracy strategy. He reflected a comment made by Senator Herron when he said, `Quality education for indigenous Australians is a crucial step towards empowering indigenous people.'Interestingly enough, Noel Pearson—and I commend him for this—just two weeks ago summed up the importance of this issue when he said, `The survival of indigenous culture and knowledge in the long term is going to depend on one thing—literacy'—and this is reflected in our government's strategies.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! It being 6 p.m., the time for consideration of general business has expired.Documents93049304Debate resumed from 23 September 1999, on motion by Senator West:That the Senate take note of the document.18:00:009304Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I have looked at this report on social security compliance in Centrelink. I would have liked it to be more comprehensive than it is, particularly in terms of process. Today during question time Senator Vanstone raised an issue of propriety—an issue of how things should be conducted when people are accused of wrongdoing. I would like to give those considerations to the way this report has been prepared. Some of the figures given here illustrate what I mean.This is a half-yearly report from July 1998 to December 1998 by Centrelink in respect of social security compliance activity. It points out that there was a total of 1,341,501 entitlement reviews conducted. Out of this, 1,510 convictions resulted. So investigative procedures have been carried out in respect of over a million people, yet only about 1,500 convictions resulted.People who commit crime deserve to be brought before the courts for the courts to make the appropriate decision about them. But in trying to identify those criminals we must forever keep in mind the rule of law and the necessity to see that people who are not guilty are not treated in an untoward way. Yet these figures in this Centrelink report would indicate that the contrary is true—in other words, people have been pursued when there was really no basis for it. We should look at the way they have been pursued through data matching, through accelerated claimant matching, through pensioner entitlement reviews and so on. But there is nothing in this report which tells us how the investigative tools have been used.One tool that has been used is a tip-off review. The police get a lot of their information through tip-offs—people informing on others. That is the way that many people are brought to justice. But there is another side to that—that is, we become an informer society. There is always the problem that people will use that tool to embarrass people whom they do not like or to frustrate people whom they hate. It is of some concern, for example, that we find in the people with disabilities and their carers program there were 3,456 tip-offs which resulted in 121 cancellations, 653 debts being identified and 747 people having their pensions reduced. So a very big proportion of these people were absolutely innocent of a crime and not liable for debt, yet they were investigated.What I would like to see in further reports is some development of the issues that this very sparse report raises. It is too short a report. It raises a great number of issues which are not met by the text of the report. I would invite Centrelink, when it gives its report in the future, to develop the issues more fully. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.9305Debate resumed for 29 September 1999, on motion by Senator Eggleston:That the Senate take note of the document.18:06:009305Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to speak about issues in and related to the third report of the Medical Training Review Panel. This report has to do with the training of our medical practitioners. The availability of medical practitioners is a continuing problem, particularly in rural areas. It is very difficult for rural centres to get doctors to go there and to provide services for the area, particularly where the town is small. In the case of my own state, places like Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong are well served but, when you get out further, there are problems.The most important thing that any training authority can teach the young people coming through, whether it be in the medical field or elsewhere, is ethics. Ethical conduct would get over a lot of the problems. There are, of course, problems at the moment with the way young doctors coming through are treated. Oftentimes these young doctors are exploited, in effect, by their having to work long hours without pay. To a large extent, they subsidise the medical services in this country; and that should be acknowledged.There is also the issue of how these young doctors, as they come through the various medical schools, will make their way in the world, given the fact that the provider number system has changed, that they have to get into colleges to get the qualifications they need and that this is a chancy business to the extent that—and I think I am correct in this—there are a lot more doctors than places available, even though there is a lack of doctors particularly in the rural regions. There is also the issue of how many specialists are coming through. It is not only the lack of general practitioners in the country that is a problem but also the lack of specialists, whether physicians or surgeons. They are not as plentiful as is desirable for Australia.The Medical Training Review Panel has an essential job to do. In the end, regulation is not what gets a profession or vocation going. What gets a vocation going is a strong set of ethical practices. If that was put into the centre of training, you would get people committed to going to the country and to going overseas to serve with such organisations as Medecins sans Frontiers. Nevertheless, there are a lot of places where young doctors should go and should want to go. The important thing for the Medical Training Review Panel is to make sure that they are able to do so and able to do so with deep seated ethics.Question resolved in the affirmative.9305The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 5 February to 31 March 1999 (First). Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Brien the debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.National Health and Medical Research Council—Grants for 1999. