1999-10-113914SENATE931901999-10-11The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Bills9319r904Billsr9039319Consideration resumed from 29 September.12:31:009319Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I will quickly recap for the minister some pertinent facts which emerged in the questioning that the opposition had undertaken when the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 were last before the Senate. Under the first section of clause 3 `Appropriation'—the clause supporting the conversion to CNG or LPG for commercial vehicles with a weight greater than 3.5 tonnes—in the eligible vehicle population in that category of vehicle there were 1.9 million vehicles as at the time that information was given. I failed at that point to ask what the projected growth rate of that population would be, but that is a matter I can come to later on.In a prime ministerial statement at the time at which this measure was announced there were some—if I have the information correct—4,000 light vehicles and 800 heavy vehicles fitting that category which would be designated as the target for retrofitting for gas power. The appropriation to meet that is $75 million over four years—which, incidentally, by my calculation, means $15,375 per vehicle if the target is to be met in full when you deduct what I understood the minister to tell me was the $200,000 per year administration cost of running this program.I further understand from the questioning that, at this stage, detail on how the administration of this program is to be arranged is not available. When we last dealt with this legis lation, that detail was reported as being available shortly and that there are no priorities in terms of this measure insofar as priority regions, states or types of vehicles within the target group.I will take just a moment or two to go back over that detail in summary form because that is where I think we got to when we last considered this measure. Firstly, I ask the minister: is that summary accurate? If not, could he correct it where it is inaccurate? If it is correct, would he confirm it? Secondly, given that at the time these bills were last before us the administrative arrangements were to be available shortly—and that is now some 10 days ago—are the administrative arrangements now available?12:34:009319Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—To answer the first part of your question, Senator Cook, the only point I would make is that we are dealing with 4,000 commercial vehicles—I think we describe them as commercial—and 800 buses. In relation to the figures per vehicle, I have not had a chance to check your figures but they seem to be pretty much in the ballpark. In relation to your last question, the administrative arrangements have still not yet been finalised.12:35:009319Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I should indicate that the figure per vehicle I have given you is probably wrong because I made an arithmetical calculation, but I would agree that it is in the ballpark. I deducted the $200,000 administrative cost for only one year, when it is a recurring annual cost over four years. But it would be in the ballpark of $15,000 per vehicle. I think that is fair enough. Given that the administrative arrangements are still not available, I ask the minister: when will they be available?12:36:009319Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—We touched on this last time. There is no time that I can put on that, suffice to say that the government is looking at this and it is something that we would hope to have some time this year.12:36:009320Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This program is, of course, one of several aimed at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Does the minister have an estimate as to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that would occur because of this program?12:36:009320Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am advised that, at the conclusion of the conversion period—and we are looking at just the conversion I understand—there would be a reduction of 400,000 tonnes a year.12:37:009320Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I assume that is of all the greenhouse gases, not just CO2.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Yes.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is assuming the target of 400 vehicles and 800 buses is met. I note an affirmative nod from the minister.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—I have a correction; I think the number is 4,000, not 400.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You are right, Minister, I misquoted the figure. My apologies. Has the government made any assessment about the likely take-up rate for conversion fitting? If so, what is the expected take-up rate?12:38:009320Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At this stage, I am unable to give a figure as it is still somewhat early in the proceedings to estimate what the take-up rate will be. Perhaps we might have a better understanding of that once we have the administration of the program in place.12:38:009320Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Thank you. Minister, can you confirm for me that the cost of the gas fuels referred to here—that is, concentrated natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas—is higher per kilometre than the cost of diesel fuel? Can you confirm that as being true?12:39:009320Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will have to take that question on notice and, hopefully, I will have that information shortly.12:39:009320Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Perhaps at this stage, for the record, I should indicate that I am informed—and we will see the figures when you produce them—that the costs of the gas substitutes for diesel are more expensive than diesel. This raises the question that, even if the retrospective conversion cost—the capital cost of converting to gas from diesel—is met, the running costs of a vehicle so converted would be more expensive than an unconverted vehicle. If that is true, there is no economic incentive to make a conversion. Would you agree with that, Minister?12:40:009320Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I have taken on notice the question relating to that assumption, and it will depend on the advice I get in relation to that. So the answer to that, too, will have to remain in abeyance until we have that information.12:41:009320Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Minister, can you confirm that the number of refuelling points for gas converted vehicles is far fewer than the number of fuelling points for diesel fuelled vehicles?12:41:009320Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can confirm that.12:41:009320Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Which goes to the point about the incentive to go to a conversion, and the argument is quite simple: if there are fewer refuelling points and the cost of running a vehicle is higher, not only is there no economic incentive but also there is no organisational or logistical incentive that advantages an operator, given the paucity of the number of fuelling points for gas as compared with diesel. Was that matter considered when this program was dreamed up or not? As a second part to that question—I will pause here because I can see that the minister is taking some advice.12:42:009321Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I raise just a couple of points: firstly, Senator Cook is still working on the assumption as to the increased cost of running the vehicles—that is, the higher cost per kilometre—which I am seeking advice on at the moment. In relation to the fewer numbers of fuelling points, if we can call them that, for gas, there is a program which involves funding of $7.6 million over five years to increase the number of fuelling points for gas. I might just say that, from my own personal experience, knowing people who have gas fuelled vehicles, fewer numbers of fuelling points do not present such a problem because there is an abundance of petrol stations around the place. I would submit that that does not pose such a problem. It was one of the things taken into account when this program was devised. I am talking of recent experience of travelling in the bush in my home state of Western Australia, where I travelled well in excess of 1,500 kilometres in a gas powered vehicle, and we did not have any trouble finding a place to refuel.12:44:009321Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Thank you, Minister. Mr Temporary Chairman, Western Australia is my home state too and, although I must say that I have never tried a long trip in a gas fuelled vehicle in Western Australia, whatever the anecdotal experience of an individual, this is a national program and most travel is conducted on the eastern seaboard. However, the argument about refuelling points—and I am not going to enter it now—goes to the convenience to operators. The argument about the cost of fuel goes to the cost of operation and you are right to say that I am continuing with my assumption because, as I have said, I am reliably informed that the cost is greater under gas than it is under diesel.On this matter one step further, I am also informed that the weight of the container for the gas on a gas converted vehicle is bulkier and heavier than that of a conventional diesel tank, making it more difficult to fit onto a vehicle than is true for conventional vehicles. There is, so I am advised, some resistance to modifying vehicles to accept bulkier and bigger gas containers rather than conventional fuel containers. Minister, I wonder whether you have a comment on that and whether you can confirm that to be true as well.12:46:009321Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can confirm that the weight of the tank is heavier, although this does not seem to have deterred various bus fleets from converting. I understand that there is a bus fleet in Sydney that is making the conversion, and it does not seem that the weight of the tank has deterred them from converting.12:46:009321Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I am just putting all the factors together. It would seem that the cost of the fuel being greater, the refuelling points being fewer and the unit itself being bulkier or heavier have not have been considered by the government because, as you said in answer to an earlier question, there was no cost-benefit analysis done or no take-up analysis done. Were any of these factors considered by the government when it decided to spend $75 million of taxpayers' money on this program?12:47:009321Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government did consider these factors, and it in no way concedes the point or the assumption that Senator Cook proceeds on about the higher cost. There is funding of $7.6 million for the increase in the number of refuelling points. I am also advised that three or four high-mileage vehicles converted to gas would make it worth while for a refueller to install a point, which could cost anything up to $1 million. We submit that there is economic sense in the use of gas because, if a refueller had a contract from heavy users of the fuel concerned, it would be worth while for that refueller to install such a refuelling point. Our alternative fuels grants program will address any discrepancies in the cost of fuel, and I think that too will go towards encouraging people to convert.The government rejects that it has not considered these points in coming to this program. This program is a well worthwhile program and it makes a lot of sense. Of course, with any new program such as this, one cannot form an estimate on guesswork as to what the take-up rate will be. That will be clearer once we have our administration in process, but the government is of the view that it will be a program which will be taken up, and we have seen it with conversions already in place.12:49:009322Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I note there is a degree of argument in that reply, which is fine by me—I will reserve arguing this point in some detail for a moment. Minister, can you confirm that there are no barriers—and, indeed, there are active complaints from the transport sector now—to the importation of second-hand trucks and/or buses that qualify in this area? The typical imported second-hand bus or truck is a more dirty, heavily pollutant vehicle than those that are currently available in Australia and, as a consequence, whatever reduction in greenhouse gas emissions might be effected by this program, as long as there continues to be importation of second-hand, more dirty, polluting vehicles, you would have to discount the amount of reduction in greenhouse gases by the increase occasioned by the cheaper but nonetheless, unfortunately, dirtier imported vehicle. Has there been any calculation to take account of the imports that are more heavily polluting? That is my question.12:51:009322Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to the importation of second-hand vehicles which Senator Cook has described, I am advised that there are very small numbers of these vehicles which are allowed to be imported, and therein lies the restriction in relation to these vehicles. I do not have those figures to hand, but I will attempt to get them in the meantime.12:51:009322Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Thank you, I would appreciate that. Under the first program, itemised under clause 3, `Appropriation', the government is proposing to appropriate $75 million over four years to convert 800 buses and 4,000 trucks out of a population of 1.9 million eligible vehicles and at a cost per vehicle of around $15,000 each. The cost of administration is $200,000 per year for this program, according to the estimate. There are no administrative arrangements in place for this program. It is likely that the administrative arrangements will be known only by the end of this year, and the target estimate is that this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 400,000 tonnes per year.In view of there not being any administrative arrangements, in view of there being no calculation of the take-up rate, in view of there not being any effective cost-benefit analysis and in view of my contention—which I assert, based on the reliable information that I have been given—that the cost of gas fuel is more expensive per kilometre than the cost of diesel fuel, that there are fewer refuelling points, that the conversion system is heavier than the conventional system and that there are more polluting second-hand trucks and buses coming onto the Australian market, on what basis did the government arrive at its calculation of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 400,000 tonnes? Given that that is the figure that is now being provided to us, can the calculations of how that was arrived at also be provided to us?12:54:009322Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The figure that I mentioned of 400,000 tonnes per year is assuming that we reach the target, and we fully intend to reach that target. Can I give you just one example which has been put to me of a gas company in the ACT, which has installed a refuelling point at no cost for buses which are converting. That was because it was worth while for the person selling the fuel to do so. We see that this program is one which will carry benefits not only for those who convert but also for the community at large. Therefore, businesses will be able to trade on this, if you like, in relation to the environmental benefit of it. You see it today in supermarkets, for instance, where tins of foodstuffs have on them that they are environmentally friendly. You could well have businesses saying, `We have converted to a cleaner fuel, therefore buy our product, support us or use us for your transport.' So there are all manner of things which will make this more attractive. Assuming that there will be a higher cost, a lesser number of refuelling points and therefore the system will not work is an unfair assumption to make. The numbers of importations, as I mentioned, are restricted, and I do not see that as posing a problem to this program.12:55:009323Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Of course, if all the assertions that I have made are right—and I say that they are based on reliable information—then there would be a cost paid, in addition to the costs already met by operators of these vehicles, to operate converted vehicles. So you are asking for an extra payment by operators. I would say, from an economic point of view, that there is a cost disincentive to go down that route.I am interested to note that you say that there is a conversion in the ACT which is worthwhile for the seller of the fuel. It is not the seller of the fuel, with respect, that I am referring to here; it is the users of the fuel who burn it and therefore emit the greenhouse gases. It is the take-up by the users that is important. I can see that sellers would want government funding to encourage them to set up distribution points.Those things having been said, let me come to the question again. The government says it has a target. If there is a full take-up of this program, will the target result in 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions being removed? My question is: how did you calculate that?12:56:009323Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is a detailed question. I appreciate that this committee is sitting much as an estimates committee normally would. We will have to take that question on notice and provide Senator Cook with the detail of that.12:57:009323Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I thank the minister. I appreciate that we are sitting virtually as an estimates committee. This is an appropriation bill and usually an estimates process is the relevant one, but we are doing this in the chamber. Given that answer, Minister, am I to assume the government is not able to provide for our information now how it calculates the 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that will be removed?12:57:009323Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government can provide that detail; it is just that it is not to hand for the proceedings of this committee. I am endeavouring to obtain that detail.12:58:009323Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Can I go for a moment to clause 5 of the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I might, for the sake of convenience and to save time, read into Hansard a couple of provisions of clause 5 grants. This is the clause under which the bill sets out the authority of a government to disburse these taxpayer funds. Subclause (1) of clause 5 says:This subsection does not limit the ways in which amounts appropriated under this Act may be applied.Subclause (2), which deals with financial assistance to the states, says:A grant of financial assistance to a State may be made: (a) on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the State; or (b) without any terms and conditions.Subclause (3) says:A grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State may be made: (a) on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the person or body; or (b) without any terms and conditions.Subclause (4) says:An agreement under (2)(a) or (3)(a) may be entered into by any Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth.Clause 6, which is concerned with delegation, says that a minister may delegate to the secretary of his department, someone approved by the Governor-General or a senior public servant, the task of allocating these funds. All up, we are dealing with a program here of $896 million over four years—and $896 million dollars is not a small amount of money.My question through you, Mr Chairman, to the minister is this: given that we are dealing with an amount so large—indeed, even if we were dealing with $1, and only that amount—why is it that the government wants in this bill a provision that says, in (2)(b), pertaining to states, `without any terms and conditions', and in (3)(b), pertaining to a person or a body, `without any terms and conditions'?I would submit that it is unusual in the extreme that funds of this amount, $896 million, could qualify to be handed out, as this bill will provide, without any terms and conditions. My question to the minister is: what precedent is there in previous legislation for funds of this amount, $896 million, or any amount, to be handed out by a minister or the nominee of the minister, who may be a public servant, `without any terms and conditions', to quote from the legislation? That is the question, and I might just supplement it with some argument.`Without any terms and conditions' provides carte blanche for the government to legally hand out money, presumably within the meaning of this bill, but without insisting on reciprocal performance, without insisting on, as the provisions provide, any terms or conditions whatsoever. These are taxpayers' funds, and surely the government, when it considered this, made a conscious decision to provide no strings at all.I do not know of any precedent for this. I have sought information about precedent. I am advised by reputable authorities that there is no precedent. So my first question is: on what basis do you make this decision? As my second question I ask: why do you seek to have absolutely untrammelled power to give away money from the public purse—to quote from the bill—`without any terms and conditions'? What is the motive?13:02:009324Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As Senator Cook has pointed out, the grant can be on terms and conditions as set out in a written agreement, or it can be without any terms and conditions. The latter is to provide for some flexibility in the administration of this scheme. It may well be that you have to allow for grants to be made after an event because, in the administration of this program, if you are too prescriptive in the terms of a grant to a state, it may be that something occurs and the state takes some action, or the person or body referred to in clause (5), subclause (3), has done something which the Commonwealth wants to fund and which should be funded—it has merit—but which was not envisaged in the original terms and conditions set out in the agreement which allowed for the disposal of funds. So what you are looking at is some flexibility to deal with events which are unforeseen so that you can fund them after the event. In this area of the environment, I think that is a very important aspect of flexibility to have.As to whether it is untrammelled or unaccountable, of course, this would be subject to scrutiny. We have mentioned today how this is an estimates process. Any inappropriate grant of funds in relation to this program, or to these amounts, would no doubt be the subject of great controversy and the government would no doubt be severely criticised for any inappropriate disposal of those funds. At the end of the day, we are looking to these grants for a general purpose. When you are looking at the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, there is a general purpose there. It is not as if the government has the ability to give funds for purposes which would be contrary to that.What those two subclauses do, however, is allow the government some flexibility in how it administers the funds. Can I say at this stage that the government envisages that generally there will be terms and conditions in relation to any agreement relating to financial assistance. But we do not want to entirely rule out that there not be any terms and conditions because that might well preclude funding an event which has occurred and which is worthy of receiving funds. We could be precluded from doing so by prescriptive terms and conditions.13:05:009324Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Thank you, Mr Minister. The justification is that retrospectively you wish to fund something that has occurred, and that you need to accrete to yourself some flexibility. I do not know that this parliament should trust the government in having access to $896 million that it can give out to people who can nebulously justify some claim under this bill without there being any terms and conditions.I should now disclose to the chamber that I was disturbed about this point and, in the recess that we have just enjoyed, last week, I caused a letter to be written to the Clerk of the Senate—no greater authority than that—on this bill, referring to grants without conditions. I am happy to table the entire letter. Let me quote from the first two paragraphs of the reply by the Clerk of the Senate. The heading is:Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bills—grants without conditions.You asked for a note on the provisions in the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2) 1999 whereby grants of money to be appropriated by the bills may be made to persons or bodies other than states without any terms and conditions. In relation to precedents for such provisions, a search has not disclosed any precedents. In other words, I have not been able to find any other provisions in Commonwealth statutes allowing grants to persons or bodies, other than states, without terms and conditions.The letter runs on in considerable detail. I am happy to table it for the information of the chamber.According to the search done by the Clerk of this chamber, there is no precedent in any statute of the Commonwealth for such a provision to exist. But now, for the sum of $896 million, the government wants a provision which it describes as necessary for flexibility or necessary to fund programs that have concluded. This raises a serious question as to why funding can be given to people, to bodies or to states without there being an accountable set of conditions or some way in which the taxpayer is entitled to know that people receiving those funds are committed to do certain things that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions—which is in fact the objective of this bill. The Australian taxpayer is entitled to require a government to insist on terms and conditions which stipulate that.Minister, I see no difficulty in meeting your requirements for flexibility under (1)(a) or (2)(a) of clause 5 of this legislation, where it requires a written set of conditions with a state or a written set of conditions with a person or a body. That provides infinite flexibility. It provides an ability to retrospectively fund acts or events that have occurred in the past which are felt to be worthy. It does not limit, under those provisions, any such funding. There is no qualification here which says that you cannot do those things. What it does require is that we know what you do with our money. Under (b) you can provide these funds to a person or a body without any terms or conditions. And you are expecting this chamber, in the face of no precedents in Commonwealth statutes to be uncovered by no less an authority than the Clerk of this chamber, to now agree to this provision. That is an extraordinary request.Fundamental to parliament is the question of accountability. Fundamental to the powers of raising money by virtue of the ability to levy taxes is an accountability on the part of governments on how they spend that money to the people from whom they levy it. We, as representatives, might all regard—I certainly do—programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as worthy programs. That is the view of the opposition. But there needs to be some chain of procedure which makes us confident that funds allocated under that heading are appropriately, efficiently and effectively used to achieve that purpose. When you have a provision in a bill without any terms and conditions and therefore an inability to be accountable, we are not confident.I seek leave to move two amendments together.Leave granted.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I move:In respect of the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 —Clause 6, page 5 (lines 5 to 14), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) A grant of financial assistance to a State must be made on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the State.(3) A grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State must be made on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the person or body.In respect of the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 —Clause 5, page 4 (lines 15 to 24), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) A grant of financial assistance to a State must be made on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the State.(3) A grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State must be made on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the person or body.These amendments—which have been circulated in the chamber—provides some degree of accountability. I have dealt with only part one of this program, although there are seven programs. What worries me about this program is that, if this becomes legislation, there will be a carte blanche authority in law to give away up to $896 million of money over four years to states, persons or bodies without there being any accountability at all. That is extraordinary as a fact in its own right, given that there are no precedents in any statute of the Commonwealth anywhere on this, and it is extraordinary that this should have been born out of an unholy alliance in this chamber in order to gain passage for the government of its GST legislation. These appropriations arise as a consequence of an unholy alliance between the government and the Democrats to force through this chamber and impose on the people of Australia a goods and services tax. The buy-off for the Democrats was to fund this program—$896 million of taxpayers' money is being spent.What do we know about this program so far? There are no administrative arrangements in place—they might come between now and the end of the year. We are going to spend, we think, $15,000 as a giveaway to owners of vehicles eligible under this program. I accept you have not come forward with the figures, but it is my strong assertion that the cost of running a vehicle under this program, on gas as opposed to diesel, is greater for the operator. The number of refuelling points is fewer and therefore less convenient for an operator. The size of the unit to be installed is bulkier and less able to be accommodated than the conventional fuelling and, under quota, the government is letting in trucks and buses that are dirty and polluting.Furthermore, the government asserts—and I am sure it has done so by saying in headlines all over the place—that there will be 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions eliminated by this program, but it cannot at this moment produce any way in which it has arrived at that figure. One could be forgiven for thinking that a wet finger has been held up to the wind and it has been said, `Let's make an assessment. Let's come to a conclusion. Anything that we can do to buy off the Democrats, shut them up and do a symbolic program on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we should hold up as idealistic and laudable because it achieves a goal that most Australians aspire to see achieved.' But that there is no accountability, there are no administrative arrangements and there are no strings on this program that can be said, in any way, to be typical of any such program and we will not know about those details until some time in the future.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—Order! Senator Cook, can you clarify for the Senate whether you are moving the same amendment for both bills. You are speaking to Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 at the moment, but I understand that it has application to both. Can you clarify that?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am moving it for both bills. Let me go back to first principles. We do not think this country needs a goods and services tax. We have said that all along and we have voted against it and been defeated in this chamber. We know by the economic modelling that was undertaken by the Senate inquiry that it will add nothing to growth. We know by the economic modelling undertaken by the Senate inquiry that unemployment will in fact be created in the service sector, where a tax will be imposed for the first time, and that will not be offset by any job growth elsewhere so the net effect will be more unemployment. We know that the exchange rate will appreciate to offset any export advantage of the goods and services tax, making costs higher on the international market, particularly for exporters of agricultural and mineral commodities. And we know a whole range of other things about a goods and services tax.We have argued those things and we have lost them by a majority vote in this chamber, irrespective of the fact that you cannot refute them and irrespective of the headline mantra to the contrary that is chanted by the government—where it has ignored the calculations, it has ignored the modelling and it did not do any modelling of its own. We know all of those things. I just mention them now to move to this bill that is before us.One of the ways in which the government got the Democrats to vote for them was to agree on a series of measures which are now to be funded under this bill. One of those groups of measures went to environmental protection. That is a major issue that the community is rightly concerned about. But it is also appropriate for us in the opposition to ask: given that this was a deal on a handshake across a table, without much documentation and without much considered analysis, is the $896 million to be spent on this program over four years going to be spent wisely? Is it going to achieve its purpose?The government cannot tell us it will. It says its target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 400,000 tonnes over four years, but it cannot produce how it arrived at that calculation. And all of those other things about how this program is to be implemented show that we are going to give away $15,000 per vehicle to a total 4,800 vehicles out of a population of 1.9 million eligible vehicles. So out of a population of 1.9 million polluting vehicles we are going to fix up 4,800 of them and we are going to say, `Look at us. What an achievement. We have done an amazing thing here and charged taxpayers about 15 grand per pop.' We know that the resistance to the take-up of this program must be strong given the cost of fuel being higher, the refuelling points being fewer, the buyer resistance due to the cylinders to be attached to the vehicle being bulkier and heavier and the fact that the government is allowing the importation of more polluting vehicles.The deal has been done. We cannot stop the deal, but it is necessary to hold the parties to that deal accountable. The only chamber in this parliament that can do that is this Senate. To provide in a piece of legislation that there be no accountability is to insult this chamber and insult the taxpayers we represent. As I have said, we know of no Commonwealth statute in the history of this parliament, going right back in time, that provides that money can be handed out—I am quoting from the bill—`without terms and conditions' to states and `without terms and conditions' to a person or a body.While we cannot stop the deal going ahead because the numbers are here to vote for it, we can insist on accountability. I therefore ask, Minister, if you would now acknowledge that the prospect of non-accountability exists in this legislation. Please do not make a speech to us about best intentions, because we have seen how you have rorted the Federation Fund and pork-barrelled marginal electorates to suit your own political needs prior to the last election. We have seen all that happen. Do not tell me it is not going to happen again when you have $896 million at your disposal. Do not tell us it will not happen again. Will you now indicate to us that you will support the idea of accountability proposed in the opposition amendment? If you do, that will save me a lot of effort going through some of the other of the six programs that I have not yet touched on. Certainly, in this program accountability is desperately necessary.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Cook sought leave to table some correspondence with the Clerk. Is leave granted for the tabling of those documents?Leave granted.13:20:009327Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Cook has raised a number of points. At the outset, I say that the government opposes the amendment proposed by Senator Cook. I have touched in part on the reasons for that opposition previously. In relation to the administrative arrangements, let us be absolutely clear. This program does not come into operation until July next year. That is some nine months away. And we are expected to have all administrative arrangements in place, the detail of the take-up rate, and how much we are going to pay the public officials involved in that! In my time here, I have never experienced any government, particularly the previous government, being able to do anything of that sort in relation to a program that was nine months out from being set up.In this Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 we have stated the programs, the purposes of the programs and the amounts of money to be appropriated. That is all very clear. We have stated that there will be terms and conditions in the way the assistance will be given or granted and there is the requirement that there need not be in some cases. As a government, we say at the outset that we anticipate that there will be terms and conditions attached to the granting of this funding.However, it is essential for the good running of this program to have the flexibility to grant assistance without terms and conditions to cover those unforeseen events. For instance, in the area of environment, where we are continually evolving in the way we approach dealing with alternative fuel sources, we might have someone who comes up with an alternative fuel source and a state government funds that person. This may not have been envisaged in the restrictive terms and conditions that we imposed on the funding to a state at a previous point in time.You just have to use some slight imagination to realise what great development and advancement is going on out there in relation to alternative fuel sources. We are going forward continually, and we need that flexibility to fund those worthwhile projects which were not necessarily envisaged when we sat down and worked out the terms and conditions of granting assistance to a state or body. So that is why we have that. We have that so that this government can keep abreast of the times. I think all Australians would want us not to be so bureaucratic as to say to them, `I am sorry we cannot fund that energy source; it might be clean water, there might be absolutely no other fallout and it might be absolutely renewable, but I am sorry we can't fund it because of some bureaucratic reason such as a restrictive term or condition.'We would really be the subject of great criticism by the Australian people if we did not have that flexibility, particularly in an area such as the environment. That is why we have that there. It is not envisaged that we will disburse $896 million without any terms and conditions. That is a ridiculous proposition. We fully anticipate having terms and conditions in relation to various grounds of assistance that are made, but we want to reserve the flexibility for being able to make a grant in circumstances where it is worth while.Any funding, of course, will be subject to scrutiny. This chamber, the estimates procedure and the Auditor-General's office are all avenues of scrutinising a government in relation to its expenditure. We have said in this program that we have a target of 400,000 tonnes less emission after four years. That is a target we intend to meet. If we are to meet that target, we will have to spend these funds wisely, because if we do not, we will not meet the target; and if we do not meet the target, we will be criticised. There is no greater court than the court of public opinion. The opposition learnt that only too well in the last two elections. The fact remains that this is a thoroughly worthwhile program, and it is one which has not been dreamt up. The government has looked at all the aspects of it. Even taking on board the questions of the cost of conversion and the number of refuelling outlets, it is still a worthwhile program. I think to run away from this program simply because there were not enough refuelling outlets or because the tank required for the vehicles was heavier than the tank would otherwise have been would be a dereliction of our duty. There have been conversions. The illustration I pointed to in the ACT was a case in point. What we had there was a conversion which had already taken place. So, obviously with these buses, it was thought worth while to convert, and so they did. And what was better was that the person selling the fuel found that it was worth while to install a refuelling point because of the commercial advantage that that person would gain from it.For all these points, the government is firmly of the view that not only is accountability being protected but there is a wider benefit to the community in relation to the environment. I might just say that Senator Cook has tabled a letter from the Clerk which states that he can find no precedent for this manner of funding. The government at this point is not prepared to concede that this is the case. We are obtaining instructions in relation to the precedents for this legislation, and when I have those instructions I will convey them to the Senate.13:26:009329Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—That is a very interesting reply, Minister, and it is one that I now wish to debate you on. What you have failed to acknowledge is that this legislation states under 5(2)(b) `without terms and conditions' and under 5(3)(b) `without terms and conditions', so that funding up to $896 million over four years can be given away if this legislation is passed—and to quote it again—`without terms and conditions'. It can be given to states, it can be given to individuals or `persons'—as it is styled here—or it can be given to organisations without terms and conditions by ministers—by any single one of them—or by people delegated by ministers to so do. As I said, the Clerk of this Senate, an authority in these matters—he may be not perfect in every respect; he is human after all!