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Brien the debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Department of Family and Community Services—Evaluation of stakeholders' experience with the use of the tables for the assessment of work-related impairment for disability support pension—Final report. Motion of Senator West to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Brien the debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business. Committees930693069306Debate resumed from 27 September, on motion by Senator Allison:That the Senate take note of the report.18:12:009306McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—I welcome the report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the Hinchinbrook Channel inquiry. Whilst senators would be aware that I was not a participant in this inquiry because it concluded before I became a member of the Senate, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the former Senator Margaret Reynolds, who, as a North Queensland senator, contributed quite significantly to this inquiry. I have had a chance to look at the report, and I note that it has acknowledged the divisiveness that the Port Hinchinbrook project has brought to the community of Cardwell in North Queensland.The history of Port Hinchinbrook, or Oyster Point as it is sometimes called, has not been very positive. Basically, it has been a recipe for how not to manage a development proposal. Parts of this recipe, the ingredients, included a beautiful area with extreme world heritage values—with the wet tropics world heritage area to the west and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to the east. The second component was the community of Cardwell, which in many respects is a depressed regional community. Whilst it is a small community, people do want very much the best for themselves and their families.Added to that was the spectacle of a very prominent developer coming into town with some fairly fancy plans, a person used to dealing with controversy. As the developer of Hamilton Island in the 1980s, I am sure he would know that that development would not have proceeded in today's environment, given today's knowledge and given the understanding of the community broadly about the environmental impacts and the subsequent economic impacts that come from dealing with such a grand plan in such a sensitive place. So with those three components, the community was very hopeful that they would end up with economic salvation.The other part of the tragedy is that the Cardwell Shire Council, unfortunately, did not have a planning instrument that would be able to deal with the proposal. So the local government was ill prepared but, as well as that, there were unclear processes between all three levels of government as to how best to deal with such an application.The other issue was the potential acid sulphate soil issue. At the time, there was limited knowledge of how, if at all, the acid sulphate soils could be disturbed. Given all those things, it is no wonder we have the disaster that faces Cardwell now. But all that is history, and it should be recognised as that. We now have a situation which we have to deal with, and that is the challenge that has been provided to the community of Cardwell and all levels of government.All senators would be aware that the acid sulphate soil situation is receiving continuing monitoring for its offsite impacts. The Queensland government has commissioned an independent monitor who is working with both the developer and the community to monitor the acid sulphate situation. It will continue to need that sort of monitoring, and I congratulate the Queensland government on its initiative and also encourage it to keep that work going.I particularly welcome the report's recommendations for federal financial support for regional planning processes. If the Cardwell Shire Council and the community in general had a planning instrument that had been able to deal with it, it would have made this process a lot less divisive. What we need for that Cardwell area is a planning instrument with clear objectives about the community aspirations, with clear community support. That will provide a sense of certainty to all players (whether they be developers, the community themselves or the environment sector) about what is proposed for the future of any community—in this case, Cardwell.Such an instrument, I believe, would have curbed one of the most concerning outcomes of the Port Hinchinbrook development proposal. Many senators would be aware that, in the early days, the proposal was purported to be a resort. That naturally was welcomed by many in the community, as they could see that it would provide them with some economic future through long-term jobs, mainly for their young people. Unfortunately, the reality is that what we have now is simply a residential subdivision. There will be some jobs, but the potential for long-term jobs is greatly diminished. That proposal has been highly speculative. If there had been sound planning instruments for the local authority and the state government to work within, it would have made it much easier.Finally, I would like to say that I welcome the report. I look forward to reading it very closely. I also look forward to working with the local community and with all levels of government to resolve this matter as best as possible for all concerned.Question resolved in the affirmative.9307Treaties-Joint Standing Committee-25th report-Eight treaties tabled on 11 August 1999. Motion of Senator Quirke to take note of report called on. On the motion of Senator Cooney the debate was adjourned till the next day of sitting.Privileges—Standing Committee—79th report—Possible false or misleading statements tabled in the Senate—Discontinuation of inquiry. Motion of Senator Knowles—That the recommendation contained in paragraph 5 of the 79th report of the Committee of Privileges be adopted—agreed to.Adjournment930710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! The consideration of committee reports having now concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.930718:19:009307Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Australia is increasingly regarded as a great place to live, a country of great natural resources and opportunity. There are indeed few countries in the world that have accepted and adapted to change as readily as Australia. For example, one just has to look at the rate at which business and individuals are accessing the Internet.One of those elements of change that has dramatically improved our standard of living is trade liberalisation, an issue I wish to address tonight. Australia has reduced tariffs and other trade barriers significantly in recent decades. Some may argue that Australia has outpaced its competitors and neighbours by too great a margin. Trade and foreign direct investment are major engines for growth in all countries as people all over the world seek more freedom of choice. An open market is a source of competitive strength. It stimulates efficiency, which contributes to