—has had time to investigate and examine this and says, `There is no precedent for such a clause in any statute of the Commonwealth in the history of the Commonwealth.' He is not the only person who says that. I will shortly come to what the Auditor-General says about this as well.My first point is that by including and defending this provision, the government seeks to simply escape scrutiny, to deny accountability and to have an ability to disburse funds as it chooses under the title of this program but without being sure or without being examined to see whether or not those funds achieve their purpose. My second point is in relation to the first substantive argument that you put in favour of your own case, that is, there may be circumstances that change, you may have to fund something that was already done, that you need a bit of flexibility. They are arguments that you put as being reasons why this unprecedented clause should be included.If there is something that arises between the Commonwealth and the state that both parties believe should have been done, there is absolutely no provision under subclauses (a) in each of these clauses that would prevent you from agreeing to then vary the written terms so that there is some accountability for what you have done. You should have to show what it was that you did and why you did it. It should be discoverable so that taxpayers can see how their money was spent. You need this flexibility. The rejoinder is that you have the flexibility under the first part of all of these clauses, but it does require you to enter into a process of revising any written memorandum with the state, person or body and to make explicit what it is you are doing with these funds. I would contend that the argument you have put does not stand up.The second argument you have put is that this is a laudable program with worthy goals that you do not wish to encumber with bureaucratic detail. That is my summary of your developed argument, but I think it is a fair summary. You do not wish to encumber it with bureaucratic detail. You do not want to say, `We are not funding the environment because there is too much bureaucracy.' To that argument I would say that there is necessary accountability here. You raise funds from taxpayers; taxpayers are entitled to know how you spend them. It is not a bureaucratic encumbrance to require someone in receipt of public funding to justify, in a discoverable document so that we can see how it was spent, what it was spent on and why. That is not an encumbrance, that is a necessity of good government. To raise an issue of bureaucratic encumbrance when it is vital to the proper functioning of a taxing and spending government is a red herring and is less worthy of you than I would have thought.You also said that it would be ridiculous to say that we could not fund particular programs. I am not saying, and my amendment does not allow you, not to fund particular programs. It might well be ridiculous that a worthy program goes unfunded. My amendment simply means that you can fund it, but you have to fund it in a way in which you are accountable. I keep coming back to that because that is what my amendment is about.Let me go again to the letter from the Clerk that I read into the Hansard. I will not repeat the exercise of reading the first two paragraphs of that letter. But in the third paragraph, which I have not yet read, it says:In relation to the effect of such provisions on scrutiny and audit of grants, it is difficult to see how grants could be scrutinised or audited when they are devoid of terms and conditions.I mention that because you raised, at the fourth point, another argument. Of course all of these things can be examined. We have an estimates procedure and we go through questions in this chamber, so you can find out. What does the Clerk say about this provision? He says:In relation to the effect of such provisions of scrutiny and audit of grants—my emphasis now—it is difficult to see how grants could be scrutinised or audited when they are devoid of terms and conditions.I agree with him. If there are no terms and conditions, how do you go about scrutinising them? Wouldn't the answer that you would get to an inquiry in the estimates procedure be, `The minister chose to make that decision'? Under this provision, without terms and conditions, that is a satisfactory answer because there are no terms and conditions he needs to produce—he can just decide it.Normally, ordinary Australians are entitled to be suspicious of the way in which governments spend their money. In the case of this government, they are entitled to be doubly suspicious because we know what did happen with the Federation Fund before the last election. Ministers made decisions in private to spend taxpayers' money without justifying to this chamber how they went about choosing what they would spend it on. There is a very ready and real belief that they spent it on things that would advantage their re-election rather than on things that were necessary. In other words, they bought votes in marginal constituencies by pork-barrelling.There is no reason to believe that, in this circumstance, that would not be done to mollify concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. They could say, `We have spent $896 million and we do not have to account for it. We are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 400,000 tonnes. We cannot explain how we arrived at that figure, but we are going to do that.' In the headline, slogan- driven mantra of election campaigns, where arguments are conducted by assertion and where ministers concentrate on just getting up, you cannot have a headline saying there will be a reduction of 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions with no accountability. There has to be accountability somewhere. We have to have accountability in this chamber by provisions in an act of this parliament that ensure there will be scrutiny and accountability.I have spoken about the Clerk's opinion, but let me now turn to the Australian National Audit Office and the report of the Auditor-General No. 32 of 1996-97, entitled Administration of grants in the Australian Public Service, which is a relevant document on accountability and on how taxpayers' funds are to be disbursed so that they can be properly audited. On page 21 of this document, in the introduction, under the heading `Monitoring and acquittal of grants programs', section 4.2 says:At one level, effective monitoring assesses the extent to which conditions may not have been satisfied and thereby helps to provide assurance that all conditions attached to grant offers have been complied with.Under the provision you want, you could not meet that criterion of the Auditor-General. Section 4.3 says:Effective monitoring procedures will enable program administrators to assess properly if:. funds are being used in the manner intended;. individual projects are being undertaken as agreed; . tasks critical to the success of individual projects are being accomplished . . . Those are things that taxpayers are entitled to know are true of the way in which their funds are being disbursed. Under the provisions that you are insisting on and have rejected amendment to in this bill, that would not be able to be done.Page 66 of this same document, under the heading `Is an appropriate formal agreement in place?' says:An essential component of effective grant administration is a well-drafted document providing evidence of the grant. It provides for:. accountability for, and protection of, Commonwealth funds;. legal protection of the recipient and the grant-giving organisation;. agreed terms and conditions of the funding assistance, including performance information and access requirements and clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all parties;. dispute resolution arrangements; and. clear understanding between the parties on required outcomes prior to commencement of funding.That is the Auditor-General. Under the provisions of this legislation you are insisting on, that would not be able to be achieved. He goes on further and asks:Is the recipient bound by legally enforceable grant conditions?He says:A fundamental requirement of effective grant administration is the ability of the grant-giving organisation to protect its interests in ensuring that public money is used for the intended purpose. Some departments may have legislation which can enable this. Where relevant legislation does not exist an appropriate document is required which takes account of the legal difference between a grant and a contract and enables the enforcement of the relevant grant conditions.A grant is a payment of money on conditions unilaterally imposed by the grant-giving organisation.Under this legislation which you are insisting on, that would not be capable of being done. Again I quote the legislation, which stipulates `without terms and conditions'. The Auditor-General says that there must be terms and conditions so that there is due and proper accountability. Under that same heading in the document he goes on further:Whatever legal arrangement is chosen, the conditions should be expressed with sufficient precision so that it can be determined whether the recipient is complying with those conditions, how disputes are to be resolved and include the circumstances for:And he has a list of things that any prudent auditor satisfying himself that public moneys are being properly spent would want to have as conditions. They are too exhaustive for me to read now.Not only do we now have the Clerk saying that there is no precedent in statute law of the Commonwealth for the provision that you are insisting on, but also in a report on this matter by the Auditor-General, The administration of grants in the Australian Public Service, at several points he sets out prudently, properly and in the public interest why accountability is necessary and why discovery of whether the purposes for which the money has been allocated were met is necessary in order to assess the performance of those moneys and the justification for awarding them in the first place—that is to say, a proper chain of transparent documentation saying why, what for, have you achieved it and qualifications on that, as well as provisions to settle disputes about it.I know that this was all part of a political fix. I know that this arises because you wanted the passage of the GST, and you bought Democrat votes in order to achieve it. The Democrats tell us that they exist in this chamber to, among other things, `Keep the bastards honest.' That is what they tell us. This must be an oversight, because the Democrats have insisted, over the years that I have been in this chamber, that there has to be proper scrutiny of public funding. They have insisted on that. Their spokesmen from time to time have made long speeches about it. I have one in front of me from Senator Murray, who is an honourable senator in this chamber and who was involved in the deal with the government. In your rush to get it done, in your eagerness to have it adopted, you omitted necessary steps of scrutiny and accountability. It would be big of the government, and fair and honest of the government, to now stand up and say, `You're right; we'll accept proper, fair scrutiny.' If the opportunity affords itself I would like the chance to go through the sentiments expressed. (Time expired)13:42:009332Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I want to explore in some detail some further provisions of the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999. I refer the minister again to clause 5, where it says `an amount appropriated under this Act may be applied in making a grant of financial assistance to . . . a State'. A `state' is clear; a state is defined as one of the six states or a territory. It goes on to say in clause 5(1)(b) `a person, or a body, other than a State'. That strikes me as being a remarkably broad set of words and at first blush could appear to mean any organisation or person other than a state that exists or operates in Australia.In the discussion in respect of subclauses (2)(b) and (2)(c) it was established by the opposition that there are no constraints or restraints on the granting of those funds—it can be done without any terms or conditions. This point is not disputed by the minister, who says in defence of the government, `Yes, that is right, but we need another nine months to establish guidelines and protocols, and everything will be all right.' But to date, no guidelines or protocols have been established for the disbursement of almost $900 million over a four-year period. Coming back to that paragraph `a person, or a body, other than a State', can the minister advise the chamber whether it is intended to be so all embracing, so wide and so broad as I have outlined, or as I am leading to, or does the government have a more restricted understanding or intention with the use of those particular words in that phrase?13:44:009332Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—My advice is that it is intended that this bill could cover a wide body of entities, if I could put it that way, which range from a state government through to various individuals, corporate bodies and associations. The reason for that is a very good one, which is that it is not just the state governments of Australia that are involved in alternative fuel supplies and greenhouse gas abatement. A lot of people in Australia are vigorously involved in that, and it is appropriate that they not be left out. That is why they have been included.13:45:009332Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I thank the minister for that response, that it is intended to be indeed very wide and very broad. I have a list of associations and organisations and I will ask, one by one, whether the government intends that those entities be eligible to apply for grants under the fund. The first is unincorporated industry associations. Is it the intention that they be able to apply for and receive funding?9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Yes.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—Is it intended that unregistered industry associations be eligible? When I say unregistered, I mean in the context whereby associations, either incorporated or unincorporated, may apply under various industrial relations acts of the Commonwealth and the states for registration to pursue the interests set out in their objectives. Is it intended that such unregistered industry associations can apply for funding? To give a concrete example of which the minister would be aware, as he comes from my own state, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Western Australia, as I understand it, is an unregistered industry association. It is a peak employer body with a wide range of interests. Is it intended that organisations such as that be able to apply for funding?13:47:009332Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am not clear what Senator Bishop means by `not registered'. Perhaps he could expand on that and give me the legislation under which the registration occurs and also the legal status of any body that is not registered.13:47:009332Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Registration is a concept under the various industrial relations acts of the states and territories whereby incorporated or unincorporated organisations or associations apply for what is known as registration. That gives them formal standing to act on behalf of their own members, whether they be union members or employer association members, in the various tribunals. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Western Australia is, as I understand it, an unincorporated association—it is deliberately not incorporated—and has not applied for registration under the Western Australian industrial relations act. So I simply ask whether unregistered industry associations can apply for funding.13:48:009333Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I would refer to the term that is used in the legislation, which says `a person, or a body, other than a State'. To assist Senator Bishop, that is as broad as you can get: `a person, or a body'. That is something which could encompass a whole range of people and associations of people. I fail to see the relevance of the industrial relations aspect to greenhouse gas abatement, but can I just say that each case would have to be taken on its merits. I would imagine that, as long as there is a person in a physical sense or a body which is an association of those persons, incorporated or otherwise, the list that Senator Bishop has would no doubt come within that definition. Perhaps Senator Bishop could give us those questions on notice and we could go through them individually rather than taking up the time of the committee at this point.13:49:009333Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Similarly, Minister, does that apply to universities, public and private, and companies, public and private?13:49:009333Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I would imagine that those bodies you have described would come within the definition of `a person, or a body, other than a State'.13:49:009333Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I take your answer as yes, Minister. Finally, in every state and territory there is a myriad of environmental groups with memberships that are active on a range of issues: greenhouse gas, reclamation of vegetation, pollution, aquaculture—a whole range of sometimes single and often multiple issues. Some of those organisations are incorporated and some are unincorporated; some have peak associations and some are merely local groups. Is it the intention of the government that each and every one of those local environmental groups that have particular concerns, particular issues, that come within the broad comprehension of the greenhouse gas abatement purpose outlined in the act should be eligible? Is it the government's intention that any or all of those local groups be able to apply for funding?13:51:009333Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will give an example. If there was an individual who had devised a way of processing canola oil, which is quite a current topic at the moment, and it was one which could result in a great reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and if that individual was the inventor of the process, then that would be a classic case where this program might grant some assistance—if the project were worth while. The point that Senator Bishop is making is that this is more or less a situation of carte blanche, a blank cheque, in relation to the people who can apply. It has to be broad because we want to bring in every possible situation where there could be some benefit and some advantage to greenhouse gas abatement. You must remember that what goes with that is that, whilst everyone may be free to apply, it does not mean to say they will get any money; it does not mean to say they will get a grant. There has to be merit attached to their application.Of course, if you had a person who was the inventor of this process and if the process was a very good one, a very worthwhile one, you would want that person to be free to be able to come forward and apply. No doubt people would—hopefully they would—if they had a proposal which was of merit in the environmental sense. So we do not want to preclude people and we do not want to exclude people from coming forward; we want to include as many possibilities as we can, but it will be restricted by the amount of money available under the program. And of course there will be the question of merit—that is, does their proposal fit what we are looking for with this program? That is the question at the end of the day. But there will be a wide eligibility of person or persons who can come forward and make application. That is the intention of it and so it should be.13:53:009334Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Minister, can I just go back over where we have got to. Firstly, you argue you need the flexibility, but you have not bothered to reply to the point that you have the flexibility without having a blank cheque under subclause (b) of these clauses. Secondly, we have an opinion from the Clerk—which may not be perfect but which, one has to say, you have to take as the authority in these things—that there is no precedent in Commonwealth statutes for the provision that you are now insisting be included. This is without precedent.Thirdly, you have the document from the Auditor-General that I have extensively quoted from, which makes the plain case—the case that the ordinary citizen would regard as reasonable—that there ought to be accountability in the expenditure of public moneys and that there ought to be a way in which we know what the grants, if given, are meant to do, who receives them, what their obligations in receipt are, whether they discharge those obligations properly, how much of the funds granted did they spend, and whether or not they achieved the desired result. All those things that the Auditor-General, as the guardian for the community on the proper conduct of government, insists on would be negated under the amendment that you are now wanting to be carried. So we have got that far.Now let me go to, in this case, your partners in the new coalition of the Liberal and National parties and Democrats on taxation. I refer to a speech by Senator Andrew Murray, who is the economics spokesperson of the Australian Democrats, on public accountability by governments and parliaments on the expenditure of taxpayers' money—the point that you are resisting here. You have to concede that my amendment, if adopted, would provide a modicum of accountability. I do not regard it as a perfect amendment but, in the absence of any at all, it is a far better device than providing a blank and open cheque.Senator Murray, who is a senator in this chamber whom I have some respect for, has talked in many speeches about the importance of accountability. Bearing in mind that the Democrats claim their mission in life is to keep the bastards honest, one would expect that, in fulfilling that mission, he would want to keep this government honest when it comes to properly accounting in a transparent way for how $896 million is to be spent over four years. Let me turn to the speech of Senator Murray on 27 November 1996. While it is some years ago, the sentiments are eternal and are ones to which, I understand, he remains committed.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—We might quote your quotes if you are not careful.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I would not start if I were you, Minister, because if you were to start you would give me an option of in fact surgically taking you apart, and that would divert me from my course here. Senator Murray said in an adjournment speech headed `Accountability in Government':This evening I will be turning the Senate's attention once again to failings on accountability in government.I will miss a few sentences; nevertheless I will pick up the sentiment being expressed here when he goes on to say:The government combined with Independent Senator Mal Colston to prevent debate of Mr Kennett's plans to weaken the Auditor-General's role as an independent government agency after a Senate motion was initiated by the Australian Democrats.Let me pause at that point and draw to your attention that Acting Premier Kennett is now negotiating with Independent members of the Victorian parliament to return the role of the Auditor-General in Victoria, because he took it away and in order to get back into power he has to buy the votes of those three Victorian Independents. They have insisted on the Auditor-General's role and he is now agreeing to do a back-flip and return it. He should never have removed it in the first place.Senator Murray is absolutely right in pointing to the fact that Mr Kennett did so and that the government here denied a censure motion on the matter. Senator Murray goes on:To return to the auditor-general's role, the auditor-general's agency role as an independent government watchdog is one of the people's most important accountability mechanisms. It is the auditor-general who prevents the heady mix of money and power leading to corruption. The independence of the auditor-general is a crucial component of the accountability structure in our system of government. The WA Inc royal commission said:[the office of the Auditor General] provides a critical link in the accountability chain between the public sector, and the Parliament and the community.Having quoted those words—and since I am going to be out of time in one minute and five seconds—let me interpose here that the measure you are insisting on in the bill now before this chamber denies that critical role of the Auditor-General because it enables grants of up to $849 million, not an insubstantial amount, to be given—and I again quote from the legislation—`without any terms and conditions'. This is something that is against the ideal of good governance, something about which the Auditor-General himself has complained and has asserted the basis of good governance, something over which the Democrats—as I have been quoting from a speech by one of them—have set out their support for the basic principle of the independence of the Auditor-General, and something that the government would seem to be without support on as well.Progress reported.Questions Without Notice933593359335Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. In the light of yesterday's border clash between Australian and Indonesian troops, can the minister inform the Senate what action the government has taken, or is taking, to minimise the risk of further conflict between the TNI and INTERFET?9335Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, as Senator Schacht suggested, there was an incident close to the border where the INTERFET forces returned fire in self-defence, as of course they are entitled to do under the terms of UN Security Council resolution 1264. We of course regret the casualties sustained by the Indonesian side. As I understand it, there were differences in the assessment of the geography at the time, but now all sides have agreed that the incident took place in East Timor.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We've got a common set of maps now, have we? We've got the same maps on each side?BH4Senator HILL—We had the correct map, Senator Schacht, and it has now been agreed by all sides that the incident took place in East Timor. It is very difficult for INTERFET to be satisfied that other parties are operating under a correct assumption as to their whereabouts at all times. I think even Senator Schacht would accept that that is impossible. Of course, if all parties observe the UN resolution then incidents such as this simply will not occur, and we call upon all parties to do so.INTERFET is, as Senator Schacht knows, seeking to extend the area within which East Timorese can return safely—in some instances return to their homes or certainly through those lands to return to their homes. It is seeking to achieve that secure environment. Regrettably, there have been some incidents in the last few days which indicate that in fact this is not an easy task to achieve and there are significant risks associated with it. Nevertheless, that is its mandate, and it would seem it is doing it in a very effective way despite those incidents. It is good to see East Timorese returning from West Timor and more returning to their homes from the hills. There is no doubt that the force, as it has been building up, has been able to expand, firstly out of Dili but throughout the country, and work its way up the border—it is in the vicinity of the border now—and is providing more East Timorese with the environment which was the purpose of the force. I do not think there is anything else that I can constructively add to that, but I will see what comes in the supplementary.9335Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, there is a supplementary. I appreciate the minister's clarification that it now appears both sides agree and the INTERFET description of the map and the boundaries has been clarified. In assisting INTERFET with its work, what representations have the govern ment been making to Jakarta and the Indonesian government to minimise the risk of conflict between the TNI and INTERFET? What has been the Indonesian government's response?9336Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I understand that we are seeking high level discussions with Jakarta—obviously doing it in Dili, as Senator Schacht would have heard on the radio, but with Jakarta as well—to agree measures to reduce the chance of similar incidents in future near the West Timor border. We are also making our concerns known to the United Nations Secretary-General. No doubt he, through his good offices, will bring his influence to bear in that regard as well. I think the point to be underlined is that this is dangerous work. We regret that there have been some casualties. We particularly regret that there have been INTERFET soldiers wounded carrying out their duty. It is something that underlies not only the danger of the work but also why all Australians should be so appreciative of the work that they are doing.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—So you've been making representations to the Indonesian government?BH4Senator HILL—I gather that either has occurred or is to occur.93369336Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Will the minister inform the Senate of new information which indicates the continued strong performance of the Australian economy under the responsible management of the Howard government? What further reforms are needed to ensure our economy continues to grow?9336Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The good news keeps coming in. It is not by chance; it is because this country now has a government that is prepared to take courageous but fair decisions to get the fundamentals of the economy right in order that businesses, particularly small businesses, can grow and provide the jobs to which all Australians aspire. That, of course, is in stark contrast to the record of the previous Labor government. Yes, the Australian economy is continuing its remarkably strong performance. As honourable senators will know, we have delivered three consecutive budgets in surplus, the lowest interest rates in 30 years, which of course benefit both home buyers as well as business operators, sustained low inflation and of course strong jobs growth—520,000 new jobs since the election of the Howard government. And this has been achieved in the face of the Asian economic crisis.The outlook for further growth is good, with independent surveys confirming how robust the Australian economy is. The Australian Industry Group says in its latest survey that there is a `further strengthening in activity, with an encouraging 53 per cent of firms expecting production to increase' in the December quarter. That is good news, I thought you would say, Senator Cook. The AIG says:The current strength in activity in manufacturing is positive news, as is the continued recovery in exports.This outlook is of course backed up by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in its latest survey of investor confidence:The extraordinary performance of the Australian economy is expected to continue. Business confidence remains high and, most importantly, private sector investment is expected to increase.It says further:There is no denying that the Australian economy is expected to continue to perform extremely well.This continuing high level of business confidence is good news for the economy and good news for creating real jobs. We are seeing signs that employment will continue to grow. The latest ANZ survey of job advertisements has recorded the highest level of job ads since December 1989—the best figures in almost a decade. Interestingly, the hapless shadow minister, Cheryl Kernot, has recognised our strong performance. In her media release of last week—an attempt to attack the Howard government—she attacked the table comparing February 1996 figures under Labor to the current figures under this government. It showed that the number of unemployed was down under the Howard government—the number of unemployed males was down; the number of unemployed females was down; numbers of young unemployed were down; the youth unemployment rate was down; and the number of long-term unemployed was down as well. So we thank Cheryl Kernot for providing that data, which demonstrates the point I have been making—that Australians get jobs under the Howard government, in contrast to not getting jobs under the previous Hawke and Keating governments. Cheryl Kernot also pointed out that, since the introduction of the Job Network, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen by 43,000. So Senator Carr no doubt welcomes Ms Kernot's recognition of the success of the Job Network under the Howard government. I suspect that Senator Macdonald is disappointed to lose former Senator Kernot, but good luck to Mr Reith in his stead. (Time expired)93379337Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts . How does the minister respond to the report in the Weekend Australian which cited `a highly placed government source' as saying that the 16 federation fund projects elevated by ministers, notwithstanding their below 15 point score, were `weak', and that the ministers had known they were weak but that their selection was `electorally motivated'?9337Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I respond in the way that I think anyone in Australia would respond—that is, we were given authority to make decisions, not simply to rubber stamp departmental recommendations. We did that having considered all of the projects before us, and there were, of course, some hundreds. Whoever that unnamed person was, they obviously do not have the courage of their convictions to go public so I do not know what weight we should attach to those comments. But, certainly, the government vigorously rejects the view. All of the successful projects were highly worthwhile. Indeed, one of the points that seemed to be made in that article is that, because a number of them had not yet got under way in terms of construction, somehow that was a reflection on the quality of the projects selected. That is clearly nonsense. The only other thing I would say is that the article is inaccurate in suggesting that there was a minute from my department warning against elevating low scorers. The minute did not do that; it simply explained the processes used in assessing and ranking applications. I think that Senator Faulkner is basically going through the motions on this one. It must be at least the fifth time that he has run this question. We had about a whole week in the Senate and you had pretty much a nil return from that one. This may be catch-up coverage from News Ltd but, beyond that, I do not think anyone else takes this as a serious policy issue and I suggest that Senator Faulkner should not either.9337Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, is it true that some of the 16 projects that the ministers elevated scored as low as eight points out of the 24 in the departmental assessments?9337Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Once again we have Senator Faulkner endeavouring, one way or another, to try to put numbers on projects or to identify and single out projects that might or might not have been approved. The fact of the matter is that he, as he well knows, has now had 12 months to point to any of these projects that he says do not deserve to have been supported. They are all out there; we all know which ones were successful. Senator Faulkner could have spent some time traipsing around to look at these projects. He chose not to do so.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. With respect, the question that I asked Senator Alston is a pretty simple one; it is an important one. I have asked if it is true that some of the 16 projects that were elevated by Senator Alston and Senator Hill scored as low as eight points. That is the question I asked Senator Alston, and I wonder if you might consider directing him to answer that very clear and specific question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, there is no point of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—That was indeed the question, and that is why I answered it, Madam President.93389338Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. I refer the minister to the recent public offer of Telstra 2 shares following on from the first sale of Telstra shares, in which a record number of Australians invested. What has been the response of the Australian public to the Telstra 2 public share offer?9338Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is no secret that the offer closed last Thursday and that this is the largest single share offer in Australia's history. More than 1.5 million people have taken advantage of becoming new shareholders or of increasing their stake in one of Australia's largest and most dynamic companies. This figure includes approximately half a million people who were not existing Telstra shareholders. It fits neatly with this government's policy that there is a dream not only to own your own home but also that ordinary men and women of Australia will become shareholders. This is great evidence of what privatising Telstra can do in bringing normal Australians into owning shares.As well as that, since this offer was launched last month the government has announced tax reforms, which is good news for tax investors. Under these changes, individuals who hold Telstra shares for more than 12 months will pay capital gains tax on only 50 per cent of their capital gain, and this is good news for those average Australians—normal Australians—who have bought shares in Telstra.There are also additional tax benefits which come on top of specific measures designed to make Telstra shares more attractive for retail investors. These measures include discounting the share price by at least 40c per share for those who hold on to their shares for more than a year. We have agreed to allow shares to be paid for in two instalments: the first instalment being $4.50 and the balance being paid thereafter. Further benefits accrue to complying superannuation funds. Under the proposed tax changes, these funds would pay no more than 10 per cent on nominal capital gains on assets held for more than one year. Given the specific benefits of the T2 sale, combined with the Ralph taxation plan, it is no wonder that this second tranche has been so successful. I have mentioned that this is great news for normal Australians, average Australians, but it is also good news for retail—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Normal?9X5Senator ELLISON—They are normal—like you and me, Senator Forshaw. We have never made any secret of our desire to privatise Telstra. What we have done in relation to Telstra has been fully transparent and has been laid out before the public. That has been supported by virtue of the number of people who have taken up these shares. I think it is interesting to look back to Cheryl Kernot, who was previously the Leader of the Democrats. On 22 February 1996 she said that Labor's promise not to privatise Telstra was insincere. She said, `I think Labor in opposition won't sell Telstra, but I am more worried about Labor in government.' That speaks volumes. I can assure the member for Dickson that many people are worried about Labor being in government, and it is not just about what they would not do with Telstra. This has been a great development for Australia, and a great development for average Australians, who have had a great opportunity to invest in such a great company.93389338Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to his statement earlier in question time in relation to certain FCHP projects on which work has not yet commenced. Is it true these include the oil and gas museum at Roma, the cultural and heritage centre at Gilgandra, and the restoration of the Devonport town hall and courthouse? Can the minister explain why it was necessary to rush through the assessment process for these projects in order to have them approved prior to the last federal election, when more than a year later work has not commenced on them?9338Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As I said, I saw that suggestion in the article. I have not checked it out. I have no idea whether work has commenced on those or some other or all of the other projects.