economic growth, jobs and rising incomes. However, we must admit that globalisation has brought with it some threats for certain people, as well as opportunities for others.In Australia, this open market has increased competition and boosted productivity, increased the range of imports and made them cheaper for our producers and consumers, and allowed us to focus on producing goods where we are the most cost competitive. Australia has been reducing protection because it raises the living standards for all Australians in monetary terms. The gains from domestic liberalisation over the last 10 years are estimated to have added at least $1,000 to the annual income of every Australian family.At the same time, we must acknowledge that there has been a loss of a lot of traditionally high labour content firms, particularly in the manufacturing sector. But firms overall benefit from market openness and better access to competitive resources, materials, components and services. Individuals benefit because lower prices and greater product diversity increase the purchasing power of their wages. Liberalisation promotes competition and productivity gains and encourages best practice production methods. Competition encourages our producers to minimise waste, improve techniques and use research and development to generate innovations that will enhance the competitiveness of their product or service.Exporting firms traditionally have highly developed business practices enabling them to have a competitive edge. They have to be good to survive in the export world; it is not for the inexperienced or faint hearted. The case for liberalising investment is indeed as strong as for trade, where more open economies enjoy higher rates of private investment, which is a major determinant of economic growth.Our Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, is a great advocate of open and transparent economies and private investment. Australia has survived the downturn in Asia when all around us the tigers have failed. We have been described as the miracle economy. Indeed, some of the recent changes suggested in the Ralph report such as releasing some capital through reductions in capital gains tax are aimed at opening up investment opportunities. About 60 per cent of total foreign direct investment flows are directed towards service industries from where economies derive the bulk of income and employment growth in such areas as telecommunication, finance, transport and professional services. We do have to acknowledge at the same time that concerns have been expressed about the impact of openness on labour markets, but we must also acknowledge that the negative effects of trade and investment are quite modest.Adverse effects on the labour market come primarily from changes in technology, as well as business organisations. The cost of protecting industry and workers against imports by raising trade barriers, which involves the community typically paying a higher price, are regarded as outmoded today. Protection is like a tax because it raises the price of imports and domestic products, which in turn restricts consumer choice and places the heaviest burden on those in society who are the least well off. It forces Australian businesses to pay higher prices on imported goods used in production, making them less competitive than their overseas counterparts. It slows change. It also raises costs.We can make the most of liberalisation by securing low inflation and interest rates; by continuing micro-economic reform to boost productivity, including key sectors such as transport, energy, finance and telecommunica tions; by labour market reforms, which create more productive, flexible and dynamic work forces; and by lowering compliance costs to business. All these policies help encourage investment, strengthen the Australian economic growth and facilitate higher incomes, create jobs and improve our living standards. But to deal effectively with the need for adjustment—with adjustment there are always winners and losers as a result of change—policies are needed to address the plight of those in the front line of adjustment. Concerns need to be acknowledged. It is important to stress that there is a better way.Liberal trade and investment must be seen as being not only about prosperity and greater freedom of choice but also about fairness. Public understanding therefore must be improved. Research shows that the highest benefits go to those countries which liberalise first, and certainly Australia is in this league. This is because most of the gains from trade liberalisation come from domestic reforms rather than increased market access abroad. Australian producers are enjoying improved access for their products due to liberalisation occurring in other countries via the World Trade Organisation and regional fora such as APEC, bilateral agreements and unilateral decisions.APEC countries are already moving towards the goal of free and open trade and investment. Australia is working hard indeed to encourage greater liberalisation by other countries. China, for instance, will reduce its average tariff from 23 per cent to 15 per cent by the year 2000. Around the world average tariffs on manufactured goods have fallen from 40 per cent in the 1940s to four per cent today. The worldwide lowering of tariff barriers has helped to increase world trade dramatically. As a result, our exports have grown by 3.5 times over the past 20 years. The export mix has also changed.All these changes have resulted in more jobs and higher growth, both of which we are experiencing in Australia today. The role then for politicians and industries is to devote more time and effort to addressing the concerns about open trade and investment. Targeted and coordinated policies must explain pressures on jobs and incomes and address the problems at the root.930918:27:009309O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—This afternoon the Minister for Transport and Regional Services tabled a report from Mr Stephen Skehill into the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Laurie Foley as Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance, in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It is notable that the minister chose to dump this report at this time—that is, between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. this afternoon—to minimise the opportunity for the Senate to consider the document before we rise for a week's break. It should be noted that the report is entitled Review of the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr L Foley as Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority: final report by Stephen Skehill, Special Counsel, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Canberra, 