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You've got no idea?LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not, actually. I have no idea about whether work has commenced on these projects, but that has nothing at all to do with the announcement of those projects. In other words, we took the view that these were projects worthy of support. We did not do it on the basis that they would be able to commence the work within a certain period of time. We assume that once the announcement is made people will start to put in place the necessary steps to facilitate that, but they are not matters over which the government would have control. Certainly, there should not be any impediment at our level to enabling those projects to proceed. I simply say again that the project announcements were made on the merits. There was no condition attached that they be commenced within a certain period of time. The assumption would always be that they would commence as soon as feasible, and I assume that that is the case.9339Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the minister can provide some advice to the Senate in relation to the specific questions I asked. Can the minister confirm that the Tasmanian School of Fine Furniture Projects in Launceston did not meet the minimum funding criterion of $500,000 yet was promoted by the former member for Bass and elevated by the minister and his colleague Senator Hill against the advice of their departments? If so, can he explain why he and Senator Hill chose to ignore the advice of their departments on this and a range of other projects?9339Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—This is a broken record. I do not know how many times we have canvassed this ground. Quite clearly it is a classic example of not wanting to know the facts. Senator Faulkner must have been told at least a dozen times that we were not given advice by our departments—we were simply given a points rating. It was one of the inputs which we took into account. We had the Centenary of Federation's advice on these matters. 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You front up with the information under FOI.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!LD4Senator ALSTON—If Senator Faulkner is seriously asking my advice about how the Senate should approach these matters, my advice would be that if you want to know what projects have been commenced and what has happened, then do a bit of footslogging. Get out there and have a good look around. Take your camera with you so you will be able to make a check. Maybe you will be able to tell the difference between announcement and completion and construction, but somehow I doubt it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Come clean! Come clean!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, cease shouting during the answer to the question.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. During Senator Alston's answer, on three or four occasions you called Senator Faulkner to order and on each occasion he quite explicitly ignored what you had to say. In the same vein that Senator Knowles and I have raised this matter in the past, I raise a point of order under 203(e). Senator Faulkner is a serial wrecker of order in this place. He persistently and regularly ignores what you have to say and sooner or later he has to be dealt with.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President: you will be aware that Senator Alston, in breach of the standing orders, was directly addressing me across the chamber. I suggested, by way of interjection, that he come clean on this issue, front up with the FOIs and actually tell the Australian people about the 16 projects he is covering up on. That is reasonable in the circumstances where a minister is directly addressing me across the chamber in the way Senator Alston was doing.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, that is addressing a different issue to the point of order which has been raised and is out of order as a contribution at this time. I did note your frequent interjecting during the answer.93409340Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware of the recently released report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman which found, among other things, that Centrelink does not provide enough information to people about their entitlements and that existing law prevents adequate back payments being made to welfare recipients in the event of mistakes being made? In particular, I draw the minister's attention to a quote by the Ombudsman, Mr Ron McLeod, where he says:. . . there is a need to achieve a better balance between the risks and responsibilities taken by the service delivery agency compared with those taken by its customers.Given the government's apparent desire to increase the obligations and requirements put on welfare recipients as part of the principle of mutual obligation, what is the minister going to do to ensure that government agencies and departments meet their obligations to the public?9340Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am aware of some Ombudsman's reports that came out last week, and I suggest that there is much more to the Ombudsman's reports than is able to be encompassed in the senator's question. In fact, the Ombudsman, Mr McLeod, did recognise and acknowledge that some of the failures of the system when it was the old Department of Social Security have now been substantially addressed since the formation of Centrelink. He also acknowledged the new initiatives, which are only of the last few months duration, of having one main contact between people who come to Centrelink for assistance and a staff officer who remains dedicated to that particular person into the future, together with the new concept of dealing with people on a life events model. We do not expect people to know the intricacies of the social security legislation—it is beyond the powers of most senators to get on top of a lot of the arcane delights of that legislation—and we should not be expecting people, often in distress, to come in knowing what their entitlements are.As a result of that thinking, Centrelink and the government have been introducing these new ways of trying to help people. They come and tell us what their issue is, what the problem is—there has been a death in the family, they have had a baby, they have separated or whatever the situation is—and then the person who is scheduled to be their one main contact can help them to see what their entitlements are. I am sure you would agree that they are important initiatives and they make a big difference to people who come for help. The Ombudsman made it clear that he recognised that the introduction of Centrelink had made a considerable improvement to the issues he had been raising, some of which were historical. I am not suggesting that any organisation cannot be improved, but I think we have already made substantial strides in the direction in which reform has to go, which the Ombudsman has identified and recognised.9340Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I certainly acknowledge the Ombudsman's own acknowledgment of some of the improvements in the performance of Centrelink. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has stated that there is an imbalance in the responsibilities of the service delivery agency compared with those taken by the customers. Does the minister accept that the principle of mutual obligation does not just extend to welfare recipients but extends just as strongly to the government and government agencies in terms of the support and assistance they provide to income support recipients? Will the minister ensure that the imbalance in that obligation that has been identified by the Ombudsman gets just as much attention as any extra obligations that the government may be considering putting on welfare recipients?9340Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think I have always made it very clear that mutual obligation by its very definition is a two-way street. There is no suggestion that the government does not see obligations on it as well as obligations on people who come to the government for support from the taxpayer. Having said that, I also want to point out to the Senate two things that were very significant in setting up Centrelink. One is that a customer charter was introduced, which Centrelink measures its performance by, and so can everybody else. The second is that the whole focus of the organisation has been on customer service. The measures that I mentioned in my earlier answer are very much part of that focus by the whole organisation—all the people who work in it as well as the government—on providing better customer service. That is what we want to achieve. We may not have reached the optimum yet, but we are certainly improving on the past.93419341Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. I refer to media treatment of the republican debate. When Lachlan Murdoch phoned the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago, as reported in the Financial Review on 7 October, did the Prime Minister complain about the coverage News Ltd newspapers were giving to the republican debate? Did he ask Mr Murdoch to tone down the pro-republican sentiments expressed in the News Ltd controlled media, or did he ask him to give Kerry Jones, Senator Minchin and other monarchists more space?9341Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I obviously was not a party to any such discussions, and therefore I do not know.9341Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister to find that out and, while he is finding that out, didn't the Prime Minister signal at the Constitutional Convention that, as Prime Minister, he would remain neutral during the debate? If so, why is he deliberately running interference with media organisations in regard to their coverage of the referendum debate?9341Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I don't think the Prime Minister is neutral; he is a monarchist. He is actually more of a monarchist than some others who are relying on what they claim to be deficiencies in the other side's argument. But I cannot imagine the Prime Minister interfering in media coverage in the way that has been suggested by the honourable senator. In such circumstances I do not really think it is worth worrying him with the matter.93419341Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is he aware of the front-page story in today's Age whereby the Democrats are calling for exemption from the GST for charities and non-profit organisations? I ask the minister: is it not a fact that the Democrats were the single agent responsible for the GST being placed on charities and non-profit organisations—actually, the glue that made that tax stick? How much will be raised through the GST from the non-profit sector in Australia in taxes? What will be the compliance costs for charitable organisations and non-profit organisations, including sporting organisations, right across the country? Will non-profit organisations be given tax concessions to make up for these compliance costs that, as has been indicated, will be going to profitable organisations?9341Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Brown for that question. Senator Brown, we had a very long debate on tax reform in this chamber. Some people went missing in action; others decided to play a very constructive role in that debate. If I may name the groups that went missing in action: the Labor Party were clearly one group that had a chance to make a contribution to debate on tax reform but, unfortunately, went missing, made no contribution at all, and I think they have been widely condemned for it. Another group which I think went missing in action were the Greens, actually, Senator Brown. I think that when you were two—now you are one—the contribution that you and your colleague made to tax reform was quite worthless. I may be wrong, but I can barely remember one constructive comment you made on the whole issue of tax reform.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—On a point of order, Madam President: half the minister's time has gone but he has not addressed three specific questions I asked about the money to be raised from non-profit organisations through the GST and what reparations will be made. I hope that the minister will get to the substantial questions before time has elapsed.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are entitled to hope that, Senator.WW4Senator KEMP—He asked me about the role of the Democrats in tax reform, and I am coming to that, Senator, if you will bear with me. Then of course there was another group that decided to play a constructive role in tax reform, and that was the Democrats. They had particular views in this area. They were views which in some areas overlapped ours but in other areas differed. There were, as you will be aware, Senator, very constructive discussions and negotiations with the Democrats, and ultimately the tax reform package passed through.There was one party that went to an election with a very similar policy to ours in relation to FBT issues on charities, and that was the Labor Party. I am sure if I am wrong Senator Cook will jump to his feet. Can I say on that particular issue that the Labor Party, if I recall correctly, were quite specific.I am well aware there has been a prolonged debate on this. My colleagues and I have spoken to many charitable bodies. We have received submissions from various charitable bodies. I read on the front page of the Age that Senator Murray made some comments on this particular issue, but I think the government's position on this is well-known and I do not propose to make any further comments today.9342Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister: in view of the fact that he has essentially agreed that the Democrats have been part of imposing the GST on every charity, every sporting organisation and every non-profit organisation in Australia, how much—in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars—will be taken off charities in this country through the GST as applied by the Democrats, and have they made any approach at all to the government, now recognising the damage they are doing to charities, to try to ameliorate that damage which the GST will cause—which the Democrats have caused? Can the minister give any detail of any significant approach that has been made at all, or has no approach really been made?9342Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Brown, you would be the last person I would tell about any approach from any person, to be quite frank, because you have a magnificent record of being absolutely impossible to negotiate with on any major issue.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, your remarks should be directed through the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I have to tell you, Senator Brown, that I will not be providing any indication to you about any discussions which may or may not have been had. What I suggest you do in relation to charities—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, direct your remarks through the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Why don't you have a good read and you will see that the non-commercial activities of charities are GST free. You would learn that charities in many ways will benefit very substantially from the tax reform package. So, Madam President, I think Senator Brown—rather than trying to score cheap political points—for a change should get down—(Time expired)Distinguished Visitors93429342The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a delegation from the Vietnamese National Assembly Council for Ethnic Minorities led by the Chairman, Mr Cu Hoa Van. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and trust that your visit will be both informative and enjoyable.Questions Without Notice934293429342Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Does the Prime Minister stand by his decision to direct Minister Vanstone to withdraw from a public debate on the Republic Referendum with Minister Minchin? Why then has the Prime Minister not disciplined his closest ally on the monarchy, Senator Minchin, for his blatant misrepresentation and distortion of comments by the Treasurer while Mr Costello was not even in the country to defend himself? Does the Prime Minister's supposed neutral stance only operate when republican ministers join the public debate and disappear when the royalist Minister Minchin engages in dirty tricks against his ministerial colleagues?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, I would ask you to withdraw the epithet. I think it is contrary to the standing orders.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I am not sure what you are referring to, but if I have offended the standing orders I withdraw the relevant remarks.9343Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—These are indeed strange questions because one normally thinks of question time as an opportunity for the opposition to try to win points against the government. The situation in this instance is that the government does not hold a position in relation to this referendum other than on matters of process. Liberals are entitled to vote in the way that they choose. Some will vote for retention of the existing system and some will vote for change. On the Liberal side, that is something that we are proud of. We are not going to be embarrassed by the fact that we are not subject to the whip, that we are allowed to hold different points of view on important national issues like this. What a stark contrast with the Labor Party. They would be whipped out of the Labor Party, expelled, if they dared to take a different point of view. How could the fact of senators on the other side trying to demonstrate that there are different points of view within the Liberal Party win them a political point? I would have thought most Australians would think that this is the sort of issue upon which parliamentarians should be able to make an individual choice. We are pleased that we are able to do that.In relation to process, yes, the Prime Minister has given Australia, through his support of this process, the opportunity to make this choice for the future: either move to a new system or retain the existing system. As a republican, I am pleased that he has been prepared to do so. Australians, because of Mr Howard, will have an opportunity to make a choice. Australians who are members of the Liberal Party will choose according to what they think is in the best interests of the Australian people, not what their party tells them to do.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators should not be speaking to each other across the chamber.9343Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not know what question the minister was answering but it was not the question I asked him, which was: why then has the Prime Minister not disciplined Senator Minchin for his blatant misrepresentation and distortion of comments by the Treasurer? Does the Prime Minister's neutral stance operate only for republicans and not for royalists? While he might direct his attention to answering the questions I actually asked rather than make a speech, can he also answer this question. In the Australian on 7 October, it was reported:Nick Minchin has split the coalition over the republican referendum, accusing his colleague Peter Costello of hypocrisy over the proposed republican model and threatening an outbreak of inter-government fighting.Can the minister confirm that to be?9343Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—What a sorry opposition. I guess there is not much for them to raise. This government has got the economy right. It has taken the hard decisions and it has got the taxation system right. It has got social security right. It is doing such a good job that all the opposition can do is try to create divisions within the government on the republican referendum. What they have not yet woken up to is the fact that we accept divisions on our side. We are proud of it. We are allowed to have different points of view and a different perspective. My advice to the opposition is that they should search a little harder for something that is relevant to their responsibility as an alternative government. When they do that, when they start working up some policies and presenting an alternative on the big issues that are facing this nation, then they might be treated as credible by the Australian people and do something that is worthwhile. 93449344Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate of recent labour force figures and what further employment initiatives the government will be introducing to create more real jobs and raise the living standards of all Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approach and what would be the impact if these were to be implemented?9344Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is very encouraging when we look at the labour force figures. It is no easy task in the face of dedicated and persistent opposition from a major political party in this country. Nonetheless, the unemployment rate remains steady at 7.2 per cent. That is the lowest rate since August 1990. We all remember who was in government then and how much effort they made to do anything about it. Of course they were not interested in flexing up the labour market or making any of the necessary changes that we have been pursuing. The important aspect of the September labour force data is the continuing rise in employment, with most of the new jobs in full-time employment. There have been more than 500,000 new jobs created since the coalition came into office. In conjunction with that, the participation rate also continues to rise. As we know, that simply makes it more difficult to hold the unemployment rate steady, let alone have it going south. All of those indicators are favourable. They come about as a result of hard work and we are determined to keep going on this front.Certainly unfair dismissal laws are universally recognised in the community by everyone except the ACTU and their parliamentary acolytes as a very important inhibitor to employment growth in the small business sector. Nonetheless, the Labor Party continues to vigorously oppose those because they might somehow threaten the very healthy incomes that a lot of industrial advocates earn, obviously because the union movement simply does not like anything that flexes up the small business sector. Secret ballots and the next round of industrial relations changes are also very important. We know they will be opposed tooth and nail.Probably the most disappointing thing of all is to find that Cheryl Kernot is now being given responsibility for looking after the employment sector. If she was paralysed and could not move out of her marginal seat of Dickson, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates of any electorate, what is she going to do about regional unemployment? Does that mean she simply will not be able to go to those areas—no go? Presumably she will make virtual appearances. She will get herself onto the Internet. She will be out there videoconferencing her head off. Quite clearly, we cannot expect any increase in quality from that front. All I can say is that her employment policy is very focused. It is simply designed to ensure that she wins a marginal seat.That is not what the people of Australia expect. They want someone out there looking after ordinary families. They want them to address the issues of employment and job creation. As Senator Hill pointed out, we have the Job Network. Long-term unemployment is coming down. These things come about because of policy changes.Senator Faulkner interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Do people like Senator Faulkner want to make a real contribution? After all, he was the one that put the coffee pot on. It has certainly gone off the boil in recent times, but he can claim a large share of the credit for Ms Kernot now having this poisoned chalice. He ought to come to her defence. We think it is very unfair that Senator Faulkner is not prepared to come to her assistance. If you cannot write some policy work for her, at least get the Queensland right wing off her back. We all know this is about Kevin Rudd getting on the front bench at her expense.Senator Faulkner interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, get out there. Do something. You said she would fit very well into the Labor Party because she was a classic mainstream Left thinker. That is not a problem. The problem is that you should get on your bike and get out to the other electorates. (Time expired)93459345Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Is the minister aware of reports that the senior executives of Australia's four car companies will meet next week to frame a strategy to prevent plant shutdowns and redundancies in the lead-up to the introduction of the GST? Is the minister aware that one senior executive was reported as saying:. . . unless the Government is prepared to act, we are looking down the barrel of plant closures—at least at Ford, Toyota and Mitsubishi.Does the minister agree with this assessment?9345Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—This is a rather remarkable question coming from the ALP, which advocates high prices for cars. This is the party that wants to retain a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on motor vehicles and therefore a high price for cars. We are the party that is advocating a lower price for new cars for ordinary Australians, by introducing a 10 per cent GST which will have a significant effect on reducing the price of new cars. So it is a pretty silly question coming from the ALP, which defends Australians having to pay more tax on their cars than they will under our government as of 1 July next year.The facts relating to car sales are that 807,000 cars were sold last year—the most cars ever sold in this country. That was a record year last year following another record in 1997. We have had two record years in a row. After such an incredible sales pattern in 1998, sales have fallen back marginally this year. In year to September sales so far, for three-quarters of this year, sales are down 2.9 per cent from the same period in 1998. We are down 2.9 per cent—not a great fall, but certainly it has come off from that record year. But sales this year are still 11 per cent higher than they were at the same time in 1997, which was, of itself, then a record year for car sales. Relatively speaking, the market is still doing fairly well. Locally manufactured vehicles have a greater share of the market now than they did last year—48 per cent compared with 45 per cent. We are monitoring car sales closely. We do not want to see the industry suffer. This tax change is good for the car industry. But we have said that in relation to transitional matters we will monitor sales closely. We are talking with the industry on a regular basis and we have not ruled out action if it is absolutely necessary. But on the figures so far we do not see that action of that kind is necessary.9345Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Minister, given that Ford has already stood down 3,500 workers and is reportedly planning further stand-downs in the next three weeks, sales of passenger vehicles slumped by 9.7 per cent last month—the fifth consecutive monthly decline—and new vehicle registrations are at their lowest level since September 1997, what more evidence do you need before this government will act?9345Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I really do not have much to add. I have already told the senator that car sales have fallen off slightly from 1998 but there is no evidence yet that the fall-off from the record 1998 year is induced by any expectation on the part of purchasers that cars will be cheaper. Of course, while cars will be a lot cheaper for new car buyers, I would say that buyers do need to take account of the changeover price. I certainly would encourage buyers to stay in the market and keep buying new cars. Cars are a very good buy at the moment in terms of the quality of the Australian product and the prices they are being offered at. Sales are 11 per cent ahead of what was then a record year in 1997. That is staggering. We are talking about a massive reduction in the price of new vehicles as of 1 July 2000. This is one of the best things that could happen to the car industry. The car industry strongly supported the GST. It will mean a big reduction in prices and a big boost to the exports of the car industry.93459345Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Alston. Is the minister aware of the media release by Minister Warren Truss dated 28 September 1999 about the dairy industry restructure package? Is the minister concerned about this statement in the media release:The package will be funded through a levy of 11 cents on all retail milk sales. This levy is unlikely to have any impact on retail prices as farm gate prices are expected to fall after deregulation by at least this amount.Does this mean that farmers will pay for their own restructure package themselves?9346Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The package that the government announced did respond to the dairy industry's request for an adjustment package to manage the impact of deregulation and the transition to an open market. The government is not driving deregulation, and the package will only be available in the event that the states proceed with deregulation of their market milk arrangements. Quite clearly, it is in the long-term interests of consumers that a structure be put in place that enables permanently lower milk prices to become available. Under the package, dairy farmers would receive structural adjustment payments to enable them—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left will cease interjecting.LD4Senator ALSTON—I presume Senator Woodley does not advocate a cold shower approach and does not say that there should be no structural adjustment assistance. Presumably, he is on the side of consumers, so therefore we can assume that he broadly supports the notion of structural adjustment payments being made to enable those dairy farmers to improve their efficiency, competitiveness and profits after deregulation. Alternatively, for those for whom selling the farm is appropriate, an exit payment subject to an assets test will be available. It has been made perfectly clear by the minister that the package will be funded through a levy on drinking milk sales. It is not anticipated that milk prices will be adversely affected. There will shortly be a meeting with state and territory agricultural ministers to discuss dairy industry deregulation and structural adjustment assistance. We are confident that this package will be in the interests of all concerned. It is not meant to be a special deal for farmers; it is meant to be very much something that consumers will benefit from.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—How?LD4Senator ALSTON—By lower prices. It is quite simple. I know you blokes do not believe in it. If it is not in the riding instructions from the ACTU, you will not have a bar of it. But we actually do put the long-term interests of consumers first, and we certainly do in this instance. We believe that this approach will be the one that will best deliver the goods.9346Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I thank the minister for his answer, but he got it wrong—so I will try again with a supplementary question. I ask the minister: doesn't the fact that there will be a drop in the farm gate price mean that the dairy industry will borrow the money to compensate farmers at commercial rates, farmers will lose at least 11c per litre on the current farm gate price, this loss will cover the cost of repaying the borrowings and farmers will pay tax on any compensation that they receive? Minister, is this a great restructure package or a great confidence trick?9346Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The short answer is that it is the former and not the latter. There will be significant reductions at the farm gate, and that is why it is important to have a structural adjustment package available. But in the longer term, after you have had that transitional phase, lower prices will be paid by consumers. That will mean lower amounts in the pockets of the dairy farmers, and that is why they will have to make a decision in that intervening period about whether to exit the industry or to take the adjustment proceeds and restructure their businesses. All of that is very much in the interests of an efficient market. It is in the interest of consumers. The borrowing, compensation for losses and everything else that flows from that package will be commercial arrangements that farmers will enter into. Presumably, if they think that it makes sense to borrow, then they will borrow. If they think it makes sense to get out, they will get out. We are not telling them how to conduct their future operations. We are giving them the flexibility and the transitional financial assistance to do it.93479347McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Has the minister received reports of car industry concerns about increased imports of second-hand cars? What assessment has he made of the impact of this increase on motor vehicle and parts manufacturers and on established dealers? Does the minister accept that at least some of these importers are exploiting an importation for personal use loophole in the low volume compliance scheme, and what action does the Howard government propose to take to close the loophole?9347Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I appreciate that question, and it is certainly true that all of us on both sides have received representations on this issue. It is an issue that falls directly within the responsibilities of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. But we have to keep this thing in perspective: imports of low volume vehicles in 1998 represented less than one per cent of the total new vehicle market. It is the potential for growth in this mechanism which has implications for the local manufacturing industry and, as minister for industry, that is a matter about which I have some concerns. It is important for the Senate to understand how this is being dealt with. It is being considered now in the context of the review of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act of 1989. The task force looking after that review has presented its final report to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Minister Anderson. My department and I have certainly been in very close contact with Minister Anderson over this matter because of the very significant interests in it that I have and what it means to the local industry. We will be responding to that review and that report in due course.9347McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Have industry concerns, such as those forwarded to the member for Capricornia from car dealers in Northern and Central Queensland, been drawn to the minister's attention? When will the minister return from his holiday campaigning for the royalist cause and knuckle down to his real job before more jobs and businesses go down the drain?9347Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—That supplementary question is so pathetic that it hardly warrants an answer. But I would point out that your leader was there on the weekend with all the cast of the ABC's Sea Change , making some lunatic comments about this matter which did not make any sense to me. He had an article in the Age today which was factually wrong on this issue, so do not attack me for engaging in a public debate when your own leader is engaged in that very debate. That is a gross act of hypocrisy on your part.93479347Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Madam President, my question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Will the minister inform the Senate of any recent initiatives in support of regional communities? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approach with regard to regional Australia?9347Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Madam President, perhaps one of the best initiatives in recent times was removing Ms Kernot from the opposition spokesman's role on that. But Senator Calvert does ask a serious question about initiatives for support of regional communities. Senator Calvert, four minutes would not allow me enough time to talk about the initiatives this government has had for regional communities. Perhaps I could mention that just recently I announced a $1.6 million funding boost for 13 regional communities through the Rural Plan initiative of the federal government. From that money we support grassroots efforts to deal with changing economic circumstances and we help put in place plans which will provide more diverse and sustainable rural industries. Senator Calvert would be interested to know that one of those funding successes in recent times was for a project in Tasmania in the Derwent Valley. Senator Calvert will be interested to know that that is a community driven project for developing prosperous and sustainable local communities in the Derwent Valley area.In addition to the Rural Plan, we have a number of other recent initiatives, including further funding for Networking the Nation and our Rural Transaction Centre program. The first of the rural transaction centres are about to be officially opened at the end of this month, which will put banking back into small regional communities—the banks having left those regional communities during the Labor years. Of course, there are other initiatives dealing with rural health, including fly-in fly-out of female GPs and specialists.Senator Calvert also asked me whether I was aware of any alternative policy proposals. There are other policy proposals around the area. The National Farmers Federation often come to us with policy proposals, and there are a number of other interested groups that do. But we never get any policy proposals from the Australian Labor Party. What passes for policy from the ALP is the spokesman in this chamber getting up and being personally abusive to me and to other members here. That seems to count as policy initiative in the Labor Party.The former spokesperson, Ms Kernot, said that she had a lot of policy proposals on the go. She said she was handing over a substantial number of policy ideas to the new shadow minister, Mr Martin Ferguson. It is a pity she did not let the public know about those before she asked for a change from that portfolio. Perhaps I should not say she asked for a change. That is what she initially said and that is what Mr Beazley said, but then in the Courier-Mail on Friday she said that she did not ask for the change. When Mr Beazley was told about that, he said that Ms Kernot had suffered a recollection problem. I suggest to Ms Kernot that she see Dr Lawrence to get some counselling on that particular matter. I certainly hope that the policies she has handed over do show a better recollection of the problems and the solutions that are needed for rural and regional Australia.Good on Martin Ferguson for taking on this load—this heavy portfolio responsibility. Interestingly he is keeping part of his previous portfolio, so it cannot have been such a heavy portfolio after all. I am pleased to see that Mr Ferguson, with his 54-square-kilo metre electorate right in the heart of regional Australia in inner-city Melbourne, is taking on this proposal. His electorate of Batman may well have been regional Australia when John Batman first landed there, but it has been a long time since then. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice9348934815:04:009348Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—On 30 September I was asked questions by Senator McKiernan and Senator Crowley, and I undertook to get additional information. I now table the answers.934815:04:009348Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—On 30 September Senator Faulkner asked Senator Hill a question regarding the Sport 2000 Task Force when Senator Hill was representing me. I seek leave to incorporate a further answer to that question in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator Faulkner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources a supplementary question on 30 September 1999: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 Government taking legal action against Oakley Enterprises, what credibility can Mr Oakley's review possibly have?Senator MINCHIN —The answer to the Honourable Senator's question is as follows:I can confirm that Mr Ross Oakley is the Chair of the Sport 2000 Task Force. I have been advised that Oakley Enterprises is not in legal dispute with the ACT Government and was not contracted directly to the ACT Government. The nature of any legal relationship between Oakley Enterprises and the consultant is not a matter for the Government to comment on.Given Mr Oakley's impressive record in sports administration the Government has every confidence in his ability to lead the Task Force and provide a thorough and insightful report in accordance with the Terms of Reference.Miscellaneous93499349The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Order! I draw senators' attention to the production of the ninth edition of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice and I table a copy of that document. I thank the Clerk of the Senate for the work that he has done in producing the ninth edition and also those Senate staff who have assisted in the production and printing of the book.Questions Without Notice9349934915:05:009349Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions without notice asked by Senator Faulkner today, relating to the distribution of funds for the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects program.We have the situation now where, in question time in the Senate today, Senator Alston was unable to respond on behalf of the government to a report that appeared in the Weekend Australian . That report cited a highly placed government source who indicated that the 16 Federation Fund projects that did not reach the government's own minimum 15-point score were weak, that the ministers knew they were weak and that their selection as projects was electorally motivated.Senator Alston could not respond on that issue. He could not tell us how many of the 16 projects that he and Senator Hill pulled out of their bottom drawer scored as low as eight points out of 24 in the departmental assessment. Even though they were rushed through and approved for announcement in the last election campaign a year ago, he could not tell us why it was necessary for that quick assessment process and those public announcements when work has not yet commenced on the projects themselves. Of course, he could not tell us whether the Tasmanian School of Fine Furniture project in Launceston met the minimum funding criteria of $500,000 or whether that was another one of the projects that he and Senator Hill pulled out of the bottom drawer.That is the problem we have here. We have a massive cover-up from Senator Alston and Senator Hill and their departments on this issue. We have been able to extract information that there were 16 projects that did not meet the department's minimum 15-point threshold, but the ministers will not identify them. They will not tell us the cost of the projects. They will not tell us how many of these projects were recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation. They cover up the identities of these 16 projects, they use every trick in the book, they run thick black texta lines over their statements of reasons and they defy the Auditor-General's guidelines.Eventually we will get to the bottom of this. Eventually we will extract the identity of these 16 projects. We will find out which ones they were. When we know the identity of all of the 16 projects that these ministers found in a bottom drawer, we are going to run the ruler over them. We are going to find where they are, we are going to look at their electoral significance, we are going to look at when those particular projects were announced and we are going to compare them with the other 70 approved choices that were ignored by the ministers. We are also going to look at the nine projects ranked very high—between 19 and 24 points on the criteria points list—but which went unfunded. We are going to run a ruler over them as well. We are really going to try to make sure that these ministers are held accountable. They have used every dirty trick in the book to try to cover this matter up. They have run on this, but they cannot hide.These ministers have been caught red-handed funding projects in marginal electorates with millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and on the eve of an election campaign. These projects were announced during an election campaign for party political purposes. I can assure the Senate that, if that is the case, and if that case is proven, we will be demanding the resignation of the responsible ministers. We will get to the bottom of this, we will keep asking the embarrassing questions and we will keep this government and these ministers accountable on these issues. We will continue to scrutinise this massive Federation Fund fiddle. (Time expired)15:10:009350Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Isn't it really sad that the ALP cannot come up with any new material? It is like listening to a cracked record that keeps running around in the same track as poor old Senator Faulkner tries to get a few political points out of this issue. It is an issue which was covered extensively and comprehensively about a month ago. The ALP found then that there was no gold to be dug out, and yet they persist. Here they are again today. We have all been away for a week, yet the best they can come up with is to re-run this old issue, this old material, which has been thoroughly dealt with and from which there is no political gain for the ALP.More than anything else it shows how bereft the ALP are of policy ideas. They have so little to offer the Australian public that they have to go back to an issue which they have found before was a bare cupboard for them. I suppose it is indicative of the quality of Senator Faulkner's leadership that he cannot come up with a new issue to pursue the government on. The fact of the matter is that all of these Federation Fund projects were aboveboard and quite legitimate. All of the projects were ruled eligible.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Sixteen of them failed.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—All of them met the criteria; there were no projects that failed at all. The fact of the matter is that the government had a certain amount of discre tion in deciding which projects should be funded, and the government quite legitimately used its discretion in deciding which other projects would be funded.Another point which was made in the last round of discussions on this, but which has not been made this time, was to allege that the caretaker convention was breached in deciding which projects would be approved. I suppose that one of the other speakers will raise this issue this afternoon. But, of course, the caretaker convention was not breached. The normal procedures were followed. The approval for funding of these projects was given before the election was called, and there is no prohibition on the announcement of projects during an election period in situations where decisions have already been taken. I say that in anticipation; I am sure that one of the speakers from the opposition will raise that issue, and it may as well be dealt with before it is raised.There have been claims of bias in the distribution of grants, but let us look at that. Those claims of bias are wrong. Of the 16 successful projects, 38, or 64 per cent, were located in 62 per cent of electorates held by the coalition, which is fair enough. Eighteen, or 30 per cent, were in the 33 per cent of electorates held by Labor. That is a very even and reasonable distribution of grants. Five per cent of projects were in the five per cent of seats held by Independents, and one project went across multiple electorates. The $70 million Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program represents the largest boost ever provided by the Commonwealth government to these types of projects.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—One of the biggest pork barrels in a while.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Talking of pork barrels, I suppose one has to look back at Minister Kelly and the whiteboard. There was certainly no whiteboard and nobody operating like Minister Kelly did a few years ago.The whole history of the Federation Fund has been aboveboard. As I have said, since the ALP have been through this issue before and come up with nothing, it demonstrates how bereft they are of policies and ideas. One must say that the government are not at all ashamed of anything to do with this matter. The government are very proud of what they have done in protecting and preserving Australia's culture and heritage and are very pleased with their achievements. One might ask whether the ALP oppose, for example, the Commonwealth supporting these projects around the country. We are very proud of what we have done. (Time expired)15:15:009351Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The Senate today is discussing answers to questions from Senator Faulkner to Senator Alston concerning the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program. The Senate is reminded today, by the exchange that occurred, just how weak the government is on this issue. `Weak' is a term that comes up quite frequently in the description of these events. In an article that appeared in the Weekend Australian last weekend, a senior government source claimed that 16 projects which were hand-picked by the government—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Who is the senior government source?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Perhaps you could advise us, Senator Hill, who this senior government source is. The senior government source has blown the gaff on you. You have been exposed as participating in what is quite clearly a rorted program, to the extent that the 16 projects which were hand-picked by Senator Hill and Senator Alston were described as being `weak'. They were described as `being electorally motivated' and designed to shore up the government, which was at the time threatened in a number of seats by various political forces, including One Nation, and in Tasmania by other groups.What we have seen exposed in this article is that on 30 August 1998 the Prime Minister flew down to Canberra—he does not live here, so he has to fly in quite a lot. He stopped off on the way to Yarralumla; he travelled down Adelaide Avenue and dropped in to the Lodge to sign a couple of letters. He had 70 million reasons to delay his appointment with the Governor-General which was scheduled for 9 o'clock that day. The 70 million reasons related to the amounts of money that were involved in the letters that he was signing off on that day, which were letters congratulating—this is the irony here—Senator Alston and Senator Hill `for their timely and effective management of the selection process' for these various schemes under this program.What has been revealed since that time is that the government, under the leadership of Senator Hill and Senator Alston, removed nine projects from the list provided by the departments of projects which had been identified as being above the 15-point threshold or benchmark. A submission issued to the ministers on 20 August highlighted that `the purpose of the submission was to provide them with a list of highly rated projects from which to select various projects' which met the criteria established by the guidelines operating for this program. What replaced these nine projects were 16 projects which were not recommended by the departments and which met entirely different criteria. They were criteria one would expect from Senator Alston, who was at that time the campaign director for the Liberal Party of Victoria and had a very keen eye on the electoral implications of these projects.Today we have discovered that, one year later, many of these projects have yet to commence construction.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—The 16 projects.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Most of those 16 projects have yet to get off the ground. We are told by Senator Alston that it was not a condition of the projects when projects should commence their construction phases. But in a memorandum sent to Senator Alston by the head of the arts section, Mr Les Neilson, he indicated that the projects scoring 15 points out of the possible 24 points did not compare well in terms of their significance or their community benefit to the highest ranked projects, or answer concerns about the ability of the organisation to deliver the project on time and within budget or on the ongoing viability problems. So quite clearly well before these decisions were made, well before the Prime Minister signed off on these letters in defiance of the caretaker conventions of this parliament, the ministers were advised what the likely outcomes would be.Their intentions had nothing to do with consideration of these projects on their merits but had everything to do with consideration of these projects on the basis of the political advantage that would accrue to the government. Their time frames in that regard ended at the time of the election. They were not concerned about the implications that these projects would have in terms of meeting the budgetary considerations or in terms of the quality of the projects concerned. They were all about the election, they were all about winning votes and they were all about establishing a margin of comfort for the government in the election campaign. What would you expect from a minister who was the campaign director for the Liberal Party in Victoria at the time of the election? Foremost in his mind was the issue of winning votes, not undertaking effective administration. (Time expired)15:20:009352Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—It must have been tough on the opposition side this morning when they were working out what sorts of questions they were going to ask today. If you observed question time, you can just imagine them thinking, `Well, we might ask a few questions on East Timor—but, hang on, we might ask one on that because if we ask any more than that the government might start bringing up what Mr Keating has been saying and what Beazley has been saying, so we will just have a little go at that. Then perhaps just for a diversion we will go on to the republic. That will split up the government.' As was soon seen, we just pointed out the discrepancies in how the Labor Party are all being told what to do and we on this side have the benefit of being able to do what we want to do without being told. Then they would have thought, `We will throw in one about cars and the GST. That is good for a few minutes. We can get a question about that.' So they threw in a couple about cars.That did not seem to get much currency, so, `Here we go, we will go back over the old Federation Fund so-called fiasco.' That has been brought up here so many times. It has been trawled through at estimates. But a journalist down in Tasmania, Bruce Montgomery, who has not featured in the Australian for that long, must have dreamt this story up so that he could get a headline. They saw that and they said, `That is what we are going to do. We will get back on that. We must be getting somewhere.' When you look at what was written in that article, there was nothing new—nothing at all.I have just heard Senator Carr bringing up the old chestnut of what this Les Neilson was supposed to have said but I think they already know, under the FOI documents that they obtained, that he explained the processes used in assessing and ranking applications but certainly did not warn against elevating those scores. And of course it all goes back to this unnamed person, this senior government source. Well, we would all love to hear who the senior government source is that has made this comment, some 12 months after all this happened—that is the amazing thing.I believe the only reason questions were asked of Senator Alston today was that those opposite did not have anything else better to talk about. You did not want to talk about the economy because that is going too well for your liking, and you did not want to talk about unemployment, so you have gone back to the old one on federation funding. I wonder what the people of Lyons would say if they thought that Dick Adams was not in favour of the ABT railway. That project has not been started yet, but I do not hear any arguments coming from the opposition over there about why the ABT railway project has not started.What has happened to the money at York Park? What has happened to the money for the TCA ground? That money was allocated before the election and the fact is that the Launceston City Council, the state government and the crowd up north are trying to put together this package to upgrade York Park oval—and it is the same thing with the TCA ground in Hobart—and it takes time to put these things together. So we have had the situation, just to get a bit of publicity and to try to embarrass the government, of Senator Faulkner coming in here and raking up all this federation funding situation all over again.Senator Conroy interjecting—5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—On the women's prison project in Hobart in Duncan Kerr's electorate—a Labor electorate—about $900,000 is going to be spent. That has not started yet. There is no intention of it being started. I have not seen one brick being removed or put back.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—When was it announced?5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I beg your pardon?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—When was it announced?5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I should not respond to these continual interjections, Madam Deputy President.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You should address the chair and Senator Conroy should, of course, cease interjecting.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—But there were some very fine projects which were put forward in Tasmania. I notice that one that got a mention in the so-called article in the Australian over the weekend was the fine furniture facility in Launceston. That furniture centre of excellence has been around for quite some time: just have a look around this chamber and see some of the furniture that was manufactured by Tasmanian furniture makers who use that facility. That facility has been very good in helping to promote Tasmanian furniture—and of course Tasmanian furniture has been around since Federation—and it is a fine project. In fact the former State President of the Liberal Party, Jim Bowler, headed that area when he was with the Tasmanian development authority or something like that, as I recall. Anyway, when we get down to it, if you look at the distribution of grants, the coalition held 62 per cent of the Commonwealth electorates and the coalition seats received 69 per cent of funds. The Labor Party held 33 per cent—(Time expired)15:25:009353Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—It is disappointing sometimes to see the level of preparation that goes into the defence of some of the ministers in this chamber. This, as Senator Calvert and Senator Eggleston have indicated, is an issue that has been around for a while, and you would think that the government could have given its backbench a sufficient level of briefing on this issue so they could put up a competent defence. What they are seeking to hide today is that 16 projects scored below 15 points and some of them obviously scored as low as eight points. When Senator Alston was invited to deny that some projects scored as few as eight points out of 24—Senator Eggleston interjecting—VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—Come on, name them.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Senator Watson, we would like you to name which projects got the eight points. We think that would be in the community interest and in the public interest. What the senators on the other side of this chamber are trying to do is hide from the fact that some projects scored as few as eight points out of 24. When they are asked a question to name them, they do not.Senator Eggleston interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Eggleston, you have had your chance to speak.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—What you have to understand in this debate is that 70 projects that scored greater than 15 points were excluded from funding, but 16 that got below the 15 points were included. In fact, nine projects that actually scored the top score possible were excluded. What was wrong with those? That is the question that we put to Senator Alston and that is the question that we put to other senators in this chamber today. What was wrong with the nine projects that got the top score? Why were they dumped? Why did 16 projects get up in this process? Why did some of those projects not score 24, like nine of them? Some of them scored as low as eight. Of the 60 approved projects, only 39 were announced during the election. What a coincidence!No prizes for guessing that all of the projects that were rorted through this process, all of those 16 projects—16 of the 39, nearly 50 per cent of the announcements during the election—were in the government's marginal seats or the seats where they were under pressure from the Labor Party and from One Nation. That is why they will not come clean. That is why they sit here in question time and after question time today refusing to put the facts on the table. Eighty per cent of the 39 that were announced during the election were in coalition seats. What does the department's own advice say to the minister? It says:Projects scoring below 15 points out of a possible 24 points either did not compare well in terms of significance or community benefit to the highest ranked projects, or, answer concerns about the ability of the organisation to deliver the project on time and within budget and/or had ongoing viability problems.In other words, those 16 projects that were lifted out of the bottom drawer and were rorted into this program failed the department's criteria on things as fundamental as viability. Surprisingly enough, they were all in your seats—and you wonder why people ask questions.But what we have seen now is that a government source has stated that Alston and Hill knew these 16 projects were weak at the time they were funded and that their allocation was electorally motivated to shore up threatened government seats where One Nation was strong and in Tasmania where the Liberals were about to be annihilated. And did it do them any good? We have had Senator Calvert already today and it seems we have Senator Watson coming up next. Did this blatant rorting and pork-barrelling do them any good? No, it did not. They do not hold a single lower house seat in Tasmania and they barely hold their Senate seats. That is what has happened. (Time expired)15:30:009354Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—This is an unusual debate today—unusual for three reasons. Firstly, quite a long time has expired since the election when this would have essentially been a hot topic. That is the first reason. One must ask the motivation for raising such an issue at this time.Secondly, the issue has been canvassed perhaps more than most issues in this Senate. We have had motions to take note. This is a re-run. It is a repetition. The opposition has dropped a number of items because they were found to be blatantly wrong, blatantly incorrect. I was quite interested in Senator Carr's contribution. It was a very different contribution today than the one he gave last time. Thankfully, Senator Carr has mended his ways and, obviously corrected, recognised that some of the matters he raised previously were quite incorrect. I think that is perhaps one of the pleasing aspects of this debate.The third reason I think the debate is most unusual is that it is taking place although this matter has been referred to the Auditor-General, who is currently conducting a preliminary investigation. The Auditor-General has not yet released his report. So the timing is certainly premature. If anything, I suppose it would be somewhat offensive to an Auditor-General to be raising and debating issues when the matters are under his investigation at the present time.So I have given you three reasons why I think it is inappropriate and out of date to be discussing this particular issue. I think it is very difficult to debate an issue when you are talking about issues—in terms of point scoring, et cetera—that we are unfamiliar with. I ask the Labor Party senators, particularly those from Tasmania, to challenge the amount of money that was given to the electorate of Denison—a Labor electorate, for which Mr Kerr is the member and holds that seat by a very substantial majority. Does he want that money withdrawn? Does he not want that to proceed?We have the case of Dick Adams who received funding for the majority of the projects in Tasmania—again, a Labor held electorate. I do not hear Dick Adams raising cries of angst and concern about this. I would ask Michelle O'Byrne whether she wants the money withdrawn from the School of Fine Furniture, which was a very strong project. Ask her whether she wishes that or whether it does not have her approval.We heard that most of the projects had not been proceeded with. The Devonport mayor said that the progress on the city's courthouse and town hall was also on track—again, refuting an allegation that these projects had not started. She said:We're delighted to get the grant whether it was politically motivated or not.Obviously she was not too worried. She said:It shows that the government . . . needs to be aware of and support regional Australia.That is the important thing. That is what most of these things are about. For example, in Devonport—and Devonport is on the edge of Lyons, which is a Labor electorate—the town hall will be expanded to include an exhibition centre, convention area and a small theatre. Construction is expected in March, and once the plans are completed there will be consultation with user groups. The 16 projects will make a very significant contribution to Australia's cultural heritage.I repeat the assertion: I defy any person in the ALP to argue that these projects are not deserving of our support. If you go through them one by one, as I have just done, you will find that nobody will raise a concern. Would you argue against the restoration of the Great Synagogue Tower in Sydney, the restoration of one of our important historic ships, the Polly Woodside in Melbourne, the development of a museum to honour the contribution of Sir John Quick in Bendigo, the restoration of the naval stores in Brisbane—one of the city's most important heritage buildings—or the support of Balgo Hill's cultural centre in the Kimberleys? And the list goes on and on. Basically, these are all worthy projects. Really, this is nitpicking. It is a storm in a teacup, and the matter does not even warrant debate again in this Senate.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.935510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:93551428U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.We the undersigned respectfully call upon the Federal Government to phase out aerial spraying in accordance with recommendation 39 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 142 citizens)Petition received.Notices93559355Senator Gibson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to meet during the sitting of the Senate on 14 October 1999, from 3.30 pm, to allow officers of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to provide a briefing on a matter relating to the authority's operations.Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 13 October 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that the commercial branch of the University of Melbourne, Melbourne University Private, conducts a strategic studies course for military officers, which includes members of the Indonesian military as students;(b) supports student protests held in the week beginning 3 October 1999 against these links between the University of Melbourne and the Indonesian military;(c) notes, with concern, the reduced accountability of private tertiary education institutions established to serve a profit, rather than a public education, motive; and(d) urges the Government to investigate more stringent regulation of private tertiary institutions in light of this incident.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the University of Melbourne Law Faculty has announced it will commence teaching the Melbourne Juris Doctor in January 2000, a full-time, 2-year law degree, (ii) this new degree is being marketed as an `upmarket' course for graduates and will cost participating students $72 000, and (iii) according to promotional material for the course, it will provide a `top learning environment' in `its own dedicated teaching facilities', with `the best teachers the field can offer; access to leaders in law, business and government; unparalleled opportunities for networking', available to only 48 students;(b) expresses its deep concern that: (i) Higher Education Contribution Scheme-liable students enrolled in law, paying an average $22 728 for their law degrees, will not have access to these teaching, networking and study facilities, and (ii) this course represents the continuation of a trend, sanctioned by this Government, restricting access to high-quality further education to those with a capacity to pay, and denying education opportunities to students and potential students unable to afford such exorbitant fees; and(c) calls on the Government to abandon its support for upfront fee-liable courses, which restrict education to the rich and further disadvantage students and graduates from low socio-economic backgrounds from pursuing higher education.Senator Greig to move, on the next day of sitting:That paragraph 6 of the resolution of the Senate relating to senators' interests be amended as follows:Omit the paragraph, substitute:6 Interpretation(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 5 of this resolution `spouse' includes partner.(2) `Partner' means a person who is living with another person as the partner of that other person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person and includes opposite- and same-sex couples.935615:36:009356Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Coonan and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw 6 disallowance motions, the full terms of which have been circulated in the chamber and I now hand to the Clerk.The list read as follows—Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No.1 standing in Senator Coonan's name for two sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.97 and made under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 .Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No.2 standing in Senator Coonan's name for two sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.98 and made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 .Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No.3 standing in Senator Coonan's name for two sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No.1), made under subregulation 5(1) of the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991 .Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No.4 standing in Senator Coonan's name for two sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.101 and made under the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 .Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No.5 standing in Senator Coonan's name for ten sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.130 and made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 .Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No.6 standing in Senator Coonan's name for ten sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Health Insurance Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.157 and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973 .5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning these instruments.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), Statutory Rules 1999 No.9712 August 1999The Hon Michael Wooldridge MPMinister for Health and Aged CareParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), Statutory Rules 1999 No.97, which prescribe fees for various licences under the enabling legislation and make some minor amendments to the Principal Regulations.Neither the Statutory Rules, nor the Explanatory Statement, indicate the basis on which the fees have been set. The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice as to whether that basis is cost recovery, or whether there is some other reason for the particular levels of fees established.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator H. CoonanChairStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 12 August 1999 concerning the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (ARPANS) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) Statutory Rules 1999 No. 97 .These Regulations establish the application fees for Commonwealth entities applying to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) for licences under the ARPANS Act (No. 133, 1998) to use nuclear and radiation facilities and sources.In response to the Committee's query regarding the basis on which the fees have been set, I am able to provide the following information.The fees described in the ARPANS Amendment Regulations have been set on the basis of recovery of the costs of regulation. The Government decision to establish ARPANSA required that:. the current funding levels for the former Australian Radiation Laboratory (ARL) and Nuclear Safety Bureau (NSB) form the base funding for the new Agency; and. ARPANSA establish `user pays' initiatives as soon as possible to ensure that the costs associated with implementing ARPANSA's new regulatory responsibilities are borne by the Commonwealth entitles subject to the regulatory controls.As well as the normal appropriations for the ARL and NSB, the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources provided some additional `start up' funding. The amount of this `start up' funding available in 1999-2000 has been discounted from the level of fees which would otherwise have applied in that year.In order to identify the necessary level of fees to enable ARPANSA to cost recover in relation to the new regulatory functions, ARPANSA contracted the independent firm of consultants, Ernst and Young. Ernst and Young employed an Activity Based Costing (ABC) methodology to:. measure the cost of activities, products and services previously undertaken or provided by the ARL and NSB;. cost all of the additional regulatory activities of ARPANSA; and. advise on options for cost recovery and for a pricing structure for licence fees.A schedule of fees for the various installations and sources was developed by ARPANSA following consideration of the Ernest and Young report. In setting the application fees, account was taken of the likely work involved by ARPANSA in assessing the applications (this in turn follows from the hazard of the facility or source) in order that the fees be proportionate to the cost of regulation. A number of other factors were reviewed for comparative purposes, including the level of fees charged under comparable State and Territory regulatory arrangements. It was noted that at the time, there was uncertainty about the numbers of sources that might be involved in some agencies. Consequently, in order to avoid an unreasonable total cost for a regulated entity holding large numbers of similar sources (that is, unreasonable compared with the cost of regulation), some of the fees have a total cap for an organisation.A draft schedule of fees was circulated to all Commonwealth agencies to be regulated under the ARPANS Act and following extensive consultation with those agencies, the ARPANS Amendment Regulations were prepared.In order to ensure maximum transparency and accountability in relation to the arrangements for cost recovery, ARPANSA will be implementing an ABC-based cost recovery system to ensure proper recording of the resources devoted to particular clients and to assist in the setting of licence charges for future years. A full account of expenditure in relation to regulation of Commonwealth agencies will be reported by the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA in quarterly and annual reports to Parliament. Further, annual auditing will occur in fulfilment of the Agency's obligations under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1998 .If the Committee has any further queries or wishes to clarify any matters raised in this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Yours sincerely(Sgd) Dr Michael Wooldridge20 SEP 1999Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.2), Statutory Rules 1999 No.98Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), Statutory Rules 1999 No.13012 August 1999The Hon Warren Truss MPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (Nos.2 and 3), Statutory Rules 1999 Nos.98 and 130.Statutory Rules 1999 No.98These Statutory Rules amend the Principal Regulations in two ways, both of which relate to returns made by the holders of fisher receiver permits. One of these changes inserts a new paragraph 10B(3)(d) which requires returns to be received by AFMA within 10 days after the day when the fish are received by the permit holder. The Explanatory Statement advises that previously the return referred to in that paragraph had to be posted to AFMA but that the requirement to post created evidential problems. The Statement does not, however, provide information on what these problems were.The Committee notes that the new paragraph merely requires the return to be received by the Authority. Thus it would appear that persons required to send the relevant return may not know for some time whether they have complied with the provision, as they will not know whether the return has been received unless and until the Authority advises them of that fact.The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice on what evidential problems were created by the former requirement to post returns to the Authority.Statutory Rules 1999 No.130These Statutory Rules amend the Principal Regulations in relation to the Christmas Island Fishery, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Fishery and the Macquarie Island Fishery.One purpose of these Statutory Rules is to set an application fee for entry to the Macquarie Island Fishery. That fee, of $5350, is described in the Explanatory Statement as being `significantly higher than the usual fee' for such an application. The explanation given for this higher fee is merely `the process involved', but the higher fee is also justified on the basis of the costs that the AFMA will incur in that process. There is, however, no indication, in the Explanatory Statement, of the degree to which this fee is higher than others, nor is there any indication of the nature of the process involved in considering applications. The Committee would appreciate your advice on these matters.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator Helen CoonanChair Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear HelenThank you for your letter of 12 August 1999 seeking clarification on aspects of Fisheries Management Regulation 1999 (Nos. 2 and 3), Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 98 and 130. Your letter raised a number of specific issues on which I have sought advice from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) in preparing this response.Statutory Rules 1999 No. 98AFMA advised that its approach reflected advice from the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that under existing Regulations, AFMA would not have been able to effectively rebut the presumption that the return had been posted. For this reason, the Regulation was amended to require that the return be received by AFMA within ten days of fish being received.AFMA does not routinely contact fish receivers when returns are due as there are a large number of fish receiver permit holders, and a large number of returns are received. Moreover, returns are due at a time relative to fish being received, which can not be predicted.However, AFMA now has implemented an administrative system in which twice-monthly checks of computer records pick up the non-receipt of returns. Once this occurs, a letter is sent advising that a return has not been received and requesting that it be forwarded to AFMA within 14 days. A self-addressed envelope is provided. If this deadline is not met, another letter is sent requesting that the return be made within a further seven days.The majority of returns are received by AFMA on time or after the first letter is sent. When a return has not been received after the second letter, remedial action is considered which may include the issue of a $200 infringement notice or prosecution action. Where a fish receiver comes to AFMA's attention, they can then be monitored on an individual basis to ensure that future returns are received by AFMA within the time limits set by the Regulations.The requirement that returns be received by AFMA within ten days of fish being received is part of the regulatory scheme designed to ensure that AFMA receives accurate and timely returns about the taking and disposal of fish. Compliance with this requirement is especially important in fisheries managed by AFMA in which total allowable catches are set and operators are only entitled to take limited amounts of certain fish species (known as a quota management system). There is a concern that if returns are not received by AFMA within a short time after fish are received, it may be possible for returns to be falsified to remove information about catch that has been sold on illegal markets, or for other reasons not accounted for.Statutory Rules 1999 No. 130The Macquarie Island Fishery permit application fee of $5,350 was many times higher than the usual managed fishery permit application fee, which is $170. However, the fee was set in the same way as the lower fee. That is, by applying the government's cost recovery policy to recover costs associated with processing applications.In most fisheries managed by AFMA, there are more than a hundred operators. In fisheries where applications for fishing permits are made upon expiry of an existing permit, the costs associated with processing applications are not high, often involving little more than the licensing staff time necessary to generate and send a new permit to the applicant.However, as noted in the Explanatory Statement, access to the Macquarie Island Fishery has been restricted to a single fishing permit holder in light of the sensitivity of the Macquarie Island environment. A detailed policy was developed by AFMA for the Fishery, which provided for a competitive selection process involving evaluation by an expert panel to determine the successful applicant. I am advised by AFMA that this selection has now taken place. This approach was taken in recognition of the high potential economic value of the Macquarie Island Fishery, the high level of interest expressed by the fishing industry, and the remoteness of the fishery (which requires multi-million dollar investment by the successful applicant).The evaluation panel established to make recommendations concerning the granting of the available permit was highly specialised, some of the members being experts in their field and not AFMA staff. A consultant was employed to support the panel. Naturally there were expenses, such as transport and similar costs, associated with acquiring the services of the panel members and a consultant. A number of AFMA staff members also provided support services to the panel.The application fee was calculated by estimating these costs and, on the basis of experience in other similar processes, estimating the number of applicants likely to be received. I am advised that AFMA received fewer applications than anticipated and the process has in fact cost AFMA more than was recovered via application fees. I trust that this information clarifies the situation for the Standing committee.Yours sincerely(Sgd) Warren Truss21 SEP 1999Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No.1)12 August 1999The Hon Bruce Scott MPMinister for Veterans' AffairsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No.1) made under subsection 5(1) of the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991 , which amends the Military Superannuation and Benefits Rules in the light of legislation imposing a superannuation contributions tax.The Committee notes that by virtue of item 20 of the Schedule to this instrument, the Military Superannuation and Benefits Board is given a discretion in determining whether to reduce part of the benefit payable to a member, and, if a reduction is to be made, the amount thereof. However, from the explanation given in the Explanatory Statement, it appears that the reduction should be made in any case, in order to ensure the payment of the surcharge deduction amount. The Committee would appreciate your clarification of the effect of this provision.