15 September 1999.So this report was completed more than two weeks ago. But it is only today—15 days later and in the afternoon when there is minimum opportunity to consider the report and certainly minimum opportunity to comment upon it—that the minister chose to produce this report as required by the Senate, hardly a timely action by the government. One has to ask the question: why didn't the government produce this report when it was available, as it clearly was, on 15 September? The government might argue that it had not been provided to them by Airservices, but one has to wonder about that. After all, the minister should have and no doubt would have required Airservices Australia to supply this report as soon as it was available. Having said that, I have not had the opportunity to properly consider in detail the evidence contained in the document or Mr Skehill's conclusions. Once I have had a chance to consider the document more fully, I will be making further comment. But I have looked at Mr Skehill's conclusions in relation to section 21 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act and would like to address at least that aspect of the report this evening. Paragraph 1.43 of the executive summary states:I consider that section 21 [of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act] required Mr Foley to disclose to the Board at its meeting of 15 May 1998 that he was seriously contemplating applying for the assistant director, aviation safety compliance position, and of his personal relationship with Spencer Stuart.Note that Mr Skehill does not say `applying for the position' but `considering applying for the position'. Paragraph 1.44 states that Mr Foley did not make the disclosure to the board that he was required to do under section 21. Paragraph 1.45 states:Compliance with section 21 is a strict requirement of the law and there is no provision of the Act that allows acceptance of substantial compliance. Further, even if substantial compliance was acceptable, the relevant test of such was not met in this case.Paragraph 1.46 states:However, while I regard Mr Foley's breach of section 21 to be substantive and not technical, I nevertheless consider it to be an inadvertent act of omission rather than commission.Paragraph 1.47 states:Despite this breach, Mr Foley did not seek to inappropriately conceal his interest in, and later application for, the assistant director aviation safety compliance position and he consulted widely in this regard.Mr Foley discussed his interests in the position with Mr Willoughby on 5 May, 8 May and 11 May. Mr Foley told Mr Dick Smith of his plans on 14 May and after the board meeting on 15 May. He also told Mr Toller on 14 May and 17 May. But he did not tell the board.In a bundle of documents provided to the Senate in response to a return to order, there is a handwritten file note. It was on Spencer Stuart's stationery. Spencer Stuart is the firm that did the headhunting for the job Mr Foley filled. That file note is headed `Laurie Foley 7/5' meaning, I think, 7 May. It is a file note from the discussion between Mr Wheatley from the recruitment agency Spencer Stuart and Mr Foley on that day—7 May.Most of the document has been blacked out, but on page 4—there are in fact two page 4s, but on this particular one, if I can identify it that way—there is a heading `CASA role'. Then the following sentence appears, `If I go for this I must resign from the CASA board.' Further down the page under a heading `Leaving the board' appears this passage, `Until I decide, WW says keep it quiet for now.' WW appears to be a Mr Willoughby. I will repeat that: `Until I decide, WW says keep it quiet for now.' It then says, `Concerns are: what would MT think about it.' MT appears to mean Mick Toller. It then says, `I'd have to get the Minister's blessing. Will also have to talk to'—and then there are blacked out names—`re my candidacy. If MT/'—and something again is blacked out—`has a problem, I'd say no.'The evidence in this report is clear: Mr Foley had an interest in this position on 7 May. On that day he knew that there was a conflict between his board position and his possible candidacy for that assistant director's job. In fact, he stated to Mr Wheatley that he would be obliged to resign from the board if he went for the position. However, it is clear that he put his desire to secure support for the job ahead of his responsibilities as a CASA board member. That is, he set about securing support for his candidacy before he declared an interest. This is unacceptable.There are a number of court judgments that have gone to the question of the standards in relation to the operation of public authorities, and I believe it is the case that there is a higher test for applicants for public office than for private office—as there should be. It appears that these higher standards have not been met in this case. In fact, it appears that Mr Foley was holding on to his board position—hoping to secure the employment that he was seeking—as a sort of insurance were he not successful for the application, without even having regard to the propriety of his holding the position or whether he sought to influence others by holding the position.I should also say that the evidence from Mr Skehill's report is clear: Mr Foley discussed his application with Mr Willoughby, with Mr Toller and with Mr Dick Smith. In relation to Mr Smith and Mr Toller, that very fact calls into question their roles and their actions in relation to Mr Foley's appointment and indeed Mr Foley's breach of section 21 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act. On my first reading of Mr Skehill's report, I do not believe that his conclusions were necessarily completely open on all the facts before him. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, I will revisit this matter. I think the Senate may need to take an interest in this matter further—at the very least in the committee processes of the Senate—to satisfy itself. There are other aspects revealed in Mr Skehill's report about the reasons the Senate was misled on the facts relating to this matter. It is suggested that that misleading was due to improperly kept records and the lack of availability of the information at the appropriate time. (Time expired)931018:37:009310Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak tonight on World Farm Animal Day 1999, which is Saturday, 2 October. This day also marks the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, a significant contributor to Indian independence and one of the greatest spiritual and political leaders of modern times. Gandhi is well known for his compassion towards others, including animals, and it is therefore appropriate that his birthday is memorialised on World Farm Animal Day. Many senators would know Gandhi was a vegetarian, but he was not vegetarian just for religious reasons. He was an ethical vegetarian and, when he lived in London, he was an active member of the Vegetarian Society of Great Britain.On World Farm Animal Day there will be many events around the globe to highlight the 43 billion animals that are killed each year as part of the world's meat production process. The focus of this year's World Farm Animal Day is the new policies and trade agreements currently being developed which are designed, among other things, to double the world production and consumption of meat and milk in the next 20 years. These policies and trade agreements are being aggressively pushed onto developing nations. The term `livestock revolution' is used to explain the planned expansion and creation of significant and sizeable factory farming operations in developing countries which would breed, cage and slaughter up to 50 billion additional animals per year by the year 2020.The International Food Policy Research Institute, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the International Livestock Research Institute have published a report entitled Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution, which aims to promote the meat eating expansion into developing countries. As I mentioned, over 43 billion animals are currently subjected to factory farming and the slaughterhouse each year around the world. This report hopes to double this number through the meat eating expansion and the transition of beef and pork consumption to chicken consumption.The report projects a 65 per cent expansion in worldwide production and consumption of meat by the year 2020 and assumes that 84 per cent of that expansion will occur in developing countries. It proposes to accommodate this demand through the introduction of Western factory farming and pollution control technologies. It is of concern that international bodies such as the UN—the various components of which do a lot of noble work around the world—are willing to support the promotion of such a significant expansion without adequate consideration of its potential environmental impacts.Many throughout the Western world are starting to discover the potential health problems of a significantly meat based diet, which has led to the rise of what are colloquially known as `Western' diseases—heart disease and various forms of cancer. Australia is also starting to realise the significant environmental cost of various forms of meat production. Livestock grazing is the number one reason for land clearing. Land clearing is a particular and ongoing problem in my home state of Queensland. It continues to contribute to a massive loss of wildlife habitats, land degradation and numerous other environmental problems. These things are clearly caused by a range of activities, not simply grazing and meat production, but grazing and meat production are major contributors. This needs to be highlighted.The report Livestock to 2020 will create a range of problems apart from the obvious one of the increase in the number of animals potentially subjected to cruelty through inappropriate farming methods in developing countries. An organisation called the Farm Animal Reform Movement, or FARM, highlights some of these potential concerns. I believe these concerns need to be highlighted before we move too far down the path that is proposed by the Livestock to 2020 report.These concerns include the fact that the increase in meat production and consumption in developing countries, particularly through factory farming, will inevitably result in a draw down of grain supplies. The majority of grain produced in many developing countries now goes to feed animals rather than people. Livestock in factory farms will be fed grains and legumes raised on land that now feeds people directly, and the increased production of livestock will raise the price of grain. Meat provides but a small fraction of the calories and protein provided by plant foods per hectare of arable land.In an environmental sense, a meat based diet is very inefficient when compared with a plant based diet. This inefficiency has the potential to exacerbate existing problems with food provision and production in developing countries. Many of these countries are already struggling to feed all their people as populations increase. An increase of such size and rapidity in the methods of meat production of developing countries has the potential to lead to significant environmental degradation. Issues such as soil erosion, water quality, land clearing and the impact on forests, wetlands and other wildlife habitats cannot be ignored simply because of economic opportunity.In the same way as we highlight the necessity of assessing the environmental impact of developments or any other expansion of industry, we should assess the environmental impact of this development in food production. More water and energy is used to raise livestock than to grow plant foods, and livestock agriculture contributes more pollutants to waterways than all other human activities. Pollution regulations of factory farm discharges in developing countries are unlikely to be as stringent as those in Western countries. Issues such as these must be ad dressed by industries in the West before they seek to further expand such industries in developing countries.A number of ongoing forms of assistance are provided through aid agencies, including Australian aid agencies, which feeds this expansion. My concern is that the potential flow-on consequences such as those I have mentioned this evening are not being adequately recognised. Groups providing assistance include Australian NGO organisations such as Community Aid Abroad, an organisation with which I have had an ongoing association. I am strongly supportive of Community Aid Abroad, but they are funding intensive factory farms in Africa at present.Issues such as those that I have raised present potential problems that do need to be properly assessed in advance of encouraging expansion in this direction. The organisation that I mentioned previously, FARM, is preparing a world farm animal status report to comprehensively detail and track the statistics associated with how farm animals are bred and caged, and the associated potential health and environmental impacts. This report will be submitted to major policy advisory groups and government agencies worldwide. FARM is also setting up seminars with the World Bank and similar institutions, with expert testimonies about potential impacts of expanding factory farming and meat consumption.Again, I highlight the importance of including that sort of information as part of what is considered rather than simply taking a very linear approach to potential industry development. The history of aid provided by Western nations to developing countries is littered with examples of very narrow, short-term approaches being taken without the broader consequences and long-term impacts being adequately assessed. I hope that we are at a stage where we do not continue to make those mistakes.In conclusion, I would like to quote from Mahatma Gandhi, who I mentioned at the start of my speech—it is a well-known quote that sums up a sentiment that I think would be helpful if it was considered more often in our society:The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.931218:47:009312Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Tonight I would like to draw to the Senate's attention further evidence of how, under Dr Kemp, the department of education is not able to even track a bleeding elephant through snow. I have asked the government if they would be willing to grant leave to table certain documents concerning translations from various advertisements in the foreign language press concerning the immigration scams that are operating within this country at the moment. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, has asked me to provide information to the government and I have sought to do so. I now seek leave to table the documents that I showed to the government earlier this evening.Leave not granted.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I notice that the government is not prepared to grant leave, which demonstrates the extent to which it is prepared to cover up these outrageous and scandalous activities. This government is failing to take the necessary action to clean up what is quite clearly a shocking abuse of people in this country by a small group of unscrupulous and dangerous people who are undermining an extremely important international export industry for Australia.I noticed that on 3 September the department of immigration sought to run a blitz on taxi drivers at Melbourne airport. As I understand from the taxi owners themselves, they have complained bitterly about the government undertaking such actions because, as a consequence of that raid, 30 per cent of all taxis in Melbourne were not staffed for the rest of the week. This is the advice from the Taxi Owners Association. They say that they are going to take this matter up with the state government and the immigration department directly `in an attempt that the taxi industry and the general public will not be so adversely affected from the actions of a government department again'. What are they saying—that they are going to condone the employment of people in breach of their visas in the taxi industry?I made claims earlier this week about the activities of a range of shonky companies operating in this country that are seeking to establish themselves as bona fide international education providers. They are, quite clearly, unable to sustain the claim that they are providing quality service, because they are nothing more than visa shops. One of the documents that I sought to table tonight was the 29th issue of the Woori Magazine dated 14 August 1999. It provides details, for example, of a company known as Infinity Quest, which states in its advertisements:Please contact us if you do not have sufficient bank account balance. We solve the problems about attendance rates.Similarly, Prime, operating out of Pitt Street in Sydney, states:We help students who do not have sufficient bank account balance—an extraordinary proposition, I must say, and—Consultation for the attendance problems.Hundai Gate, operating out of Sussex Street in Sydney, states:We lend up to $10,000 to students who do not have enough tuition fee.We help students who have attendance problems.We are able to make bank account balance for you.Again, Sendai Australia Service Centre in Pitt Street states:Possible to change to training visa from any types of visa.Extension of training visa is possible.Applying for work permission is possible.Another organisation, Sogang, operating in Pitt Street, states:If you have troubles in extending your visa due to the attendance problem, we are able to solve such problems.These are quite extraordinary claims. They are quite clearly in breach of the ESOS Act, which specifies that there should not be misleading or deceptive advertisements.What action has been taken by the department about this? What action has been taken by this government to stop this sort of behav iour. Take, for instance, Human-Line Education Consulting, which states that it, too, is able to advise about problems about attendance. Royal Finance (Financing Company) in Kippax Street in Surrey Hills states that it is able to provide a service of a one-term tuition fee for a four-year student visa. Similarly, the International Academy of Education states that it can arrange a two-year visa with a six-months tuition fee of $1,100. Another organisation states that it is able to offer, for $1,200, a two-year or a four-year visa with a half-a-year tuition fee. There is another one here—one that I named earlier this week: the Sydney International College. It states that it can get a four-year visa with a six-months tuition fee of $1,500. Finally, Alpha Beta, a college that I also named earlier this week, states that individuals should feel free to consult with it about attendance problems and, if they pay a six-months tuition fee, it will arrange a two- or four-year visa.It is quite apparent there are a range of shonky activities occurring within this industry of which the government ought to know because they have been advised about what is happening by members of the industry. These documents are publicly available, but no action appears to have been taken. Before the estimates committee the government and the departmental officials acknowledged, in the case of a college in Melbourne, that there were clear examples of practices in breach of the ESOS Act and its regulations. Colleges are offering courses way above their registration. I understand penalties for such activity attract a four-year jail sentence, yet no action is taken by this government. One is entitled to ask why this is the case. Why is it that audit processes to confirm student enrolments do not actually count students present on the audit days but rather the number of chairs? Why is it that the department seems to be turning a blind eye to the practice of registering attendance on any given day not by a class roll but by the swiping of ID cards by one student on a multiple basis? I understand that practice is occurring in Melbourne at the moment. Why is it that the department will not take firm action against unethical and obviously illegal practices employed