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator Helen CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 12 August 1999 concerning Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No. 1).As noted in the Explanatory Statement to the instrument, Military Superannuation and Benefits Trust Deed (Amendment) (No. 2 of 1998) amended the Military Superannuation and Benefits Rules to allow for the adjustment of the employer benefit due to the Superannuation Contributions Tax (`the surcharge debt'). The amendments made by the Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No. 1) allow members to have greater flexibility in discharging their debt by allowing the members to elect which component of their benefit is to be adjusted. Item 20 forms part of the 1999 amendment.Item 20 of the Schedule to the instrument amends subrule 51(1B) which deals with the payment of preserved benefits under circumstances where:. the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority determines that the person [seeking a payment of his or her preserved benefit] satisfies a condition of release on a compassionate ground under subregulation 6.19A(2) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 ; or. the Board is satisfied that the person is in severe financial hardship within the meaning of subregulation 6.01(5) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 .The amount of the payment allowed by subrule 51(1B) is limited to the amount needed to meet the expenses that gave rise to the request on compassionate grounds or that are necessary to alleviate financial hardship.It is important to note, however, that before any payment of preserved benefits is made to the person, consideration must be given to any debit that remains in the person's surcharge debt account. Under Part 10, the member (including a person with a preserved benefit) is required to discharge the debt when a benefit becomes payable. The member is able to elect how the debt is discharged and in the event no election is made, subrule 80(2) specifies how the debt is discharged. If the member wishes to receive the total benefit, it would be possible for the member to discharge the debt by a cash payment before the benefit is actually paid.In the case of a preserved benefit, where the person is able to access part of that benefit (whether or not an election is being made under Part 10), sufficient of the preserved benefit must be retained to allow the surcharge debt to be discharged. If the Board considers that there would be insufficient benefit remaining, then the part of the benefit that is to be paid under sub rule 51(1A) has to be reduced.Subrule 51(1B) provides the Board with a discretion to reduce the part benefit that is payable and it is necessary that it be a discretion rather than a requirement that the part benefit be reduced. This is because the Board exercises the discretion subsequent to decisions made by the person who is to receive the benefit. That person may discharge the debt by a cash payment, or by making an election under Part 10 of the Rules, or by neither making a cash payment nor an election and thus having subrule 80(2) apply.It is only where subrule 80(2) applies, that the Board would exercise its discretion in respect of both the reduction of the benefit that is payable and the amount thereof. The exercise of the discretion in this situation would ensure that there was sufficient benefit remaining to discharge the surcharge debt.Yours sincerely(sgd) Bruce Scott MP28 Sept 1999Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), Statutory Rules 1999 No.10112 August 1999The Hon Peter Reith MPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small BusinessParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), Statutory Rules 1999 No.101, which replace existing provisions relating to the time within which certain accidents and occurrences must be notified and reported.New subregulation 12(2) and 13(2) of the Principal Regulations impose an apparently strict obligation on an operator to give notice of, and to report, an incident, and then, in subregulation 12(3) and 13(3), grant to the operator grounds of exculpation from that strict liability. However, the Explanatory Statement gives no reason for this imposition of strict liaiblity, nor for what is, in effect, a reversal of the onus of proof, in that it is for the operator to establish the grounds of exculpation.New subregulation 12(2) and 13(2) also reduce the time within which the operator must give notice of, and report, a non-fatal incident from 24 hours to four hours and from 28 days to 72 hours, respectively. The only reason given by the Explanatory Statement is that the new time limits `provide some consistency' with those limits imposed under unspecified Marine Orders. In this instance, however, consistency might have been attained by an amendment to the Marine Orders themselves rather than to these Regulations.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator Helen CoonanChairStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 12 August 1999 concerning the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1), Statutory Rules 1999 No. 101 (the Amendment Regulations), which were gazetted on 17 June 1999.The Navigation Act 1912 is the primary Commonwealth law governing ship safety and ship-sourced pollution. It implements a range of international obligations aimed at preventing loss of life and property and environmental damage. The Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 complements the Navigation Act by providing safety protection for maritime personnel on specified vessels. Both Acts provide for reporting of maritime accidents and dangerous occurrences, and implement reporting obligations through delegated legislation (Marine Orders Parts 31 and 32 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Regulations 1995 respectively).In 1998, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) reviewed its reporting requirements and advised the Government of scope to rationalise the number of forms required in the event of a reportable incident. As instruments under both Acts require reporting of many of the same maritime incidents, there was an unnecessary regulatory burden upon business arising from duplication. The decision to remove this burden was entirely consistent with Government policy. It resulted in the consolidation of six separate reporting forms, but required the introduction of synchronised time limits.Maritime incidents can impose enormous costs in terms of loss of life and property and environmental damage. They often occur in remote locations with limited resources, so that timeliness of notification is critical to ensuring an effective safety response. On this basis, AMSA recommended that the time limits for notifying and reporting incidents be amended.I believe that this decision is justifiable, particularly where an incident involves a foreign ship that is about to leave Australian jurisdiction.Moreover, while the new time limits might appear stricter, they are generally more efficacious for operators. As the reports are mostly furnished by ships' masters, it is easier and more effective for these officers to provide details close to the time of the incident, rather than some weeks afterwards when they may be off duty or on board another vessel. The new time limits were discussed and agreed with industry before the Amendment Regulations were drafted.I should note that the new time limits are also more effectual for AMSA, which has advised that the previous time limits generated poor and incomplete responses and late returns. Under earlier time limits, reports were often lodged after the employees involved had left the ship, making it difficult for that organisation to respond to maritime incidents in a timely and effective manner.In relation to your comments about the requirement for the operator to establish the grounds for exculpation under subregulations 12(3) and 13(3), I do not agree that there has been a reversal of the `onus of proof'. The Amendment Regulations have the same effect as the earlier regulations in that the operator must report within the prescribed time limit or as soon as reasonable practicable after the incident. The penalty for failing to report has remained. Linking the penalty provisions to the requirement to report the incident within a specified time does not affect an operator's capacity to argue that it was not reasonably practicable to furnish notice of, or report, an incident within the prescribed timeframe. There is no change in policy or in practice in this amendment.Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I trust that the above information addresses the Committee's concerns.Yours sincerely(Sgd) Peter Reith23 Sept 1999Health Insurance Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), Statutory Rules 1999 No.15730 August 1999Cttee/104/99The Hon Michael Wooldridge MPMinister for Health and Aged CareParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Health Insurance Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), Statutory Rules 1999 No.157, which clarify provisions of the Principal Regulations.Items 1 to 5 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations make machinery amendments to ensure that the references to items in the Health Insurance Regulations correctly refer to items in the General Medical Services Table and the Diagnostic Imaging Services Table. The Explanatory Statement advises that this is to `reflect recent changes to the tables where new items have been added and superfluous items have been removed from the tables'. The Committee would appreciate your assurance that the incorrect referencing between the item numbers, which appeared in the Regulations and those appearing in the Tables, did not result in any disadvantage to members of the public.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator H. CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 30 August 1999 concerning Health Insurance Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 3) Statutory Rules No. 157 of 1999.I appreciate the Committee's concern, and I would like to assure you that the amendments made by Statutory Rules No. 157 of 1999 did not disadvantage members of the public.The Health Insurance Regulations, amongst other things, set out administrative requirements in relation to claims for Medicare benefits for services listed in the General Medical Services Table, the Diagnostic Imaging Services Table and the Pathology Services Table.In doing so, the Regulations make reference to specific groups of items where there are particular requirements for those services. For example, the details to be recorded on accounts, receipts and bulk-billing agreements or the diagnostic imaging services that dental practitioners may request.As those groups of items in those tables are reviewed to include new services (or rearranged to reflect appropriate medical practice), the range of item numbers changes. These changes are then reflected in the Health Insurance Regulations.The recent amendments to the Health Insurance Regulations should have been made at the same time that changes to items in the General Medical Services Table and the Diagnostic Imaging Table were made through amendments to the respective regulations. However, no consumer was denied a Medicare benefit as a result.I trust this information addresses your concerns. Thank you for taking the time to write on this issue.With kind regards,Yours sincerely(Sgd) Dr Michael Wooldridge24 Sept 1999 9362Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 22 November 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 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 12 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 311 standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, relating to the Victorian state election, postponed till 18 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 312 standing in the name of Senator Cook for today, relating to the Victorian state election, postponed till 18 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 332 standing in the name of Senator Greig for today, relating to the introduction of the Genocide Convention Bill 1999, postponed till 12 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 334 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to world population, postponed till 12 October 1999.Miscellaneous9362Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that food products containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) have the potential to be a significant technology for Australia, particularly in agriculture and human health;(b) believes that the principal policy consideration should be consumer and environmental safety and that community acceptance of this new technology will depend on confidence that there is strict enforcement of national standards; and(c) urges the Government to: (i) build public confidence by the early establishment of a strong national regulatory body that is independent and scientifically-based, and whose processes are transparent, (ii) establish a meaningful labelling regime as part of Australia's national food standards to enable consumers to make an informed choice about what they are buying, (iii) establish a general community education program about the nature of biotechnology, the state of research into GMOs and the issues raised by the use of GMOs in food products, (iv) undertake continuing research on the use of genetically-modified food products so that the risks and benefits are better understood, including: (a) any health and safety risks to humans, and (b) any environmental impacts as a result of gene transfers in the wild, (v) ensure that there is a rigorous approach to the approval of research, including the establishment of trial plots of GMOs outside the laboratory, and (vi) ensure that appropriate research and development occurs in Australia to enable its food industry to remain at the forefront of international developments and ensure that Australia retains its market reputation as a reliable source of high quality and safe food.Documents93639363936310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 13 of 1999-2000—Performance Audit—Management of Major Equipment Acquisition Projects—Department of Defence.15:38:009363Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous93639363936315:39:009363Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator Gibson, I present additional information received by the Economics Legislation Committee, relating to the budget estimates hearings for 1999-2000.Bills9363r854Billsr853936315:39:009363Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator Payne, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and a related bill, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees9363936310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The President has received a letter from a party leader seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Boswell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Economics References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Murray to replace Senator Ridgeway for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation OfficeFinance and Public Administration References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Allison to replace Senator Ridgeway for the committee's inquiry into Australian Public Service employment matters.Bills9363r9139363Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Boswell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time.936415:41:009364Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—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 gives effect to a number of measures announced in the Government's 1999-2000 Budget. It also contains two non-Budget measures that will assist in the effective transition to, and operation of, the new Family Assistance arrangements as well as the Bonuses for Older Australians scheme.This bill ensures that, in determining the actual means of a family for youth allowance purposes, the concession relating to income from employment is available regardless of the type of employment. Currently, income derived from employment in a family's business or farm by the youth allowance applicant does not attract the concession. This is inequitable and fails to recognise the particular labour market disadvantage facing young people in rural and remote areas. This measure will extend the concession to include all employment, thus ensuring the concession is applied equitably.This bill also provides for new income support arrangements for adults sharing the care of a child. Under current rules, only one person can qualify for parenting payment in respect of a child. When adults share care equally, Centrelink staff must decide, often on the basis of minor distinctions, which adult will receive parenting payment. If the other adult is unemployed, they may have to claim youth allowance or newstart allowance and be subject to the normal activity test obligations. That approach fails to recognise that each adult has both caring responsibilities and a work force capacity.This measure recognises the constraints on labour force participation imposed by caring responsibilities and requires adults to participate only to the level of their capacity. Adults with over 60 per cent care of a child (or children) will be able to qualify for parenting payment. Providing other qualification criteria are met, adults sharing the care of a child within a 40 per cent to 60 per cent band will be eligible for youth allowance or newstart allowance with a modified activity test. This recognises the labour force capacity of both adults and facilitates a balance between work and caring responsibilities. This bill also simplifies the operation of the concession that exists in relation to student boarders under the Family Actual Means Test. The existing complex formula is replaced by a fixed amount of allowable spending. The amount has been set to ensure there are no losers from this initiative. The measure increases transparency for the customer, as they will know precisely what their entitlement is, and simplifies administration.The bill also extends the eligibility for Student Financial Supplement Scheme loans. The 1996 paper released by the National Board of Education, Employment and Training advised that the isolated student participation rate in tertiary education was only 57 per cent and that financial support was a key barrier to continuing education. This measure will immediately alleviate financial barriers to participation in tertiary education for rural and remote students by extending the eligibility for Student Financial Supplement Scheme loans.The bill will also facilitate the transition to, and the operation of, the new Family Assistance arrangements and the Bonuses for Older Australians scheme. As the agencies which are responsible for these new initiatives have `shared' customers, this bill provides for the agencies to lawfully share information, with the intention of ensuring the successful and smooth operation of those arrangements.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the summer sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills9364r904Billsr9039364Consideration resumed.15:42:009364Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—When we broke for question time, I was part of the way through quoting from a speech by Senator Andrew Murray, the Australian Democrats' spokesperson on economic matters. This was a speech delivered on 27 November 1996 on the subject of accountability in government. That speech goes directly to what I understand is the principle position adopted by the Australian Democrats on the transparency and accountability of government in doling out money to organisations. The fundamental principle is one that is espoused as well, and at some length, in the report of the Auditor-General—a report delivered last year which is headed `The administration of grants in the Australian Public Service'. I must correct my remarks: the report was one tabled in 1996-97, not last year.The point about all of this is that it is a fundamental principle of good government that a government that raises funds from Australian taxpayers and then pays those funds to individuals, bodies or state governments ought to be accountable to the parliament in properly paying those funds. Indeed, as we have heard, there is no record in Commonwealth statutes up to this point, as best we can ascertain, that the provision being insisted upon by the government in this bill is replicated anywhere else: a provision which, in effect, grants the government carte blanche, without accountability, to dispose of funds—and I quote from the legislation—`without any terms and conditions'. One presumes the term or condition is that it must conform with the objectives of the act. But there is no way of tracking whether it does and there is no way of providing proper accountability.This is an important point because the government has declined to support the amendment before the chair. One presumes that, because they have declined to support it, they do not therefore support the principle of due and proper accountability. That is a matter for the government. We know that the Kennett administration in Victoria abandoned the position of an independent Auditor-General but is now under force of representation from three Independents, the stake being the ability of that government to form a government at all. It has capitulated and done a backflip and it is now going to re-insert the position of Auditor-General.The principle here is the same. My purpose in quoting from the speech by the Australian Democrats economic spokesperson is to underline what I think are proper considerations in matters of this nature. This ought not be an issue that divides political parties in Australia. All political parties in this nation should be committed to the principle of proper transparency, and all governments in this nation should be able to answer questions from Australian taxpayers about how their funds have been distributed, when and if they are. The amount we are talking about here is $890 million—it is not an insubstantial amount. The government is asking us to legislatively support a provision in which there is no accountability.Let me go back to the speech of Senator Murray on 27 November 1996, from which I will quote. I admit my quotes are not of the entire speech—they are selective quotes—but I defy anyone to say that any of these quotes do not reflect accurately the tone, intention and meaning of the speech. They are not selective quotes to make a point; they are highlights from a speech on principle which makes a point about government accountability. I will pick up on this accountability in government speech. Senator Murray said:For effective scrutiny of the public sector, parliament requires unimpeded access to information on public expenditure and the operation of government programs and services, including the role of public officials.That is an important observation by Senator Murray because one of the provisions of this bill is that any minister, whether they be related to the field of the environment or not, can allocate any of this $890 million that I have referred to and can do so without terms. In addition to that, they have the power to delegate the authority to allocate these funds to a state government, to a public servant or to someone designated as a proper authority by the Auditor-General.So when Senator Murray says, `For effective scrutiny of the public sector, parliament requires unimpeded access to information on public expenditure and the operation of government programs and services, including the role of public officials'—I emphasise: `including the role of public officials'—his comments can be seen to embrace the provision in this legislation which would enable a minister to escape parliamentary scrutiny by delegating to a public official or a public servant or someone designated by the Governor-General the task of allocating this $890 million. Senator Murray's speech is indeed an important speech. I quote:It is important that the community is assured that accountability agencies such as the Auditor-General operate effectively to provide an adequate and balanced system of public sector accountability. For the public to be so assured, it is necessary for these accountability agencies to have the broadest possible jurisdiction across the public sector; sufficient powers and resources to access information and to effectively perform their designated roles; and complementary roles which provide a comprehensive framework for accountability that is understood by both the public sector and the community.Perhaps one of the points I need to emphasise is that Senator Murray comes from a different political party from mine. He is not a member of the Australian Labor Party—he is an Australian Democrat—but we are joined at the hip as far as these sentiments are concerned. These are valid sentiments. They ought to be issues that do not divide this parliament. They ought to be common ground between all parties here, but the government has declined to accept an amendment which would give this particular force and merit to the legislation that is now before us.All I can assume, given the second reading contribution that was provided to this chamber by the Democrats—a speech endorsing this legislation—is that they have not yet directed their attention in detail to the escape clause provided in this bill. I know it is repetitious, or risks being judged so, but let me go back to what this bill says. It is quite extraordinary. In all my 17 years of parliamentary life, I have not seen a provision such as this. Bear in mind that over four years we are dealing with the disbursement of public funds valued in total at $896 million. Clause 5, Grants, of the bill says:(1) An amount appropriated under this Act may be applied in making a grant of financial assistance to:(a) a State . . . It goes on. Subclause 2(b) states:without any terms and conditions.Issues of legislative principle that should unite all parties in this chamber on the principle of good governance and proper procedure, open transparency and the right of taxpayers to know are being thwarted by a provision in this bill. As I have said, the extensive quotes from the economics spokesperson from the Australian Democrats are clearly in antagonism to the principles enunciated by that political party, supported by the Australian Labor Party and, dare I say, if I had time to comb the Hansard , particularly for the period in which the now government was in opposition, supported too by many of their spokespeople at that time.What I do again is ask the minister at the conclusion of my remarks, if he would not mind, to signify the government's willingness to accept the amendment which would give effect to proper transparency and due process. It is not good enough, I contend, to simply say, `On behalf of the government, we want flexibility.' Nor is it good enough to say, `On behalf of the government, we would now like to apportion funds to provisions, developments or events that might have occurred in the past to compensate for the costs incurred, because what was done in the past was a worthy endeavour deserving financial support.' You can say all of those things, as the government has said, but you cannot say them without terms and conditions.The force of this argument is underlined even more strongly when one goes to the subclauses that refer to agreements in writing between governments at state and Commonwealth level, or between the Commonwealth and a person or the Commonwealth and a body. They are discoverable. Once you have an agreement in writing, you can say, `Here is the documentary proof as to where these funds went, for what purpose, what they were aimed at achieving, who got them, whether they disposed of them according to the basis on which they were given, and whether there is due and proper accountability.'In writing those agreements, the parties are consenting parties. There is no argument about this. The government says, `You can have these funds for this purpose. Let us write an agreement, setting it down.' And so they do. If that purpose is to fund someone for an event that happened earlier that is worthy and credible and deemed to be appropriate for this program, write the document in those terms. You do not need a blank cheque in order to cover all of these eventualities, and you should not have a blank cheque. As far as this opposition is concerned, we will deny you a blank cheque. We will deny you, and vote against, a blank cheque.If all reasonable argument on this point fails, and if the government vexatiously wishes to persist in cleaving to this position of resisting proper scrutiny, then the question arises, and it must arise irrevocably, why? What is the motive for doing this? None of the reasons given by the government thus far is credible. All of them you can drive a coach and four through. All of them can be answered by some other provision in the bill. So, given that reasonable argument counters baseless assertion, you are still left with the question, why? Why does the government want these powers to give money away without terms and conditions? Why will it not make a reasonable explanation to this chamber?I do not want to move into the somewhat seedy area of apportioning motive, but we have just had a debate here about the government applying funds to various organisations before the last election. It is something that the government will not come in from the dark about. It will not bring all the details into the cold light of day for us to see.The Federation Fund was plundered prior to the last election to buy favours in marginal seats to enable the government to believe that it had a possibility of being re-elected. While I do not know if the Federation Fund turned the election, what is clear is that the Federation Fund was apportioned not according to the merit of the project that the public might be interested in seeing, with the best cases getting up and getting approved, but rather for political purposes—not the best cases, but the best cases for government political influences in the most marginal seats which, if you win, you form government and which, if you lose, you form opposition.We are left with this bitter aftertaste. We have most reasonable argument based on good governance, with no history of this provision ever being found in Commonwealth statutes up until this point, and with the Auditor-General laying down in a seminal work what the role of organisations should be and what accountability those organisations should have. It is a principle argument which we support and which was enunciated by the Australian Democrats. If all that reasonable argument is overturned and refused, or met with silence—let us get on with the vote and defeat you, rather than argue the point and ascertain virtue or not—then we come to the question of motive. The only conclusion reasonable people can come to on motive in those circumstances is that it is base. That is the only conclusion you can come to. It is unfortunate that the Democrats are not in the chamber to speak for themselves in this debate, because we may be coming to a vote on this issue shortly. (Time expired)15:57:009367Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will just refer to a matter which was referred to earlier and that was the question of whether there is any precedent for grants being made or given where there was no requirement for any terms and conditions. I refer to section 20A of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, which states that `the minister may grant financial assistance to an institution under subsection (1) on such conditions (if any) as the minister determines'. That clearly means the minister has an option of whether or not to require conditions. This act was passed in 1988 when the previous government, of which Senator Cook was a minister, was in office. Also, section 52(1) of the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988 states:The Minister may grant financial assistance to a person, body or institution or to a State for the purpose of enabling the grantee to carry out an innovative or curriculum project approved by the Minister under section 51.It them goes on in paragraph (c) to state that, where the minister makes a grant under this section, the minister shall:specify the terms and conditions (if any) subject to which the grant is made.There is also the Commonwealth Bank Act 1959 which has similar wording in relation to the Treasurer—that is, section 85A—where a specified amount could be paid to the Development Bank. The section states, `The terms and conditions (if any) to which the grant is subject.' There is also the New South Wales Grant (Leeton Cooperative Cannery Limited) Act 1971, which again talks about payment of amounts under the act which will be subject to conditions, if any, as the minister by instrument in writing determines.What we have there are four solid precedents where grants may be subject to a condition, if any. `If any', of course, means if you choose whether to subject those grants to a condition. `A condition' is somewhat similar to `a term'. The fact that the word `term' is not used would not be of any moment in relation to that.The government is very firmly of the view that there are precedents which occurred in the time of the previous government and which related to grants being made with or without conditions—precisely what is being contemplated here. Senator Cook need only look to the prior government, of which he was a minister, to see some precedents for which he is attacking us today.I might just add, while I am on my feet, a comment regarding the Natural Heritage Trust that Senator Cook has been bringing into the argument. It does not have any relevance but, as he has brought it into the argument, I might point out that before the last election the coalition held 62 per cent of Commonwealth electorates and coalition seats received 69 per cent of the funds; the opposition held 33 per cent of electorates and projects in those seats received 26 per cent of the funds; and Independent members held five per cent of electorates and they received five per cent of the funds. That is not an imbalance; it is not a distortion of funding to anywhere near the extent that Senator Cook is making out. In fact, the funding related in approximate terms to the percentage of seats that were held by both the coalition and the government. So there is no rorting at all in relation to the allocation of funds—it was quite reasonable.On that basis, both arguments by Senator Cook fall to the ground, and fall to the ground heavily, because there was no distortion of funding in relation to that program. There are precedents which occurred during the government of which he was a member for allocating funding with or without conditions. I think that the Senate needs to know that when it reflects on the arguments put forward by Senate Cook on, in particular, this amendment.16:03:009368Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—It is a very interesting argument that has just now been put. I acknowledge the minister for moving beyond his earlier position of not putting an argument to now accepting the need to do so and to having done so.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—I took it on notice.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I accept the interjection that he just gave, that he took it on notice. That refers only to that part of his answer to which I responded earlier, based on advice I have been given by the Clerk of this chamber—and I qualified that because I do not know that he had sufficient time to go through every statute—which was, inter alia, that there was no precedent for this type of provision in statutes of the Commonwealth. Given that the government has taken it on notice and some hours have elapsed since it did and the minister is now able to come back to the chamber and say that, out of all the acts of parliament since Federation in 1901, hey presto, three statutes contain a provision similar to the one we are talking about but not exactly the same—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Not the same.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Not exactly the same. That is right, Senator Sherry—not exactly the same. He holds up four fingers and mouths the word `four'. I will amend my statement from three to four. Halleluiah: since Federation in 1901, of all the acts performed by this parliament, four contain this provision!9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Two in your government.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I accept that interjection: two in the period of my government—which is to say the Labor government—from 1983 to 1996. I will come to that in a moment. He took the trouble to refer to those provision in some detail and therefore it behoves me to reply to a reasonable argument in some detail, too. He took the trouble to tell us what the nature of those provisions was. The nature of all those provisions, from what he has read, is `prospectively'. The nature of those provisions is that they fall within acts with particular type purposes for which there is an element of ministerial discretion in the apportionment of funds. From my knowledge—but I may stand corrected on this—none of those acts have anything like $896 million to be allocated by ministerial discretion or by nominated persons within the bureaucracy. None of them provide for it to be done retrospectively, either. The nature of what he is talking about is not strictly analogous to the nature of what I am talking about, but nonetheless he has made that point.The second point that he makes—and he does so with considerable, may I say, smug justification—is that two of these acts were during the period of a Labor administration. I am not someone who believes that everything that the Labor government did between 1983 and 1996 was right. I am not someone who says that it must be defended to the court no matter what. I am one of those people who believes that governments are made up of people and people are fallible and sometimes make mistakes. I would have taken the same view about that legislation then that I take now. I do not think there is any justification for those governments—one of which I was for a time a minister in—in providing funds, if it were strictly analogous to the case we are looking at now, in a circumstance in which there cannot be the parliamentary scrutiny that is necessary or, indeed, the scrutiny of the Auditor-General that is necessary to ensure proper and fair governance. While admitting that they are not analogous, if they were held to be analogous I would not defend them anyway. I do not defend a bill or an act in 1959 as being typical of the circumstances.Thirdly, I go on to Audit Report No. 32 1996-97, a report that came down after the events which the minister has described but, directly to the point at issue, a report dealing with the administration of grants in the Australian Public Service in which the dicta as to how that administration should be performed is laid down. If after having this dicta clearly set out a Labor government or any other government then contravened it, it deserves censure. This dicta is now set out clearly before this chamber and this government wishes to contravene it. That is why we say there ought to be an amendment to this bill.Once again, it would be useful to this debate if the Australian Democrats were present in the chamber, but they are not. Since their economic spokesperson has enunciated principles consistent with what I am arguing as the case based on fact—there is no sense of doubt about this, there is no need for me to describe it as an allegation; it is a basis of fact—one has to make the assumption that, as their raison d'etre is `To keep the bastards honest', they will try to keep the government honest about questions of transparency and proper disclosure of the expenditure of public funds. If they do not, then that is a matter for them to answer, but that is where they stand on the record. That is where we stand on the record in this particular case.The other thing I need to reply to is the question of the Federation Fund. All I can say about that is `Well done, Minister, in actually adducing for the public record what the figures were in the disbursement of that fund to the coalition held seats, Labor held sets and Independent held seats.' Unfortunately, I did not take down the figures when you read them out, but what is striking about those figures is that there is an imbalance in them which favours the government. Most of those funds were given to government seats and beyond the proportion of seats held by the government in this chamber. You might want to argue that it was not such a big proportion, but there was an unmistakable bias which did not aid the opposition; it aided the government. But what is the fact that you admitted? In an argument, it is always important to know what was said. Equally, it is often more important to know what was not said. What was not said here is that it was done on the eve of an election, unquestionably to favour the government in marginal seats as a part of pork-barrelling. I mention that because you raised the issue.I come back to the basic proposition. Since you have not yet said that the government will support an amendment which does no violence to this bill—it makes it an honest bill with proper and due accountability—but have continued to argue against the proposition that there ought to be a window of accountability here, which is what my amendment does, if you oppose that, please say so and we will know where you stand. Rather than fence around the case arguing this point and that point, some minor detail, providing answers to questions we asked 10 days ago, answer the point: will you or will you not support an amendment aimed at giving due and proper transparency to this legislation so that taxpayers can know, when there is $896 million of taxpayers' money at stake, where that goes?16:11:009370Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The point I raised earlier related to an earlier question on notice: the precedent for having a grant made with or without conditions. That was raised this morning in relation to Senator Cook's amendment; it was not from 10 days ago. Normally, estimates committees would be dealing with the type of subject matter that we are dealing with here today but, because of the circumstances in relation to the bill, we now have a committee which is sitting much as an estimates committee. Therefore, it is necessary and I think quite proper for me to come back with answers to questions which I took on notice. I hope Senator Cook is not taking exception to that.I am going to give some more detail in relation to another question I took on notice earlier concerning the cost per kilometre of an alternative fuelled vehicle versus a diesel fuelled vehicle. I am advised that, under the new tax system for vehicles eligible for grants under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme, diesel will cost around 49c a litre, whereas CNG will cost around 24c a litre and LPG will cost around 20c a litre. There is some dependency on the market prices of those fuels and on the precise level of the grants to be paid under the scheme I mentioned, but that is what the government anticipates in relation to those cost structures.In summary, CNG will be some 25c a litre cheaper than diesel and LPG will be some 29c a litre cheaper than diesel. The govern ment is allowing for the fact that gaseous fuel vehicles may use up to 15 per cent more fuel than diesel fuelled vehicles per kilometre. You might get 15 per cent less mileage, so to speak, out of gas than you would out of diesel. Even taking that into account, it still does not offset the cheaper price for the gaseous fuel that you would be using as a result of the scheme that I mentioned. So the government is saying that the cost factor will not be a deterrent to the uptake of people in industry or privately who want to convert to gas. The government rejects Senator Cook's argument in relation to the uptake and the government's lack of consideration of these matters when it looked at this program.In relation to the Federation Fund—and I only raise it because Senator Cook has raised it—there were some 60 projects supported by the Federation Fund through that program. To give you an idea, some of them were: the restoration of the Great Synagogue tower in Sydney; the restoration of one of our most important historic ships, the Polly Woodside, in Melbourne; the development of a museum to honour the contribution of Sir John Quick in Bendigo; the restoration of the naval stores in Brisbane, one of that city's most important heritage buildings; and support for the Balgo Hills cultural centre in the Kimberleys, which will promote the efforts of some of our best indigenous artists.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How many points did they get?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I hear Senator Conroy interjecting. I dare say he does not think much of indigenous art, but all of these projects are very good projects. Another is the restoration of Townsend House in Adelaide, one of Australia's first schools for the deaf and blind. Sometimes you cannot quantify these in points, as Senator Conroy would like to, or in dollars and cents. It is a federal cultural and heritage project. I suppose that you would like to do much as a bean counter would and say, `Well, that one is worth so much as opposed to the other.' Ask the people in Brisbane what they think about the restoration of the naval stores. Ask the Jewish community how many points they would place on the restoration of the Great Syna gogue tower in Sydney. It is an absolute sham. What the opposition is making out is an absolute sham on their part. They are trying to politicise something which was making a great cultural and heritage contribution to this country's character. Senator Cook raised that in relation to this debate and tries to in some way say that reducing greenhouse gas is in some way linked to the Federation Fund. I fail to see it myself.We have already dealt with accountability and scrutiny and the fact that there are precedents for the wording of the relevant clause that Senator Cook takes objection to. The government opposes Senator Cook's proposed amendment. It does so on the basis that it will take away the flexibility that will help make this scheme work. That is what we are about—making this program work for the benefit of all Australians.Can I point to another fact? I understand Senator Cook is moving an amendment to both bills, Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 . We have mainly been debating the greenhouse provisions. But in relation to the bookseller who gives a discount with a view to claiming this back from the Commonwealth, it needs to be pointed out that, if you had made grants available on terms and conditions, you could well exclude the Commonwealth being able to make payments in relation to this situation, without requiring artificial future acts. For instance, there may be situations where a bookseller gives a discount and that is dependent on the circumstances. If a grant is made for that purpose—that is, to alleviate the bookseller's situation—those terms and conditions might be so prescriptive as to exclude the bookseller from making a subsequent claim. I am not saying that is going to happen in every instance. It is envisaged it will not. But we do need the flexibility to meet any of those circumstances that arise. They could be quite unique, quite germane and discrete to that particular bookseller. But we as a government have to have a system where that grant can be made and that flexibility should flow. It is not just for the greenhouse program. We also need this flexibility for the booksellers that we are trying to help.16:18:009371Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I thank the minister for that. But we are now getting into an almost circular argument. Let me deal with some of those points that he has put. They need to be answered. He has taken the trouble to put them. That is fair enough. They deserve an answer. That is also fair enough. Firstly, let me go back to the so-called precedents. When I replied to that point earlier, I said that the situations that the minister was referring to in the legislation he identified—four statutes since 1901—were not analogous to this circumstance. I contend that point and press it further. They are not analogous to this circumstance.When we sought information about an open-ended provision like clause 5, subclause (2)(b)—`without any terms and conditions'—the search done was to see whether there is any legislation that prescribes exactly that: `without any terms and conditions'. My advice is that there is not. So the analogy does not stand. To strengthen that point further, we go to the issue of one of those acts that he referred to—a university act, which goes only to universities. I remind the minister that here the funding of $896 million goes to either a state or a person—that is, an individual—or a body, which is a group of people, or an organisation. Anyone qualifies that meets any of the foregoing definitions. It is not as tightly regulated as if it were to be a university in that sense.Let me go to the second argument he puts. As this bill provides a conversion from diesel to gas, I asked the question and made the assertion earlier that the cost of running a bus or a truck on gas is greater than the cost of running the same vehicle on diesel. The minister has produced costs per litre of diesel and of the two relevant gas fuels. On that comparison, there is a money advantage to the gas. But that is not the correct comparison. The cost of purchasing a litre of fuel, which is to say a litre of energy, relates to the calorific value of that litre of energy—that is, the stored energy in that litre. The minister did admit in his answer—and I give him marks for being honest on this point—that the energy stored in a litre of gas is far less than the energy stored in a litre of diesel. The point is how far you can drive your vehicle on that one litre. This is the basis on which you compare the cost when you look at what the real operating cost is of gas versus diesel.I assert again that the cost of running a bus or a truck on diesel compared to the cost of running the same vehicle on compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas advantages diesel rather than advantaging gas. If I were guilty of not defining my question tightly enough in order to evoke the answer I have, let me now define it tightly. Minister, given the calorific values of the various fuels, can you provide the chamber with the cost of driving a truck falling within these definitions and a bus falling within these definitions for a set distance using one fuel or the other—that is to say, an apples to apples comparison? My advice—which comes to me from a considered and authoritative source—strongly argues that operationally, whether you are a bus company or the owner of a truck fleet or just one truck, you save money if you use diesel as opposed to gas because of the value of energy output from the various fuel components.If that is the case, it comes back to the central argument here. You are providing $15,000 to convert a bus or a truck to gas, thus saving the owner of the bus or the truck the capital cost of conversion. But why would they make the conversion if the cost of operating their vehicle is greater under gas than it is under diesel? Then you lead on to the other subsidiary arguments: there are fewer refuelling points under gas than there are under diesel; the mechanism of the conversion is clunky—it is a bigger volume, more awkward fuel retainer; and there is resistance on all those levels.There was almost a verging attempt to say that the opposition does not support measures to diminish greenhouse gas emissions. A `verging' attempt—I do not accuse you of making the actual attempt, Minister, but it came awful close. Let me make it clear that we do support measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we do not support wasting $75 million under this program, which will not achieve this result. The argument here is not about the objective; it is about the means. Developing this argument, it is important when you are expending taxpayers' money that you expend wisely and well and that you spend it on programs which will achieve the result for which they are intended.That is why my amendment is important here. My amendment would be made to any bill that came before this chamber. The bill could be about supplying ice to Eskimos with a government outlay to provide for that program to go ahead. If this parliament in its wisdom decided to supply ice to Eskimos, I would still ask, `When you are handling public money to do that, how do you spend it, who gets it and what are they supposed to do with it? Do they expend it to achieve the results of the program? What performance, et cetera, goes with that money?' Whether it is ice to Eskimos or conversion of diesel to natural gas or whatever it happens to be, public money is being disbursed. The only point I am making in this amendment—it seems so obvious a point that it does not need explaining yet again—is not to attack what I might regard as the laudable objectives of this program. I have certainly expressed myself on the means, because I think they are faulty; it is a very expensive program for little result; and the take-up rate will be small, if there is one at all. I have said all those things, and I do not resile from them. But the point here is: if you are going to do it to us, if you are going to use a crushing majority in this chamber to do it to us, do it to us in a way in which taxpayers can see how it is being done, where their money is going and that it is accountable.There are arguments about the laudability of the program—the aspiration for greenhouse gas reductions. But that is an aspiration we share. I have now argued until I am blue in the face that this is a misdirected, ill-conceived program thought out in a rush in order to pave the way for a GST. You do not have to agree with me on that. I believe it to be true, and I believe any fair person will see that it is true. But you are clearly not of a disposition to do that because you are one of the authors of it.Here is a case in which there should be common ground. As I have said, the Australian Democrats have expressed themselves at length about transparency. The Auditor-General has done so. There is no real precedent for this amendment that you are proposing, but you insist on it. If it goes to the vote, I hope that, in the face of government defiance of proper procedure, the Australian Democrats will be able to see that there was a gap in this legislation, an unintended consequence, something that got past them that needs remedy. It is not a big remedy; it is not going to bring the house down if we make this change. It is something that will clothe the Auditor-General with the ability to look behind government expenditure and see where it goes, what purpose it provides for and whether it is properly dealt with. And that is all.I notice that Senator Allison from the Australian Democrats is now in the chamber. It is up to her entirely, of course, but I would be grateful if the Democrats expressed themselves on the amendment, which would provide some transparency for the expenditure of this public money.16:28:009373Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Democrats will be supporting these amendments. I have listened very carefully to the debate this afternoon—as Senator Harradine would say—and I can see no reason not to do so. It seems to me to be a quite straightforward matter to set out in written agreement something which is proposed to be granted by way of moneys for these programs.There are a couple of things I would like to mention that were raised by Senator Cook a few moments ago. He talked about whether or not this program will be very expensive but with little result and talked at length about the difference in energy content of the different fuels: gas and diesel. Can I suggest to him that we have all been very aware of that situation throughout this whole process.The other thing you are obviously not aware of is that gas is still cheaper than diesel—that is, prior to the removal of the excise. This was the whole purpose in encouraging transport operators to convert to gas and also in making sure that the relativities between the two fuels were maintained. That is why we have put in place the measures we have. I do not want to extend this debate any longer than is necessary. There has been a lot said that seems to me to be quite irrelevant to the amendment which is before us. I would just indicate that we will be supporting the ALP amendments.16:30:009373Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—One of the questions I took on notice related to the basis of the estimate of a 400,000 tonne per year saving in relation to the Alternative Fuels Conversion program—that is, the target that the government was looking for at the end of the four-year program. It is the government's assessment that by 2010 at least 35,000 commercial vehicles will have converted to CMG or LPG as a result of this program. The government believes that the conversion rate will be higher than it otherwise would have been, even if the program ceases after four years, as a result of the program having stimulated the conversion industry in building economies of scale.Vehicle numbers and rates of conversions were sourced from the Bureau of Transport Economics. Other key assumptions, such as fuel consumption rates and conversion costs, were sourced from the submission by the Australian Natural Gas Vehicles Council to the Senate inquiry into the new tax system. That is, the government relied on the submission by that council. The inquiry was, of course, carried out by Senate committees.The other question I took on notice related to the importation of second-hand vehicles which Senator Cook maintained were a factor in this argument. I think I indicated at that time that there was a restriction on the number; the numbers were only small. The situation is that there is not a restriction as such but that the numbers imported are small in any event. When one looks at the most recent statistics in 1998, light commercial vehicles, or those less than 4.5 tonnes, numbered 376 and heavy commercial vehicles, or those greater than 4.5 tonnes, numbered 62. It is the government's belief that the importation of these sorts of vehicles will, in effect, have no relevance because the numbers imported are so small in the context of the figures that we are dealing with.16:33:009374Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—That mollifies a lot of my concerns. Can I seek confirmation from the minister, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, that my question which relates to the target that the government has set for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions—the target of 400,000 tonnes, which I understand to be per year as a consequence of this program—will be answered in terms of how that figure of 400,000 tonnes is calculated? I am just seeking confirmation that you will answer that question.16:33:009374Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I indicated the source of the data relied upon in relation to the calculation of 400,000 tonnes. I will undertake to get more detail in relation to that. I am not sure what there is available to me, but I understand that Senator Cook is asking for a breakdown of how that is calculated in an arithmetical sense—that is, 35,000 vehicles using gas and how much tonnage they would have emitted in greenhouse gases if they had not been on gas. I will take that up with the department. I am not sure that I can get exactly the detail Senator Cook needs, but I will endeavour to do so.16:35:009374Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I have a few questions, some of which I hope the minister takes on notice—I would understand if he did—relating to these two pieces of legislation that we are considering. Firstly, I do note that Senator Allison came into the Senate and indicated that the Democrats were supporting the amendments that my colleague Senator Cook has moved—and quite rightly too. As Senator Cook has pointed out to the chamber, this is groundbreaking legislation in both Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 in that it says, in clause 5(2):A grant of financial assistance to a State may be made: (a) on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the State; or(b) without any terms and conditions.Senator Cook made the very valid point that this involves almost $900 million in revenue expenditure and that there were no guidelines. I note that we have the same wording in appropriation bill No. 1, which involves approximately $300 million in revenue. That is a total of $1.2 billion in revenue.I was also struck by clause 5(4) in appropriation bill No. 2. We have the same wording in appropriation bill No. 1, which reads:An agreement under paragraph (2)(a) or (3)(a) may be entered into by any Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth.I would like the minister to indicate why 5(4) says `any Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth'.16:37:009374Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—My advice is that this is a program which can cut across various portfolios, and it does say `any minister on behalf of the Commonwealth' because you may have the minister for transport dealing with an aspect of it, or the minister for the environment or the minister for industry. That is the reason for that. It would be too restrictive simply to say `the minister for the environment'. All those portfolios would be involved in this program. There are probably some others, which I cannot think of at the moment. That is the reason for it.16:38:009374Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—That reinforces the valid concerns Senator Cook raised earlier. To give grants of financial assistance to a person or body on—I am paraphrasing here—such terms and conditions as are set out without any terms and conditions by any minister is an extraordinary array of power and advances flexibility, which is the minister's overused jargon term as an explanation, to an extraordinary degree. That is why I referred earlier in my remarks to this as being `groundbreaking' legislation.Look at the minister's explanation. Let us take appropriation bill No. 1, which deals with the book bounty. I would have thought that, in order to satisfy the very valid con cerns that have been raised, the names of the portfolios could have been inserted in the legislation. Frankly, it is hard to see how Senator Macdonald, as Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, could have anything to do with the legislation. Likewise, if you look down the list of ministerial representation, you will see that the vast majority of ministers would have absolutely nothing to do with appropriation bills Nos 1 and 2. In addition to the concerns that Senator Cook outlined, it is very unwise for the Senate to be giving these sorts of advanced and extraordinary powers of financial assistance to any minister, particularly to ministers who have absolutely nothing to do with the legislation and the areas of policy within the legislation we are considering.The minister referred earlier to the federation grants. I think 69 per cent of the moneys were allocated to government held electorates. He put an argument that that correlated with the percentage of seats the government held prior to the last election. Of course, 69 per cent is more than 65 per cent, which I think the figure was. Could the minister give a breakdown of that to the Senate? What proportion of that 69 per cent of seats to which grants went were marginal government held seats? When I say marginal government held seats, I believe we should use the electoral office's definition of a marginal government held seat—in this case, a marginal Liberal Party or National Party seat—which I think is a seat held with a margin of five per cent or less. I ask the minister for the proportion of that 69 per cent that went to what are considered by the electoral office to be marginally held government seats. I seek that information from the minister.In working out the comparative cost advantage and disadvantage of diesel versus alternative fuels, you gave us some figures for the price per litre. I am sure that those figures would have been used in calculating the conversion to CNG or LPG, but could the minister also tell us what the capital cost of conversion of particular vehicles was? These sorts of figures must have been looked at to make some sort of calculation. There must have been an average capital cost of conver sion figure that was used. Of course, the capital cost is a major impediment to converting vehicles for gas usage, and Senator Cook raised the issue of access to gas. Unlike the case in Senator Ellison's anecdotal observations with respect to WA, the issue of access to gas at petrol stations is a real issue in my home state of Tasmania, and it is a real impediment. This capital cost of conversion is amortised—it is a barrier to entry, if you like—and has to be taken into account, and the government must have had some figures on that in order to come to the sorts of estimates that it has.I notice in appropriation bill No. 2 that, under `Supporting the utilisation of photovoltaic systems . . . ' we have an increase in moneys from $4 million to $12 million. I would like information about what specific proposals and what degree of utilisation the government believes will be made in this particular area. Similarly, we have commercialisation of renewable energy and the reuse and recycling of waste oil. Again, there are figures and it would be useful to know on what basis the government has made estimates about what will occur as a result of this package.The only other comment I intend to make is that I did refer earlier to it being Senator Allison who came into the chamber and, apparently after the very firm and incisive comments of Senator Cook, the Democrats have decided to support our amendments to these two appropriation bills. As I remarked earlier, this is groundbreaking legislation and we should proceed with reasonable caution, given that this flows from the goods and services tax, which is in itself obviously groundbreaking legislation in this country. I do note that it was Senator Allison who came into the chamber and spoke on behalf of the Democrats. My colleague Senator Cook made the point time and time again: where was Senator Murray on behalf of the Democrats? He had the carriage and overview of the GST package for the Australian Democrats. Senator Murray is their Treasury spokesperson. How did this legislation, these appropriation bills, get through Senator Murray's scrutiny without this particular problem being picked up that Senator Cook has highlighted in this debate? What was Senator Murray doing? We would like to know whether Senator Murray was happy with the so-called flexibility that is contained in this legislation. Why did Senator Murray let this occur?Senator Cook has made the point that this is groundbreaking; it sets a precedent. The wording of this legislation is very broad indeed and very open. Despite the minister's claims, the four pieces of legislation he referred to were not drafted in the same context or in the same way and in the same detail as this legislation. Senator Cook made the very valid point that we have also got an Auditor-General's report that certainly casts doubt on this particular approach. We have also got on the record Senator Murray's own comments that Senator Cook referred to. So why didn't Senator Murray come into the chamber and explain why he allowed this legislation to be worded in the way it has been? Why hasn't Senator Murray come in here and explained, given his responsibilities?I read in the Age this morning Senator Murray professing concern for charities. One aspect of the legislation we are considering deals with the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program for the needy. Senator Murray is expressing concern about charities, sporting clubs and community organisations. He did make some claims today about the necessity for a renegotiation of the GST package. I must say I would have thought this an appropriate time to have some sort of explanation from Senator Murray about this matter, particularly as Senator Kemp would not answer in any relevant sense the question that was posed to him by Senator Murray's colleague Senator Woodley during question time today. I was reminded of Senator Murray's concerns when I looked at the appropriation legislation where it dealt with the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program services to the needy.I am particularly pleased to see that the Democrats are supporting the two amendments that my colleague Senator Cook has moved. It would be very useful if the minister could deal with the couple of specific questions I have asked and, if he cannot deal with them now, they could be taken on notice and answered at a later date.16:50:009376Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Sherry raises a number of questions. In order to assist him fully I need to take those questions on notice. I might just point out that, in relation to the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program which he asked a question on, I raised that previously in reply to an argument from Senator Cook which I said was irrelevant. As for the detail of the breakdown of those grants, I suggest that Senator Sherry address his question to the relevant minister. I know that the opposition has been doing this in question time, but that is perhaps not an aspect for this committee at this point in time. As for the other questions dealing with the particular programs which Senator Sherry has outlined, I will take those on notice.16:51:009376Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I can foreshadow that I think I am very close to the end of my questioning. I do that out of courtesy, because this has gone on longer than we had anticipated. In view of what has now developed in the chamber, can I also put a series of questions to the minister. I say, in a similar sympathetic way to the way in which Senator Sherry has expressed himself, that if the minister is unable at this point to answer them then I would be grateful if he would take them on notice and provide an answer to us with reasonable dispatch but in due course.Looking at pages 2 and 3 of the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 and at those programs under the heading of clause 3, `Appropriation', we have dealt with program 1, the conversion of diesel fuelled trucks and buses to CNG and LPG. For programs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, can I ask these questions. What is the administrative component of the outlays proposed under each of those programs? That is, how much of the money appropriated goes to the administration of those programs as opposed to moneys going to the implementation of those programs—moneys going to bring about the result? Under each of those programs there is a second question: what does the government expect will be the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a consequence of the implementation of the programs for the outlay of the funds set down?Thirdly, is there an administrative plan as to how the implementation of each of these programs is to be proceeded with or are they like program 1 and not yet blessed with having an administrative plan? If they are not, would the minister say so and indicate when each of those programs will have a plan in which the parliament will be able to see how these measures, which total $896 million, will in fact be dealt with. I am particularly interested to see under 7, `Greenhouse gas abatement program', in which $400 million is being outlaid, what that money is going to and how the administrative arrangements are to be handled for that particular program. I am also a bit nonplussed, I must say, in reading program 2, `Developing a product stewardship system for the reuse and recycling of waste oil', to see we are spending $60 million over four years on that program. Sixty million dollars to develop `a product stewardship system' seems to me to be an excessive amount of money to develop a system. It seems to me that a reasonable question would be: please explain why that costs $60 million?To conclude—and I appreciate I am jumping around the place here—I draw attention to program 5, which has the crisply explained note `Supporting the use of renewable energy for remote power generation'. Mr Temporary Chairman Lightfoot, I know that this is a matter of some interest to you in the state that we both represent, Western Australia, albeit that you are on the wrong side of politics. Nonetheless, I acknowledge your interest in issues concerning remote Australia. How many remote power stations or remote establishments generating power—if they cannot be dignified with the `power station' title—does the government propose to move to renewable energy for the cost of $264 million?In the context of that, I have a further question: does the government intend to support the tidal power generation project at Derby under this program? I am sure, Minister, as you are a Western Australian as well—we seem to almost have this debate among ourselves at the moment—you would know that there is considerable interest in Western Australia in supporting a quite ambitious but, as best as I can ascertain it, entirely credible and quite substantial program in harnessing tidal energy in Derby, where the tidal drop is about 30 feet or more each time the tide goes out.It is a quite credible program to go to tidal power generation using the tidal fall as the energy source. The capital cost of this program is quite high, although once you establish it, it seems to me, it goes on forever virtually and it pays itself off reasonably quickly, both in terms of reduced tariff and in opening up the opportunity—in and around the Derby area and further out towards Fitzroy Crossing and to the north of Derby—to go over to renewable energy, away from coal-, oil- or gas-fired energy, and to create prospects for that region of Australia for some industrial development based on fuel costs. That is an excellent program that I support strongly—and I know that some members of the coalition do too—but my question relating to this is: is this a program under which that type of project or that particular project will be funded?Rather than go through these painstakingly, I think that, if the government would be prepared to answer those questions, that would mollify my concerns about this bill to quite a considerable extent. Clearly, there are other matters that we could go into, some of which may arise as a consequence of the answers given to these questions. I do signal here and mark the spot at this point that, if there are further questions that arise from these answers, I would want to pursue those questions in the next round of estimates when it comes up. But that is in anticipation of the answers not being adequate; I seek now only an acknowledgment from the government that it will answer those questions properly.16:58:009377Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take those questions on notice; there are a number of them and they are quite detailed. As I said earlier, this is much like an estimates committee in its format. That includes the last question in relation to the Derby tidal power proposal, which I might say has the support of all six Western Australian government senators and also the support in particular of the local member, Mr Barry Haase, who has been working very hard for it. I will take all those on notice and get back to the senator. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Cook's ) be agreed to.17:03:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)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. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. *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.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Crowley, R. A. Tierney, J.Hogg, J. Crane, W.McKiernan, J. P. Campbell, I. G.Ray, R. F. Ferguson, A. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Amendments agreed to.Bills, as amended, agreed to.Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.9378Bills (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills9378r6129378Consideration resumed from 10 December 1998.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.937817:07:009378Ellison, 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 bill amends the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992 to reflect the new Agreement between the Commonwealth, States and Territories on vocational education and training, setting out planning, accountability and funding arrangements for the three years 1998 to 2000.By way of consequential amendments, the bill also amends the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 to incorporate into the general allocation the funding previously set aside specifically to support off-the-job training for traineeships and to supplement the amounts appropriated for 1998 and 1999 in accordance with real price movements reflected in Treasury indices. The bill also rectifies an omission made in the original Australian National Training Authority Act by making it clear that the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) is exempt from State and Territory taxes to which the Commonwealth is not subject.The new ANTA Agreement reflected in the bill is founded on a recognition by both the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments that vocational education and training is integral to the development of an Australian workforce with the range and depth of skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry.A key feature of the new Agreement is that it provides a stable basis for funding vocational education and training over the next three years.The Commonwealth will maintain funding to the States and Territories in real terms over the period of the Agreement, and States and Territories have undertaken to achieve growth in their vocational education and training systems through efficiencies. For 1998, the States and Territories collectively have planned to deliver an extra 55,000 student places.This is an excellent outcome, particularly for young Australians, who will benefit from additional vocational education and training places that will help them gain real jobs. It is also a win for taxpayers who can be assured that funds will be put to the best possible use.It is evidence of this Government's commitment to the vocational education and training sector that over the next three years the Commonwealth will contribute more than $2.7 billion through the ANTA Agreement, and this is in addition to around $500 million annual funding for other Commonwealth vocational education and training programmes. Total Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training in 1998-99 will be $1.4 billion.To ensure that the training provided will be responsive to the needs of businesses and of the economy, the new Agreement fosters a leadership role for industry in the peak decision making, planning and advisory processes for vocational education and training.A key element of the new ANTA Agreement is the National Strategy for Vocational Education and Training for 1998 to 2003. This Strategy, which was endorsed in May this year by all the State and Territory Ministers for Vocational Education and Training, expresses a new spirit of co-operation and collaboration. It is a collective commitment by all Australian governments to work in partnership with industry to make our vocational education and training sector one of the world's best. In setting out a vision for the development of the sector over the next five years, the Strategy expresses a commitment to ensure that the skills of the Australian labour force are sufficient to support internationally competitive commerce and industry as we compete in an increasingly global economy and, at the same time, ensure that the kind of training opportunities available allow individuals to optimise their potential.The Government believes that Australian enterprises and citizens need, and deserve, no less.A vital element of meeting this challenge will be to ensure that the training delivered is of the highest quality. The new ANTA Agreement ensures the quality of training by reinforcing the national framework for competency standards, recognition and qualifications.The new National Training Framework comprises two major initiatives that provide streamlined arrangements for the recognition and regulation of vocational education and training products and services.On 1 January 1998 new arrangements for the national recognition of vocational education and training came into effect. This is a major joint government initiative, known as the Australian Recognition Framework, which will ensure that training organisations meet high standards and that skills and qualifications are recognised across Australia. For the first time, we will have a truly national training system.The other major initiative, Training Packages, links industry competency standards and assessment guidelines directly with national qualifications. This is not just a technical change. It is a whole new approach that creates the basis for moving away from cumbersome and rigid arrangements based on external course accreditation.Industry endorsed standards now cover over 78 per cent of the work force. There are already 23 Training Packages available and another 70 are under development. It is most encouraging to see the widespread, active industry involvement in the development of Training Packages and the enthusiasm of so many for the new opportunities the packages create.The new ANTA Agreement also provides a solid foundation for pursuing market reform, including increased competition, within the vocational education and training sector.In recent years, States and Territories have increased the proportion of funding allocated to competitive activities, resulting in increased provision of publicly funded accredited training by private providers. This has included training places secured through open tendering, preferred supplier arrangements and strategic partnerships between providers. States and Territories are also implementing User Choice for apprenticeships and traineeships, whereby funds flow to the training provider chosen by employers and apprentices or trainees.A network of strong TAFE institutes, operating alongside, and in competition with quality private providers is an essential feature of an effective and responsive vocational education and training sector.Increased competition is an important mechanism that can drive improvements in the training system to increase responsiveness, efficiency, quality and client choice.For this reason, I strongly support the further development of a diverse vocational education and training market with a mix of public and private providers delivering high quality services.The new ANTA Agreement provides a basis to encourage a stronger training culture in Australian enterprises and throughout the Australian community.To complement this, the Government has introduced significant reforms to make apprenticeships and traineeships more accessible and responsive to industry needs.In the past, many employers, particularly in small businesses, have been put off from recruiting apprentices by the complexity of the arrangements, the red tape and the need to deal with many organisations.To assist in overcoming these barriers the Government has introduced improved apprenticeship and traineeship support services. From 1 May, employers, apprentices and trainees have had access to New Apprenticeship Centres which will help cut the red tape and provide a "one stop" integrated service. There are currently 60 organisations operating New Apprenticeship Centres in over 200 sites across Australia.Apprenticeships themselves have been modernised and are now expanding real work-based training into new industries and occupations. In a flexible way they are delivering training which responds directly to the needs of businesses; and are opening up opportunities for many young Australians, in high growth industries as well as in traditional trades. Already New Apprenticeships are expanding into industries such as agriculture, telecommunications, and information technology where, for many occupations, there have been no nationally recognised training arrangements or qualifications.The number of trainees and apprentices in training reached record levels at the end of June to over 186,500 people. This is an increase of 10.8 per cent on 1997 figures. If current trends continue, we expect that during 1998, people in New Apprenticeship training will exceed 200,000 for the first time. To underpin the strong growth in training opportunities for young people, the Federal Government has allocated $433 million in the 1998-99 Budget to support the continued expansion of New Apprenticeships.The Government's landmark reforms to vocational education and training embodied in the new ANTA Agreement will provide a sound basis for the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments and industry in partnership to meet the training challenges that the economy and community will face as we move into the next century.