by these various visa shops? Legitimate operators within the industry are very concerned and want to know the answers to these basic questions. I think the public are entitled to know the answers as well.Examples were given to me today. A whole range of people rang up today as a result of these matters being canvassed earlier in this week. People have identified to me further examples of what quite clearly is corruption occurring within international education administration in this country. We are entitled to know what action this government is taking to stop it. For instance, I have been informed that Infotech Professionals—a college which trades under the name International Institute of Business and Information Technology—is accepting students from other colleges without first checking their attendance records. Hence, non-attending students at legitimate colleges who are being sent on their way are being told that they can transfer to these colleges at a substantial reduction in fees.I am advised that various colleges advertise overseas, in publications such as those I have cited tonight, offering courses of, say, 400 hours duration for as little as $1,000. Many of these courses cost $1.50 an hour. Even if we assume a class of 45—which is a hell of an assumption, I suggest to you, in the case of many of the examples I have mentioned—that amounts to some $60 per hour. How could you possibly run a legitimate educational program and pay rent, particularly given the inner city locations that many of these colleges operate from, particularly in Sydney but also in Melbourne, with such low fees? How could you possibly pay management fees, agent fees, overheads and teachers' wages for $60 per hour? The arithmetic is very simple. The students are not attending, no-one is checking and no-one is preventing this from occurring. These students are working in a range of service industries, as I have indicated previously in matters I have put before the Senate. They are working in the sex industry and in the taxi industry. They are working in the service industry as cleaners. They are working in the hospitality industry.What action is being taken by this government to protect the reputation of over 1,000 high quality educational providers that seek to offer a professional, high standard and ethical practice? What action is being taken to protect this country's reputation as a high quality provider in this $3.5 billion export industry? What action is being taken under the ESOS Act? The ESOS Act quite clearly was set up by the Labor government to safeguard the interests and the welfare of international students in Australia and the reputation of this country. It is quite apparent that, because of the administrative failures of this department, under Dr Kemp, there are massive holes in this legislation because no action appears to have been taken to demonstrate the integrity of the qualifications being issued by all colleges operating in Australia. (Time expired)Senate adjourned at 6.57 p.m.Documents93149314The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Christmas Island Act— List of applied Western Australian Acts for the period 20 March to 24 September 1999. Utilities and Services Ordinance 1996—Electricity Fees Determination No. 1 of 1999.Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—List of applied Western Australian Acts for the period 20 March to 24 September 1999.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1999/35-1999/39.Public Service Act— Australian Agency for International Development Determination 1999/3. Foreign Affairs and Trade Determinations 1999/11 and 1999/16. Public Service (Defence) Determination 1999/6, East Timor Allowance (Public Service (Defence) Determination 1999/1, Overseas Conditions of Service—Amendment).Quarantine Act—Quarantine Amendment Proclamation 1999 (No. 2).Social Security Act—Asset-test Exempt Income Stream (Lifetime Income Stream Guidelines) Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 1). Answers to Questions on Notice9315The following answers to questions were circulated:9315(Question No. 1247)12479315O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) When was the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) Configuration Control Board established.(2) (a) On how many occasions has the board met since July 1996; (b) what are its key functions; and (c) who sits on the board.(3) Has the membership of the board varied since it was first established; if so, what changes in membership have occurred since that time.(4) Does the board investigate problems with the development and implementation of TAAATS; if so: can a schedule be provided of failures in the system noted by the board, including: (a) the nature of each problem; (b) the duration of each problem; and (c) the action taken by Airservices Australia, or contractors, in response to each problem.9315Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices Australia have provided the following advice:(1) The TAAATS Configuration Control Board (CCB) was established in May 1998.(2) (a) The CCB has had over 90 face to face or telephone conference meetings.(b) The CCB principle functions are configuration control of the TAAATS system on a national basis and approval of the operational commissioning of the various elements of the system as system readiness and training is completed. In addition, the CCB provides for approval of changes to the system baseline, contract variations and new releases of operational software for TAAATS and associated systems, and endorsement of changes to interfaces that may affect the functionality and performance of the TAAATS system. (c) The CCB consists of the managers responsible for the major operational business units at Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and the managers responsible for program and project aspects of TAAATS implementation.The membership of the Board has been expanded to include the Manager, Sydney Operations and the Manager, Terminal Operations.(4) (a), (b) and (c) The CCB has a continuing role in investigating problems that arise during the development, testing and implementation of TAAATS. TAAATS is a large software based system and the number of reported problems has been at a level that could be expected for a software development of its size and complexity. It would not be practical to provide a schedule of system issues raised in over 90 meetings of technical experts, in a form which would be readily understandable and which would not be open to misinterpretation.9315(Question No. 1257)12579315O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 August 1999:(1) What professional legal and accounting fees has Airservices Australia paid defending the legal actions taken by Hughes Corporation in relation to the contract for the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) project?