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate.Pursuant to the order of the Senate of 28 September 1999, the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 and the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 were taken together for their remaining stages.Bills9380r612Billsr8939380Debate on Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 continued, and debate on Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 resumed from 25 August, on motions by Senator Ellison and Senator Minchin:That the bills be now read a second time.17:08:009380Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name in the following terms:At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate:(a) notes that a quality vocational education and training system has a vital role to play in Australia's future; and(b) condemns the Government for: (i) undermining the quality of our vocational education and training system through its obsession with cost-cutting and privatisation, (ii) failing to meet its responsibilities to fund growth in TAFE, and (iii) failing to properly administer the provision of vocational education and training to overseas students". The first thing I think we should note in this debate tonight is the fact that the debate is occurring at all. It was only three weeks ago that the opposition was forced to move a motion in this chamber because, at that point, the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 was languishing at item No. 46 on the Senate Notice Paper . The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 —that is the one with all the money in it—was even further down the list, at No. 54. It was clear indication that the government had given so little priority to education that it took a motion from the opposition to get the bill that provides some $900 million for TAFE colleges—that is, one-third of their public funding for the next year—scheduled for debate in this chamber, which has now turned out to be today.Many of our TAFE institutes are desperately short of funds after cuts imposed by federal and state coalition governments. I think we are entitled to ask how long it would have taken for this government to act on these issues if the opposition had not intervened. What this tells us is that the government has no real interest in education and training issues. It also tells us that the portfolio is represented by a minister who has no real influence with his colleagues. We can see this from the fiascos surrounding the Job Network and the voluntary student union debacles. The minister's standing in the coalition has been so diminished that legislation of this importance has been allowed to drop down the priority listing as other ministers take advantage of his declining fortunes within the government.I want to state for the record that the opposition thinks that education and training is fundamental to Australia's wellbeing. We have a leader who would become Australia's education Prime Minister, and we have a party that is prepared to make the investments needed for our country to become a knowledge nation. For that reason, we are always happy to debate education bills and are delighted, following the intervention of the Labor Party, that the ANTA and VET bills have been forced up the listing on the Notice Paper. The ANTA bill amends the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992 following the signing of the new ANTA agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, which was to apply for the period 1998-2000. I note that we are well into the second year of that three-year agreement. We are, of course, well past halfway in this matter and it is appropriate that this new agreement be evaluated. I ask, firstly, why did it take so long for this agreement to be finalised and, secondly, why has it taken so long for this legislation to reach this chamber? Why do we need a new agreement at all? This agreement, of course, puts in place this government's policy and ends the policy of the previous government in terms of funding growth, which was provided under Labor's agreement on a continuing basis.It became very clear after the 1996 election that the Howard government did not value education and training and did not recognise their contribution to Australia's prosperity. The coalition's first budget announced $170 million worth of cuts, including abolition of the growth funding which was a major component of the establishment of a vocational and education system as initiated in the 1992 agreement. The 1997 budget held back further cuts of some $72 million, labelled as so-called benchmarking efficiencies. These were made at a time when Australians were being told that 70 per cent of young people do not go to university when they leave school.The new agreement reflects a much narrower penny-pinching approach. It reflects Dr Kemp's policies. In the classic overblown rhetoric that we have come to expect from him, he said that it was a $4.5 million TAFE deal for the states and territories. Dr Kemp claimed that TAFE places would increase by 500,000 over five years and that the new agreement would lead to a major upgrade of the TAFE system. The so-called new deal has come about very much on the basis of a stacked deck, which the states and territories have been quick to point out. They, of course, refused to sign the new arrangements as initially proposed.Dr Kemp's most severe critics often came from within his own coalition party. We saw, for instance, Victorian Minister Honeywood's claim on 28 September 1997 that the agreement proposed by the Commonwealth represented `the biggest cost shift to the states since Federation'. Mr Honeywood went on to call Dr Kemp a total centralist, which is particularly interesting given the centralist behaviour that Dr Kemp has recently shown on the issue of voluntary student unionism. Under Dr Kemp's proposals, the states and territories would carry the burden of paying for what the minister referred to as a `major upgrade of the TAFE system'. Not surprisingly, the states have rebelled against this government's processes of withdrawing growth funding. A joint communique in August 1997 pointed out that the Commonwealth's declining one-third share of the VET system was inadequate to meet the demands of a truly national system which was internationally competitive.It was April 1998 before the new agreement was eventually finalised. It covered only a three-year period rather than the five-year period which the minister's original proposals envisaged. After all those months of division and acrimony, and the arguments that led to the agreement which we were told was so visionary and so far-sighted, it expires next year. We hope to see it all begin again very soon. It is further proof, if any was needed, that the Howard government deals with important issue of educational opportunity for Australians in the future by not really thinking about it. The government sees this bill as an opportunity to take short-term measures rather than to look at the national and long-term investment needs in education and training. This government considers national investment in education to be some sort of cash cow to be milked for short-term, short-sighted budgetary reasons, and so the recent so-called `education budget' contained not one cent of extra money for TAFE—not one extra cent.Contrast this with the way in which vocational education and training was undertaken in the period of the Labor government. Mr Keating, the then Prime Minister, described Labor's original ANTA agreement as a `root and branch change'. He described it as `truly historic' and one which would `change the nature of vocational education in this country forever'. The sorts of changes being driven by this government have seen the closure and amalgamation of TAFE colleges, larger class sizes and fewer course offerings. These are the sorts of things one would hope would never be seen again but are now being seen all too often under this government.A second round of cuts were announced in the 1997 budget. The states and territories once again bore the burden of this government's policies, and they were told that they would have to make efficiencies. They were told also that they would have to meet benchmark efficiencies as calculated in the state of Victoria. In recent weeks we have seen what the people of Victoria think of those changes, with a fundamental routing of the Liberal Party in that state.We have been told in the past that the Victorian education system was the most efficient, yet it is only in recent months that three of the major TAFE institutes in that state were facing major budgetary problems bordering on insolvency. I recall a memorandum to staff at the Kangan Batman College from the director, John Parish, who indicated that the college would finish the year with a cash balance of only $600,000, which he said represented fewer than five days operating costs. I also recall the Northern Melbourne Institute's report which in its 1999 budget apparently forecast the closure of campuses and eventually the entire institute.I also recall similar circumstances being identified in Gippsland, where the Victorian state government was obliged to make additional payments to bail out that college. I have identified three colleges where the government of Victoria was required to make additional moneys available to fund the operations of those colleges. These are the direct consequences of the policies of the federal government, which has an obsession with user choice and with cost cutting down to the lowest common denominator. In Queensland the TAFE review task force found in December last year that more than $60 million had been transferred from TAFE based funding under user choice and that the level of competitive tendering had soared from some $20 million to $85 million in the two-year period in the previous coalition government. The review said that the Queensland TAFE was in a `fragile and confused state' and that the drive to make government funding of VET contestable had caused significant financial distress in Queensland TAFE institutes.It further said that these changes have hit the financial position of TAFE institutes hard and that on 30 June 1998 institutes were not collectively viable. The Howard government's agenda has seen the undermining of TAFE in this country and, in doing so, it has undermined a major provider of adult and community education as well as a key access point for lifelong learners.Vocational education is important to Australia. It enrols far more students than higher education. Significant numbers of university graduates enrol in TAFE courses to finetune their employment skills. Enrolments in VET have grown from about 950,000 in 1998 to almost 1.5 million a decade later—it may well be about 1.8 million if we include the adult and community education sector. Dr Kemp will try to tell us that the coalition is catering well for Australians who participate or who seek to participate in vocational education and training. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is starkly spelt out by the various examples I have given today of TAFE institutes facing financial crisis.I note that the number of students in TAFE colleges has fallen in the last 18 months. For instance, the latest figures of the NCVER show that between 1997 and 1998 TAFE's percentage share of module annual hours fell from 90 per cent in 1997 down to 86.4 per cent, and the student enrolments fell from 78.2 per cent of the total share of VET students down to 75 per cent. These are very significant shifts and they have occurred in a very short period of time.This bill also seeks to clarify the exemption of ANTA from state and territory taxes to which the Commonwealth is not subject. The mention of tax—and given the discussion that we had here this afternoon—forces me to raise very briefly the government's massive hypocrisy when it claims that education is GST free. The fact is that many VET courses will be subject to tax, which will place a further hurdle in the path of those who are seeking access to education and lifelong learning. As well, educational institutions will be forced to meet major new administrative burdens and students will be faced with increased costs for books, computer software, Internet use and other study prerequisites. I believe that the slashing of education funding over a series of budgets has meant that the Howard government, to its lasting shame, has placed the VET sector at a serious disadvantage. It is also now planning to tax educational items which have never been taxed before, and it will place students at serious disadvantage like they have never faced before.I will now move to the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 , which supplements—and therefore price increases—the 1999 level of Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training and appropriates the base level of funding for 2000. The amounts provided for each of the years 1999 and 2000 are the same, highlighting the lack of growth funding and reflecting the policy directions set by this new ANTA agreement to which I referred previously. They are increasingly pushing responsibilities back onto the states for meeting the burden of funding growth to the system. The Howard government is driving an agenda of government retreat from education and training in Australia—an agenda of privatisation and of user pays. It is doing so whatever the cost to quality and of opportunities lost for young Australians. There is growing evidence in this country that opportunities for structured training for young people are diminishing. Young people, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 21, are increasingly being locked out of the system as a result of the government policies that are being pursued in these various bills.I referred earlier to the devastating impact on the Queensland TAFE institutes of the headlong rush to user-choice in that state under the Borbidge government. The federal government's new apprenticeship scheme is also allowing some employers to receive training subsidies of around $4,000 for on-the-job training, which is delivered very poorly, if at all. The report completed recently for the Queensland government entitled Independent Investigation into the Quality of Training in Queensland's Traineeship System by Kaye Schofield found that some 20 per cent of the trainees were receiving no training at all under the fully on-the-job training arrangements. The report said:The commissioned survey of employers and trainees indicated that 19 per cent of trainees receive no training from their Registered Training Organisation (RTO) and many RTOs are minimising their obligations in terms of delivery and assessment. . . . This represents a serious threat not only to the quality of traineeships but if not remedied, to the VET system as a whole.I concur with those remarks. If these things are not remedied, then the integrity of the vocational education system in this country is being placed at serious risk. The report also went on to say:Very significant growth in `fully on-the-job' training and assessment has undermined commitment to quality training in the traineeship system. . . . Poor quality of training is likely to have an impact on the quality of Queensland's future workforce, particularly because so much of the `on-the-job' training is not developing underpinning knowledge and skills necessary to take people beyond current workplace practices.It will be said that these are issues that relate only to Queensland. The evidence coming before the Senate estimates committee suggests to me that these are problems that are emerging throughout Australia; they are not just confined to one particular state or to one particular industry.The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, has done nothing about the issue of the poor quality of on-the-job training. He did nothing about the policy of existing workers until he was forced to do so as a result of opposition action. So, in May of this year he tightened the eligibility criteria for existing workers under the existing workers' policy, which had seen numerous employers moving their entire work forces, their entire factories, their entire abattoirs, onto the government training subsidies. These, of course, were being used primarily as devices for the subsidisation of wages bills rather than the provision of adequate training of a high-quality nature. Although the eligibility criteria has been tightened up, as announced by Dr Kemp in May, it is still open to substantial abuse, and my judgment is that that is still occurring.Despite the revelations of the Schofield report, and despite the fact that two other state governments are now conducting reviews of on-the-job training, the federal government has opposed the Labor Party's initiative to set up a wide-ranging Senate inquiry into the various aspects of vocational education and training in this country. Might I say that that inquiry would provide an opportunity for all participants within the education debate in this country to have their say about the future directions of vocational education. It would provide an opportunity for all participants to have their say about the weaknesses of the current scheme, as well as its strengths. It would provide an opportunity for people to evaluate the progress that might well have been made, or otherwise, in regard to the provision of quality training in this country.The various reports I have referred to are supported by many other empirical studies, which suggests to me that there are serious problems emerging on the issue of quality and the integrity of provision of education and training through various providers. No more clearly can this case be demonstrated than on the issue of overseas students, where some 37,000 overseas students are enrolled in vocational education and training, according to the most recent statistics that I have seen. Last year, for instance, some $800 million was spent here by students. I understand that that percentage of students has fallen to 25 per cent from 27 per cent in 1997. There is a need for the government to take serious actions about the activities of a series of colleges which have misused their registered training status, have misused the ESOS Act and have misused the privileges that they have enjoyed in terms of their relationship with a number of questionable immigration agents. This has led to serious issues being raised about the integrity of the vocational education and training services offered to overseas students. (Time expired)17:28:009385Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats are pleased to see this legislation before the Senate today, if only because it is good to see that the government is guaranteeing funding for at least one part of the education and training sector. It is unfortunate that this sector, like many others, has had to wait until the last minute for this legislation to be debated and, of course, hopefully passed through this place, as it faces the end of its funding under the current ANTA agreement. The legislation before us gives effect to the new ANTA agreement agreed to by the Commonwealth and the states and territories, which will amend the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992 to provide funding for next year.There can be no doubt that access to education and training is a key to labour market competitiveness and future growth, yet the treatment that has been meted out to TAFE by this current government has undermined, I believe, any previous commitments to ensuring that the TAFE sector that we have in this country is adequately funded to meet the needs of Australians. The Democrats remain the only party in this place with a commitment to publicly funded and accessible education and training. Consequently, we are disappointed at the failure of the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 to provide growth funding for this sector in line with previous government promises.In 1997, the minister for education and training, Dr David Kemp, outlined his vision for TAFE, to compensate for the substantial budget cuts imposed on the sector by the coalition government when it first came to office. It was expansive and perhaps, in hindsight, misleading. He promised a further 500,000 places between 1997 and 2002 through a funding increase of $4.5 billion. He promised `a major upgrade' of the TAFE system and he recognised that vocational education was linked to increased competitiveness and productivity and higher living standards. He ended his statement with the following words:It is vital that Australia expands and improves vocational education if we are to increase our competitiveness . . . More people are making TAFE their first choice because it is a key pathway into a career in the business world.I suggest that there are many other reasons—and certainly equally valid reasons—why people are increasingly enrolling in TAFE courses and vocational education and training in this country. In this era of lifelong learning—a concept that allegedly the government has embraced—skills upgrades, the acquisition of new skills and qualifications for business and other sectors have become increasingly valuable in our admittedly highly competitive labour market and workplaces. But to suggest that there is simply a business career-minded prospect for people's enrolment in voc ed and training is, I think, slightly misleading.With the increasing casualisation of our work force, Australians can no longer count on a job for life. I suspect that these days most people cannot necessarily rely on a job for a year. Access to reskilling and development of people's skills and knowledge are, therefore, increasingly important, if people are to negotiate their way in and out of the work force. Yet the government's acknowledgment of the increased importance of vocational education and training has not translated into honouring its commitment to `a major upgrade' of TAFE.As Senator Carr mentioned in his remarks, the number of TAFE students has grown substantially—from 952,000 in 1988 to 1½ million in the last year. However, funding for places has been markedly less than that promised originally by the minister. Funding was provided for 55,000 more places in 1998 than in 1997—approximately half the number of places that were promised by the minister. The 1999-2000 federal budget contained no increase in funding to ANTA and this agreement does not contain any new growth funds. States and territories have instead been told that enrolment increases will have to be met through declining budgets and, I believe, `further efficiencies'. How these efficiencies are to be made by institutions that are already, in some cases, staving off financial collapse has not been articulated by this government. It is difficult to see how an expansion or improvement of TAFE is to occur when most institutions will continue to be faced with increased class sizes and reduced resources—including staff—just to remain open.We need only look to Victoria to see how this policy is doomed to failure. Victoria has been heralded by proponents of `growth through efficiencies' as the leader in efficiencies. These `efficiencies', when examined more closely, reveal a TAFE sector that is drastically underresourced, largely due to Commonwealth and state funding reductions, structural changes and through the increasing contestability of funds. The situation became so severe in 1998 that a rescue package had to be implemented to assist TAFEs in regional areas. I suppose that is comparable to the aftermath of the 1996 federal budget cuts to higher education when we saw the then minister, Senator Amanda Vanstone, coming into the chamber with a rescue package for regional universities. However, the situation for regional TAFEs remains so dire that three institutions face closure at the end of this year.Victoria spends considerably less on VET per head of population than does any other state or territory. Compared with the $467.87 spent by the Northern Territory, or even the $181.33 spent by New South Wales, Victoria spends a mere $108.97 per head on TAFE—that is, 69.6 per cent of the national average of $156.62. This represents a fall of 18 per cent per head in real terms since 1993-94, compared with a national average expenditure increase of seven per cent in real terms. In money terms, that translates to a real fall from $565.7 million in 1993-94 to $504.9 million in 1997-98. Yet the Commonwealth Grants Commission has estimated that Victoria would have needed to spend $708.7 million just to provide an average level of services. This is a deficiency of $203.8 million. Victorian TAFEs will not gain much comfort from the Victorian state budget, which provides for only $93.8 million over four years for 50,000 additional apprenticeship and traineeship places. As TAFEs have had to rationalise services and resources to remain open, their ability to compete with private providers as funding becomes contestable places them in an increasingly dire position. If Victoria is the benchmark for TAFE around the country, governments—both state and federal—should hang their heads in shame.I believe that the Victorian example is a warning of future trends in national vocational education and training provision. Already the Australian Capital Territory TAFE system has suffered cuts under this `growth through efficiencies' idea. As a result of a review undertaken by the former Victorian TAFE directors, ACT TAFE will lose 16 per cent of its funding over the next two years. Australia already has one of the worst records in the provision of training in the OECD. Since the 1980s, almost no other OECD nation has offered its young people fewer opportunities to acquire recognised vocational qualifications at the point of labour market entry than Australia.Without meaning to reflect adversely on a piece of legislation passed by this place, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Act 1999, which entrenched junior wage provisions in federal awards, represents a massive lost opportunity to provide young workers with workplace training opportunities. Rather than moving to a system of awards containing structured training or skill development components, or competency based wages, junior rates encourage employers to use juniors in a merely productive capacity—rather than investing in their training.Casualisation of the work force has also denied many workers access to on the job training. Study after study has cited access to appropriate education and training as a key factor in addressing unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. The failure of the Commonwealth government to honour its commitment to the upgrading of the TAFE system through retaining growth funding is a national disgrace which can only serve to further undermine any efforts to address the seemingly intractable issue of youth unemployment.Strategies to provide for lifelong learning and to address mature age unemployment figures are also undermined by the funding shortfall under this agreement. The mature age participation rate is approximately 15 per cent lower than the average for all age groups. As we know, getting people back to work often requires reskilling, and TAFEs are perfectly positioned to fulfil this role.The impact on Australian TAFE and VET students of this diminution in resources is the denial of access to a ready source of quality education and training. However, like the funding dilemma facing the higher education sector, the TAFE system faces a loss of competitiveness in attracting overseas enrolments, as the previous speaker, Senator Carr, was saying. Like the higher education sector, vocational education and training has been remarkably successful in attracting overseas students, increasing the number of enrolments of overseas students by 59 per cent from 24,199 in 1994 to approximately 41,000 in 1997, resulting in expenditure of $790 million on vocational education. TAFE institutions facing closure, larger class sizes, staff redundancies and reduced resources and infrastructure spending will obviously find it difficult to continue to attract that lucrative international student dollar. As I mentioned earlier, they will struggle to maintain local enrolments if contestability of funding becomes more prevalent.I understand Senator Carr will be moving an amendment at the second reading stage. I am quite happy to put on record now that the Democrats will be supporting that amendment. I do not think anyone in this chamber would dare dispute the notion that a quality vocational education and training system has a vital role to play in Australia's future. I would like to think we all agreed with that particular sentiment. Indeed, the Democrats join with the opposition and hopefully others in condemning the government for undermining the quality of vocational education and training in this country, but in particular, as a consequence of cost cutting and privatisation, for this idea of efficiencies and contestability of funding.We believe the government has failed to meet its responsibilities in relation to funding growth in the TAFE sector and indeed that the government has failed to live up to its commitments—commitments which were articulated by the minister when he outlined his so-called vision for the sector. Indeed, in relation to the last point, the administering of the provision of vocational and educational training for overseas students is also a concern that the Australian Democrats share, not only for this sector but also for the higher education sector.I take Senator Carr's point that there are many more students enrolled in Australia in the vocational education and training sector than in the higher education sector, but we must be wary of pitting these two sectors against each other. Education and training are a vital investment in this nation's future. For that reason we should be investing and resourcing both appropriately and not suggesting that one should be expanded or improved at the cost of another.Not only will the Democrats continue pushing for a commitment to publicly funded and accessible education and training in this nation; we will also continue to fight for appropriate levels of student income support because we know there is a proven link between participation rates in education and training, especially for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and appropriate levels of student financial assistance.All of these things must be viewed as a package. It is simply not enough to guarantee minimal funding for one sector, a sector that has already been treated quite harshly since this government came to office. We must ensure that we treat education and training as an investment and not as a cost. Unfortunately, I think the government has treated education and training as a cost that seeks to benefit only a small percentage of students in this nation. Otherwise, why would a government put forward barriers in the form of fees and charges for participation and entry into higher education, vocational education and training in this nation?17:42:009387Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—In rising to speak to the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 , in principle I find that I agree with the essence of the legislation. It enshrines an agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories on vocational education and training involving the planning, accountability and funding arrangements for the years 1998 through to 2000. It acknowledges that total government funding in the year 1998-99 was $1.4 billion. We certainly applaud the government's initiatives in many areas of the bill. We do have reservations in some areas which I will detail further for your consideration. However, it is important to acknowledge the good points in this bill. It is essential that training meets the current and anticipated needs of the workplace and that planning and delivery are both cost effective and employer effective and efficient.My travels throughout Queensland have confirmed that many of the programs—admittedly from the days of the previous government—seemingly had as their primary role the reduction of the unemployment rate by placing people into positions of further education that did not offer improvements in employment opportunities. They helped to reduce the unemployment within our communities so that politicians could extol how well their portfolio had done for the unemployed masses who knew that what was said and what was actual were widely divergent. The training provided must be responsive to business and industry needs.Employment prospects in future will depend upon a highly skilled work force. Industry must be clearly able to identify and recognise its responsibilities for shaping and contributing to the maintenance of the national training effort. Fortunately, most industries and businesses do not want to compete with Third World country wages and conditions of employment.While we blindly embrace free trade, our Australian governments will continue to embrace cheap imports that have successfully damaged and virtually destroyed many of the traditional areas of employment, including the clothing, textile and footwear industries, primary industries and manufacturing. These industries, where many Australians were content to work hard for a fair day's pay and enjoy family and home on the weekends, have been replaced with shiftwork in the hospitality, communications and tourism areas. Let us see how past and present policies of free trade have destroyed the aspirations of many of our young people and, importantly, many middle-aged workers who find themselves redundant and on the scrap heap. These are the very people who will rely heavily on retraining opportunities to attempt to re-enter the work force.When the theory of free trade was developed in approximately 1776, nothing like the existing world order existed. Two hundred years ago, free trade meant unobstructed trade between independent nations. Today I suggest the term `free trade' means unobstructed trade between interdependent nations by transnational corporations and investors. Paul Ormerod in his book The death of economics states that Ricardo was careful to point out that his theory of `free trade' was dependent upon the assumption that funds available to invest in industry—that is, the capital—did not flow freely from one country to another. Today we have global capital moving around the world in milliseconds.Graham Strachan, in his book Globalisation, clearly describes many people's thoughts on the impacts of economic rationalism. The results of economic rationalism worldwide are becoming clearer. The wealthy now comprise 20 per cent of society, the remainder steadily sliding into poverty. We are witnessing increasing global unemployment, a widening gap between the rich and the poor and an increasing component of long-term unemployment. We are forced to accept an increase in part-time work that denies employees the flow-ons of the benefits of full-time work and increasing reliance on the small business sector to create work. The imposition of the GST will not assist the small business sector. We are increasingly witnessing social sector problems as workers are laid off from the big businesses, which continue to make profits for their shareholders and directors. Many young people suffer from feelings of hopelessness and drug abuse, and there is a general community obsession with economic survival through necessity.These are the people who primarily access vocational education and training opportunities. These are the people that successive governments' policies have thrown on the scrap heap. It is in our combined hands to see that we have the ability to help these people. We must not scrimp on providing opportunities for these unemployed Australians to re-enter the newly designed work force.Unlike most economic puritans, Pauline Hanson's One Nation believes that the mixture of market controls and government regulations in business counter the effects of reduced competition. A mixture of market forces and government controls in certain circumstances can operate for the benefit of the public. This must be remembered when we are insisting that TAFEs, as one of the entities working in partnership with ANTA, become more self-sustaining. In the bush, this is almost an impossible task. The government must not forget that TAFEs fill many roles in society. They are relatively low cost and accessible and have always striven to ensure that child care and additional support for members of the community who have poor literacy, numeracy and communications skills are assisted to rectify this impossible employment obstacle. In fact, TAFEs have provided, and do provide, the last chance to many victims of governments' rationalisation and globalist policies to turn their life around and assist them to move out of a seemingly unending debt trap.TAFEs have roles other than just being low cost training providers. TAFEs provide second chance education. Despite the fact that we have a major problem with youth unemployment, the biggest unemployment problem in Australia at the moment is middle-age unemployment, especially for middle-aged men from blue-collar backgrounds. TAFEs also provide employment, training and education for people with disabilities. The TAFEs have community service obligations much like the mutual obligation this government espouses with regard to the long-term unemployed who must be prepared to put something back into the community that supports them. TAFEs put a great deal into their social community, unlike many private providers who, like most business entrepreneurs, engage in profit making capacities. The government talks about businesses having mutual obligations to their community, particularly in the field of philanthropic activities. The TAFEs give community contributions without government legislation backing them; they ensure they put back many hours into their respective communities.I am concerned this bill will inflict major damage on TAFE colleges and, most particularly, on those that serve rural and regional Queensland. When the bill keeps referring to increased efficiencies, I question how these increased efficiencies are to be achieved. As Mr Ralph Clark, Council President of the Wodonga Institute of TAFE, submitted to the Today's training, tomorrow's skills inquiry:A successful TAFE can be a vital part of regional life, regional community, and certainly regional industry . . . In regional Australia our institutes