(2) (a) Who were the legal and accounting advisers engaged by Airservices Australia in relation to the above legal action; and (b) what fees and other payments have been made to each of these advisers.(3) What professional legal and accounting fees has Airservices Australia paid in relation to the assessment of damages, since Mr Justice Paul Finn found that the then Civil Aviation Authority was in breach of contract in relation to the TAAATS project.(4) (a) Who were the legal and accounting advisers engaged by Airservices Australia in relation to the above assessment of damages; and (b) what fees and other payments have been made to each of these advisers. 9316Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices has advised:1. Stage 1—Preliminary Discovery ProceedingsSolicitors—$124,050.33Counsel—$23,990.00Accounting—$NilOther Disbursements—$33,376.97Stage 2—Liability ProceedingsSolicitors—$993,016.55Counsel—$286,382.40Accounting—$NilOther Disbursements—$,127,387.93US—$,12,811.202. (a)Solicitors, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, SydneyCounsel, RBS Macfarlane QCJE Griffiths(b) See question 1 above.(3) As the issue of the claim by Hughes is still before the Federal Court, it would not be appropriate to provide the fee information as this may prejudice the integrity of the hearing before Justice Finn.(4) (a) Solicitors, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, SydneyCounsel, Mr RBS Macfarlane QC (causation)Dr JE Griffiths (causation)Mr JS Sackar QC (damages)Mr J Halley (damages)Accountants, Pricewaterhousecoopers, Sydney—(formerly Coopers & Lybrand)(b) Not available (refer to question 3 above).9316(Question No. 1263)12639316O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 August 1999:(1) Was a Fokker F28MK4000 operated by Flightwest Airlines forced by poor weather to abort a landing on Norfolk Island and divert to New Zealand; if so: (a) when did the incident occur; (b) how much fuel was available when the aircraft reached New Zealand; and (c) did that fuel level meet minimum operating safety standards.(2) Was the above incident investigated by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI); if so can a copy of the BASI report be provided; if not, why was no investigation carried out.9316Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator's question:(1) Yes(a)21 January 1999(b) Fuel on board on arrival at Auckland Airport was 1800kg.(c) 1800kg of fuel exceeded the required reserve by 38 minutes flying time.(2) Yes. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has advised that BASI investigated this incident and it has been classified as a Category 4PB Occurrence. Category 4PB occurrences are those where some investigation actions are needed to expand on and/or substantiate the initially reported facts. Investigations associated with this category specifically aim to identify if safety enhancement action is appropriate for occurrences involving Air Transport and other commercial operations. A copy of the report has been provided to the Table Office.9316(Question No. 1417)14179316Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:With reference to the effect of the goods and services tax (GST) on the internal operations of the Minister's portfolio (that is, not relating to the services provided to the public), and in relation to each of the agencies within the portfolio:(1) What preparations have been undertaken to date in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(2) (a) What has been the total cost of these actions already undertaken; and (b) how much of these costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(3) Was the cost of undertaking this work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(4) What future preparations are planned or expected to be required in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(5) (a) What is the total cost of the actions planned, or the estimated cost of expected actions; and (b) how much of these costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(6) Was the estimated cost of undertaking this future work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(7) Is there expected to be any change in the ongoing running costs of the department/agency after the commencement of the GST; if so, what is the extent of the difference in costs.(8) Are there any other GST associated costs which the portfolio agencies will incur prior to the commencement of the GST; if so, what are those costs.9317Alston, 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:I am advised that considerable resources would be required at this stage to research the answers to the question with regard to each of the portfolio bodies across the portfolio and I am unwilling to devote resources to provide answers in that detail. However, the departmental response is given below:(1) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has formed a Steering Committee to provide assurance to the Secretary that the Department is fully equipped to deal with the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax and other taxation measures and changes introduced as part of A New Taxation System (ANTS).An external tax expert will also be appointed to the Committee. An implementation project team has been formed, under the direction of the Committee, to set-up appropriate procedures and systems to comply with GST legislation and requirements.The Committee will also develop reporting mechanisms to provide assurance that portfolio bodies have responded to the requirements of the GST.(2) (a) The total cost of the actions already undertaken by the Department amounts to $14,000.(b) These costs relate to staff training of $2,000 and the cost of project staff (although no extra staff were recruited) of $12,000.(3) The cost of undertaking this work is being funded from within the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation.(4) A project plan has been approved to ensure that all procedures and systems are in place by 1 July 2000 to comply with GST legislation and requirements. (5) (a) The estimated total cost of the actions planned by the Department is $286,000.(b) These costs relate to:(i) Consultancies—$13,000(ii) Staff training—$33,000(iii) Computer Software—$55,000(iv) No Extra Staff will be recruited, however project staff will cost—$180,000(v) Stationery—$5,000(6) See answer to question 3.(7) Apart from any savings arising from the abolition of wholesale sales tax, there is not expected to be any major change to running costs.(8) It is not envisaged that there will be any other GST associated costs which the Department will incur prior to the commencement of the GST.