are looked on with great pride and ownership.TAFEs in rural Queensland provide regional growth and stability by supporting social infrastructures. They provide employment opportunities and assist in supporting their regions' economic prosperity. In fact, having TAFE in regional and rural Queensland can make an area increasingly attractive to businesses and industries due to it being able to supply skilled workers and training.Regional and rural Queensland is already dying. A policy of repopulating the bush has to be supported. This is one small step in infrastructure that could help boost rural and regional Queensland by providing work opportunities. Pauline Hanson's One Nation believes the cost of economic rationalism, at the end of the day, is the 1990s permanent recession. Rural and regional Australia is demoralised at having had a government and its agencies not only fail to defend the country's interests but seemingly to act against it.Do not shift the responsibility for Australia's skills shortage to the private sector. Focus on reinvigorating TAFE in the rural and regional sectors of Queensland where competition policies cannot and do not work for the betterment of the local community. Training and jobs should go to Australians. Migration is not a solution to skill shortages in this chronic time of unemployment; rather, well-planned strategic approaches which identify and remedy the anticipated skill shortages should be used. As Henry Ford stated:A prosperous economy requires that workers be able to buy the products that they produce, and that is as true in a global economy as a national one. As more and more people compete for less and less jobs in a global labour market, the vast majority of consumers will be progressively impoverished to a point where they can afford only the barest necessities. Since the system cannot survive without economic growth it must collapse.May these alarm bells be ringing in this chamber's ears. I will support the bill. However, I implore each senator to monitor the impact on rural and regional Queensland institutes and ensure that young and middle-aged unemployed are provided with opportunities—genuine worthwhile retraining opportunities—to regain worthwhile employment. It is your policies that have placed unemployed Australians into the positions that they have been placed into. It is our responsibility to ensure that they are not left behind in the wake.17:56:009390Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 supplements price increases of the 1999 level of Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training. It appropriates the base level funding for the year 2000. In both cases of funding, the levels remain the same—at about $918 million. The net effect of this is that essentially there is no growth funding being provided to this sector despite the ANTA agreement—which binds the Commonwealth, state and territory governments—that the Commonwealth government would continue to provide growth funds on a continuing basis.The history of the TAFE sector tells us that, nine years ago, the 1990 Deveson report, which was a major report into the VET sector in this country, argued for increased Commonwealth expenditure as well as for greater reform of the TAFE system to address some of the arguments about the productivity of VET training in this country. Vocational education and training is important as a section of the educational options for people leaving school. It is an alternative pathway—we know this. It is there for people who change their careers in the course of their lifetime, and it is there for people who embark on a path of lifelong learning. About 15 per cent of the TAFE provision these days is in trade apprenticeships and traineeships. So a significant amount of the delivery in VET and TAFE is related to foundation studies, to those people who find that an academic pathway at secondary school is not the way to go. Thankfully, those secondary schools that have realised, of course, that this was never going to be an option for 100 per cent of their students have embarked on delivering VET and TAFE courses.Vocational education and training is usually a safety net for those kids who drop out of school. Like a magnet, it seems to pick up those students who wander off the track, the long-term unemployed and kids from those areas of our society that find the pressures of continual learning in a school, in an academic system, not suited to them. It is also a course for those people who change careers in their lifetime. Statistics now show us that, in the course of your career or working life, you will, in fact, either change career or change jobs up to three or four times. TAFE has always been the vehicle that has enabled people to do this. It is there for people should they want to embark on study later in life. We have seen a surge of people returning to, or taking up for the first time, computer training or adult education courses in their later years.The argument I put before the Senate this evening is that the Australian parliament should be allocating more money in the VET sector and not less for VET in this country. It seems that once we get to the end of year 12 in the education map of this country, for some reason we jump off the notion of VET and TAFE being provided as a public service as opposed to being a commodity that we have to pay for. It is now seen as a luxury, and those who can afford to pay for it do so. It is a service that has to be bought by the community rather than provided for the community as a matter of course.One of the major recommendations of the Deveson report was to encourage TAFE institutions to work together as a single national system along with the other elements of the VET sector. We saw a move to com bine TAFE and higher education institutions in the Dawkins era, but some 10 or so years on there is a need to take stock and have a look at exactly what is happening to those institutions that have embraced that merger. In particular tonight I want to refer to what is happening in the Northern Territory at the Northern Territory University.Let us have a look at the ANTA agreement. In April 1998 the Commonwealth, state and territory VET ministers reached a consensus on a revised three-year funding agreement. Under that revised agreement, the Commonwealth signed a commitment that it would maintain funding in real terms for three years from 1998 to the year 2000. The states and territories have agreed to the principle of growth through efficiencies—and I will get back to that magical word in a minute. The revised agreement also locks in a reduction in annual funding announced in the 1997-98 budget. From 1 January 1998 the Commonwealth has reduced annual funding to the states and territories to provide an incentive for them to achieve efficiency gains through benchmarking their VET activities against the most cost-effective states. This reduction was equivalent to about $20 million in the 1998 calendar year.Let us turn some of this rhetoric into practicality. The term `increased efficiencies' really is a catchphrase these days for doing more with less—or basically trying to tread water when you do not have any life jacket or flippers on. For example, we had trade unions in the Northern Territory fronting up to the Northern Territory University for the third round of enterprise bargaining this year. NT University is a post-Dawkins university, embracing TAFE and higher ed. It has an amalgamated structure. We were told, `Come back next year. We cannot afford a wage increase for the staff here. Our funds are such that we cannot possibly look at any increase—not half a per cent or one per cent let alone the 14 per cent happening in some of the major institutions that have merged.' So wage increases are put off by 12 months.We have had restructuring of faculties. We went from 14 down to nine and from nine down to five. It is called downsizing—looking at trying to save the extra dollars that should have been provided for these institutions by the Commonwealth government. Instead we are looking at growth through efficiencies. That means you downsize, you restructure, you cut the number of staff and you make administrative people within your institutions do basically what academics or TAFE lecturers should be doing.There has been a reduction in courses, so we are like regional institutions that cannot provide the range of courses that you would expect in rural and regional Australia. The number of courses has been limited. You have people who cannot afford to travel south. You have parents who cannot afford to send their kids down south, so their career options or their choices are severely limited. You have a casualisation of the work force. One of the cheapest ways of doing things is to put off your full-time staff, make them either part time or casual and bring them in whenever you need them.The largest impact we have had through these efficiencies and through the lack of growth funding to regional institutions has been on the expectation that, as a private provider, they will be there to deliver in remote communities. Northern Territory University has parts of its institution based in Nhulunbuy and in remote communities such as Milingimbi, Katherine and Alice Springs. It has lecturers who travel around to remote communities—not with more money, thanks to the federal government, but with less money.The cost of the delivery per hour to remote places has increased, it has not decreased. Places like Northern Territory University are continually having to re-evaluate what they offer, relook at the number of staff they employ, reassess their structures and make efficiencies accordingly. At the end of the day, who loses in all of this? By and large it is the people in those rural and remote communities who have a lack of choice and who perhaps have to resort to courses by external mode instead of face-to-face delivery.I want to have a look a little bit further in my speech tonight at the effect of downsizing through efficiencies and cuts. In the 1996-97 budget under this government, which is when increased privatisation and coping with efficiencies first saw the light of day, we had a reduction in the VET grants to the states and territories of $66 million. Then we had a reduction of $13 million in ANTA's operating expenses. Then there was the abolition of the five per cent real growth on the base current TAFE funding, and that was worth $91 million.In the 1997-98 budget, a further cut was made which subtracted a further $72 million from the funding that had been provided for the states. That means that, in total, the TAFE sector since the 1996-97 budget has been denied $240 million that could have been invested in giving young people and middle-aged men and women—middle-aged Australians—a chance to develop the skills they need in order to both improve their stance within their own work force and contribute to the productivity of our society through their jobs.In the debate on the second reading associated with these bills, the minister said:A strong network of TAFE institutes, operating alongside and in competition—in competition—with quality private providers, is an essential feature of an effective and responsive vocational education and training sector.Over the weekend I was talking to somebody from the Albury-Wodonga region who works for a private provider. Her comment to me was: `Our major competitor these days is TAFE.' TAFE has never been a major competitor. TAFE has been the cornerstone of the delivery of post-compulsory education in this country and continues to be so. While there is a place for private providers in this country, they still do not offer, and will never offer, the support base, the range of courses and the assistance that migrants, unemployed people or people trying to re-enter the work force have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy. Private providers do not have and never will have the infrastructure, the counselling and the resources that are there to assist people in the way that TAFE has done.I want to draw the Senate's attention to a good article by Damon Anderson in the Australian TAFE teacher of August 1998. In that article he talks about the views of TAFE being polarised these days between meeting the needs of industry and business and responding to the broader needs of the community. In the eyes of this government the only thing that seems to matter is the needs of industry and business. The challenge is now for this government to provide a new vision for TAFE—a TAFE which is based on a broader and more responsive analysis of its roles and responsibilities. Damon Anderson says in his article that, after a decade of managerial and micro-economic reform, TAFE is in a profound state of disarray and instability. Reconstructed within a competitive market framework and faced with the prospect of mergers with universities, TAFE is fighting for its survival. At the same time, TAFE is expected to satisfy the increasing, diverse and often conflicting demands of government, industry and the community.On the one hand there is the principal role that TAFE is there to satisfy—to meet the demands for a highly skilled and flexible work force—and on the other hand there are those who consider that TAFE's primary responsibility is to respond to the wider needs of the community, and employers are just one group of stakeholders in that domain. Damon Anderson says in his article:If not seriously diminished, TAFE's capacity to respond to the full range of social, cultural and economic needs in the Australian community—in short, the social service mission of TAFE—has been largely sacrificed to the narrow dictates of economic utility.Are the needs of employers and students and apprentices converging? I contend that there are differences between the needs of the student and the requirements of the employer. The TAFE sector understands this but is not being given the capacity to be able to respond to those calls from students or industry in the way that it would like to because of the funding cuts it has experienced over the last 3½ years. We have the employability of students or apprentices argument versus the lack of employment opportunities. We have the viability of TAFE in competition with private providers under the banner of user choice and the expansion of market forces.An article from the Australian Financial Review written by Christopher Jay outlines how, from 1 January 1998, TAFE colleges were to compete with as many as 2,500 private providers for $500 million worth of federation funds. He says:Under the banners of user choice and expansion of market mechanisms, Australia's 84 colleges of TAFE will be required to compete for this money against the 2,500 potential private providers. The states are being urged to find $286 million a year of operating efficiencies to help fund the equivalent 40,000 additional full-time TAFE places that were expected as a result of the introduction of the Youth Allowance.Under the banner of user choice, the Australian Education Union were forced to launch their campaign `TAFE works'. Recent statistics show that TAFE—not private providers—constitutes 95 per cent of the total vocational education and training system, but if agreed to by the states these demands along with user choice will severely damage the capacity of TAFE to meet its educational, social and economic obligations.On user choice, Minister Kemp said on 10 July 1997:We can no longer afford to maintain rigid, bureaucratic controls over the TAFE system.I believe that is a direct swipe at his confidence and his belief that the TAFE system has been and always will be the system that is better able to cater for a diverse range of stakeholders in the training market or in the post-compulsory education market. TAFE is no longer seen as a public service but is constructed as a product for sale in the marketplace for the sake of the economy rather than for the benefit to the economy from a trained work force. VET programs and services have been modularised and packaged for fast production and consumption, all under the guise of the national training market.I think ANTA has a large responsibility here that it has not realised, fails to realise or is being pressured not to realise. ANTA has to come to terms with and face a number of serious choices that are currently before it in terms of the integrity of the training market, such as quality control and consumer protection. There are views that providers have held control over the training market and that user choice for consumers is the way that the reforms should be going. ANTA has encouraged the development of private providers who use TAFE facilities so that it is cheaper. It is a short cut to the provisions for training recognition, and they are given access to public funds for apprenticeships and trainee training.I think ANTA needs to ensure that in all of this it can guarantee quality assurance systems, which I have yet to see it produce or put in place adequately. ANTA needs to provide a rigorous audit process to ensure that there are quality outcomes. NFROT is replaced by the national training framework, which disregards the national curriculum and replaces it with training packages. The responsibility for the development and maintenance of these will lie with the industry. But I think students lose consistency and they accumulate credits at random, and I believe that their qualifications are not becoming portable under the user-choice private providers system, whereas under TAFE there has been regulation and there has been an accreditation process by which qualifications are portable and credits can be accumulated satisfactorily. (Time expired)18:16:009393Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise tonight to speak on the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 because vocational education and training is integral to the development of our nation. The ALP support the allocation of funds to the Australian National Training Authority for vocational education and training. We also support the coordinated national approach to vocational education that ANTA provides.ANTA was an initiative of the former Labor government that was outlined under the One Nation package. Before ANTA, Australia had a skills system like its railway system of the last century—each state had its own gauge. We had unnecessary restrictions and differences between standards applying across the nation. Part of the rationale for developing ANTA was because an internationally competitive and fair society at the end of the 20th century depends upon: first, a flexible, broad based and highly skilled work force; second, a convergence of general and vocational education; and, third, the importance of portability and capacity to adapt skills to new applications. These days, workers change their jobs more frequently and their role within a firm may change regularly. For this reason employers need to know what skills potential workers have. Equally, workers need to have portable skills that are marketable. Therefore, a national system of qualifications based on industry developed training standards is essential.It was the Labor Party that revolutionised vocational education and training and provided the first national system of industry training standards. In 1992, when the One Nation document was released, it recommended that the responsibility for TAFE and the vocational education and training of the states should be taken over by the Commonwealth government. This was the only way at the time to develop a sensible national system. ANTA was then formed—not through a Commonwealth takeover of the responsibility for vocational education and training but by a cooperative approach between the states and the Commonwealth, who bore equal responsibility to fund it. From its formation in 1992 to 1995, the Commonwealth lived up to its responsibility in funding ANTA, and did much more. The Commonwealth provided $70 million per year to fund further growth of ANTA until 1995 and provided an additional $100 million for growth in the vocational education and training sector. Around one-third of the public expenditure on vocational education and training was provided from the Commonwealth government's involvement.When in government, the Labor Party delivered on its commitment to education and delivered to ANTA. Labor's commitment is on the record through its reforms and substantial funding commitment. In contrast, the impact of this government's stubborn funding policy is being felt on the ground at TAFE colleges across the country. The failure to provide adequate funds at a federal level, coupled with state government reductions, has caused a crisis at many TAFE colleges. For example, the Australian reported on 2 December 1998 that two of Victoria's biggest TAFE colleges were threatened with insolvency because of government cuts. In this article Mr Brian MacDonald, chief executive of the Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE, is quoted as saying:13 years of 1.5 per cent a year State funding cuts and the recent introduction of an 0.5 per cent Federal funding cut equated to a crippling 5 per cent cut next year and a further million dollar loss for the Institution.When it came to office, the Howard government immediately began to cut funding to ANTA. It introduced a five per cent cut to ANTA's overall funding and also ended the five per cent real annual growth increment on base funding to ANTA. These cuts represented a reversal of policy in the most fundamental way. The objective of the state and federal governments in 1992 was to provide a world-class vocational education and training system that would deliver job ready workers to Australian industry and also to provide many Australian workers with a positive vocational education system to assist them in finding work.By 1998 the Howard government dealt another significant blow to vocational education and training by reducing annual funding to states and territories for vocational education and training in the budget as `an incentive to the states to achieve efficiency gains in their vocational education and training operations'. This government has the worst record of all on vocational education and training, taking every opportunity to cut funding to the sector and reduce the standard of education available. In comparison, the legacy of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments was to raise the standard so significantly that Australia is now ranked fifth across the OECD in terms of the proportion of its national population possessing higher education qualifications. Sadly, we will see that ranking slip if this government continues the irresponsible approach it is taking to funding vocational education.The legacy of the Howard regime has clearly become one of destruction. It seeks to reduce overall standards and reduce access to vocational education for the vast majority of Australians. Minister Kemp is adamant that we should have a system based on flexibility and choice. In his second reading speech he says that this bill will:. . . promote higher standards, provide increased training opportunities and encourage greater choice and flexibility in vocational education and training.When the minister mentions `flexibility' and `choice' he is speaking in code. What he is really talking about is changing the education system into a marketplace based on the principles of user pays and competition. A marketplace for vocational education may deliver choice but it will not deliver quality or equality. This will mean that industry suffers in the quality of prospective employees available, and trainees will suffer in the availability and quality of education and training. Overall it will produce a reduction in standards that will have damaging effects on the national economy.It is interesting to note that, at the Youth Roundtable that was held in Canberra last week or the week before, young people had this to say on the section dealing with VET:VET (Vocational Education and Training) programs were investigated as an incorporation to the schooling system that is "more than simply a work experience program". Young people who were consulted identified a number of ways this positive, meaningful program could be enhanced in its effectiveness for providing a structured pathway from education to employment, including centralised and long-term funding, involvement of students in review of the program and improved flexibility, for example with respect to times of work placement.Already, however, we have seen the system plagued with rorts as the government's funding proposals and policy have shifted it towards private operation. The aims set out in the agreed strategy for ANTA are genuinely good for vocational education and training. The major concern is the adequacy of the implementation processes and the funding levels to support its successful operation.Major concerns are being raised. The first is the lack of an effective process to audit whether the training providers are in fact meeting the requirements of the national training packages. It is clear that many training providers are issuing qualifications without proper processes of assessment and without altering their courses to meet industry requirements. Providers are issuing qualifications in cases where the trainee has received no training at all. This has been clearly demonstrated by the report of the recent Queensland government independent inquiry into traineeships, known as the Schofield report. The report provides, as an example, that:The incidence of service failure within Queensland's traineeships system is unacceptably high. Survey interviews show that 19% of trainees receive no training from their RTO and many RTOs are minimising their obligations in terms of delivery and assessment. 27% of employers and 36.7% of trainees indicate that they had no involvement in developing the Training Plan and 39% of both groups indicate that the Training Plan has never been referred to in order to check progress.ANTA should be taking a much stronger lead to ensure that the quality assurance process is adequate and is focused on the whether the required outcomes are actually being achieved, rather than on whether the right paperwork has been ticked.The second major concern is the lack of an adequately funded program to ensure that companies actually participate in the national training system in respect of existing workers. New entrants to the labour market are of course extremely important but they constitute less than four per cent of the labour market each year. Investment by firms in training has dropped dramatically under this government. This drop is clearly due to decreased government investment, particularly in labour market programs; reduced incentives for apprenticeships; labour market deregulation and privatisation; and the lack of a taxation and industry policy which promotes investment in quality training and promotes confidence in the future of industry, which encourages longer term investment and planning.The barrier to firms entering the national system is, first and foremost, the cost of having the skills of their existing workers assessed and recognised as credit towards qualifications. This is essential to avoid costly duplication of effort and the cost of identifying where the key skills and training needs for the future of the firm are. Once this barrier is removed, investment in further training needs by the firm itself becomes possible. Public investment through the industry training advisory boards, in removing this barrier, will help make training providers more responsive to industry and will increase investment in training. It will also significantly increase the level of nationally portable qualifications held by the work force. ANTA, in conjunction with industry and governments, has an urgent need to tackle this question. There has to be a strategy and funding to improve existing workers' skills. It is not enough to just fund programs for new workers.The third major concern is in respect of entry level training. The key problem is the trend to low quality, short-term training contracts at the expense of quality apprenticeships. This is clearly demonstrated by the Queensland Schofield report, as it cites examples of the many rorts that have been used. A few examples from the report are:Employers were using the traineeships system to fund in-house training and programs for existing workers. . . . . . . . .Assignment of voluntary staff to traineeships. . . . . . . . .A trainee being recorded as completing an entire traineeship in two and a half hours. . . . . . . . .Fully on-the-job training is widespread but in many cases is not being effectively delivered. In some cases training is not being delivered at all. . . . . . . . .Traineeships are being used as a wage subsidy program particularly where employers were able to access funding to put existing employees on traineeshipsMost of the growth in traineeships under this government has been in fully on-the-job traineeships, which in the majority of cases are not completed. In many of these cases employers take the subsidy and run. They often do not have any structured training and it often involves existing workers being converted to traineeships by the employer to pick up subsidies. This has been addressed in part after the relentless pursuit by my Victorian colleague Senator Carr.The subsidy and marketing arrangements need to be changed to deal with the real skill needs and shortages, and to promote higher level quality training outcomes and qualifications, as well as matching real demand for skills in the labour market. Overall it is a positive sign that this government has managed to provide a funding arrangement for the Australian National Training Authority Agreement 1998-2000. As the government has spent the past three years cutting funding from this area, it is a vital step forward. The government must not only restore its funding cuts but also bring increased funding to ANTA so that the authority can provide for the increased growth in demand for vocational education and training and ensure that our nation's TAFE colleges can contribute to providing the best vocational education and training for our work force.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:009396Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—It is disappointing to see that this government is not ensuring that there is adequate funding for vocational education and training. The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 supplements for price increases the 1999 level of funding for vocational education and training. In addition, it appropriates the base level of funding for the year 2000. The amount, surprisingly, is the same; that is, $918 million. Where is the growth funding? The ANTA agreement requires that the Commonwealth government would provide growth funds.Education and training requires support, not lip service, from this government. Vocational education and training is vitally important. It is an area where there is a need for vigilance. It is critical that vocational education and training has significant investment at a national level. It is clear that, without significant investment in vocational education and training, the consequences will severely limit our children's job opportunities in entering the labour market and maintaining contact with that market. The labour market is demanding higher skills. Less skilled workers are finding it more difficult to be placed in jobs. TAFE—technical and further education—can address this. But it is not only entrants to the labour market we need to encourage; we as a nation also need to encourage lifelong learning to ensure that workers' skills will match jobs now and well into the future.One area that government can and must play a role is in making sure that this vocational education and training area is properly and appropriately funded and provided with growth funding now and into the future. Clearly, more funds, not less, are required to be allocated to vocational education and training. Instead, this government has presided over the withdrawal of funds from this area. It demonstrates a lack of commitment to training and genuine interest in trying to help our youth obtain jobs. It was reported in the House of Representatives by Mr Lee—and it is worth restating and re-emphasising in this chamber the figures he quoted—that this government reduced the VET grants to the states and territories to the tune of some $66 million. Then it reduced ANTA's operating expenses by $13 million. Not content, it abolished the five per cent real growth on the base of recurrent TAFE funding. This amounted to something in the order of $91 million. The 1997-98 budget was slashed by $72 million in this area.In total, approximately $242 million has been denied to the TAFE sector. This has impacted—and will continue to impact—adversely on the employability of the young and middle aged. TAFE provides an important link between skills and jobs for these people. The market recognises the importance of TAFE training. Between 1989 and 1999, the number of students in vocational education and training more than doubled from something in the order of 791,000 to 1.5 million. The market is certainly telling us that vocational education and training is important. It is high time this government listened.Queensland has suffered under the regime set up by Mr Howard and Dr Kemp. However, by mid-December 1998 the Queensland government commenced to turn around the state's ailing TAFE network that had been handed to it. A rescue package of some $30.8 million was injected into the system. Queensland is committed, as I am informed, to re-establishing and revitalising its TAFE system. Kim Bannikoff, a former senior executive of ANTA, headed a task force which recommended, amongst other things, that. . . TAFE institutions be re-established as a key instrument of government policy in the VET area . . . private expenditure on training be expanded along with an increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of government expenditure and a package of measures be implemented to address TAFE institutes' financial distress.Under the previous government, Queensland had headed down a very competitive model of training with disastrous consequences. However, by May this year, a further report was released entitled The impact of user choice on the Queensland training market: A progress evaluation , prepared by Dr Larry Smith of the Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. The report was commissioned after growing concerns in recent years about the negative effects on TAFE because of the rush to introduce reforms and concerns about claimed rorting within the traineeship system by a small minority of businesses. What is being demonstrated here is that there is an urgent rush to introduce things without time considered responses and without looking at the whole issue in toto and measuring proper approaches.As a consequence problems surfaced. The current Queensland government inherited many problems from the previous Liberal government's system which they tried to rush through. The report found that the traineeship system had serious deficiencies within it. I understand from recent reports that the Queensland government is keen to deliver quality training for school leavers, unemployed people and middle-aged people who want to re-enter the labour market or enter it for the first time. However, it is hampered by the lack of real funding coming from the Commonwealth and by its drive for numbers in training rather than quality outcomes.A further report in late July by the Queensland government entitled Investigation into the quality and effectiveness of the traineeship system, by Ms Kaye Schofield, raised concerns over the quality of training delivered through traineeships, especially those delivered on the job. This report followed on the back of the earlier report I mentioned which highlighted in a preliminary way some of the shortcomings of the present system operating in Queensland. The report found that, in many cases, trainees had not been provided with sufficient time or resources required to gain skills or earn qualifications. The Commonwealth's focus on numbers and incentives for employers has hijacked the purpose of traineeships. Traineeships were to develop job related skills for our youth and middle aged who are entering or re-entering the work force.Vocational education and training in Queensland is also targeted at supporting economic and social objectives. Its aim is to skill Queensland, create employment, stimulate regional growth and improve quality of life, not simply gain numbers for a board. The national goal is to ensure that Australia's work force has skills that support internationally competitive business and industry and that people have opportunities to optimise their potential. The Commonwealth government provided to Queensland both recurrent and capital funds for VET. In return, Queensland's contract is to contribute to the national objectives relating to access and equity, enhancing the mobility in the labour market and ensuring that public training expenditure returns value for money. These are worthwhile goals and certainly likely to be echoed on the other side of the chamber. However, I find that I am disappointed in that.The quantum of the public VET funds is the gross or cumulative budget to support VET in Queensland. To give you a perspective of the cost of training, in 1998 it amounted to something in the order of $782 million. The net amount, when you adjust it, is approximately $653 million. The amount comprises both state and Commonwealth government allocations. In return for the Commonwealth assistance, Queensland has agreed to increase the amount of training each year, within the constraints of a relatively static budget. Thus, growth must be achieved through strategies aimed at achieving efficiencies in delivery, administration and services.However, this will not grow the system. It will not ensure quality training long into the future. This federal government's disastrous policies in this area need to be turned around. Do not ignore the youth or the middle aged. This government is not committed. I am informed that it failed to adequately consult with Queensland in the introduction of the NACs, which are the new apprenticeship centres, and the scope of services they were to provide, which created difficulties for the Queensland VET system, as highlighted in the Schofield report. The performances of some of these NACs have been less than optimal, and I am advised that the Commonwealth government decision not to evaluate the performance operation of the NACs is an abysmal response. However, all is not lost. As I understand it, there is still scope for improvement and redress if the government chooses to act. But take it seriously—look for proper outcomes with proper realistic funding.This government does not appear to understand or simply ignores the value of investing in job programs. It does not recognise the role that VET plays in achieving lower unemployment levels and it does not recognise the value of investing in education and training. A high wage, high skill future is achievable. This government wants to cut wages, working conditions and social security, and it wants push people into unworkable programs in order to reduce unemployment levels. This is nothing short of a smoke and mirrors campaign that this government has embraced. Skills development is where positive reform lies. A partnering arrangement with the Commonwealth and the state and especially local governments, directed at developing skills for people which assist them to become employable, is vital. Cooperation in both rural and regional areas is also necessary.An increase in short-term traineeships at the expense of helping our youth is a disastrous policy. The system for training our youth must have and hold the confidence of our community. A recent Senate committee report entitled Jobs for the regions: A report on the inquiry into regional employment and unemployment, released in September, only reinforces the point I am making. This report, on page 101, at section 5.57, subheading `TAFE—the key to job creation', reinforces the point that TAFE is `the powerhouse of national reconstruction'. To this end, at paragraph 5.63, the committee recommended further:. . . that additional funding support for TAFE providers be negotiated with the states to improve the provision of flexible, structured training opportunities to meet changing local market requirements.It seems that everybody, save Dr Kemp, seems to think that VET training is vitally important and needs better funding arrangements than those currently in place. Government centres did not disagree, and it was a recommendation not by a majority but by the committee.VET plays a crucial role in regional Australia. The committee, although not engaged in full-scale investigation of this area, did comment on some telling issues at page 85. I recommend that the Senate go to those sections in detail, but I give a small quote:. employment education had assumed increased importance because of a diminished demand for unskilled and semi-skilled labour;It is not too late for this government to refocus its attention on vocational education and training and to look to quality not quantity. It needs a real attempt at creating in our youth the skills to engage in employment and a commitment to lifelong learning. This government needs to direct funding to TAFE in order to ensure that the VET system can provide quality training for all those who request it so that they can contribute to our growth over time, especially for regional and rural Queensland and the nation.19:42:009399Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In summing up, I thank senators for their contributions tonight. However, there are some points I would make in relation to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the vocational education and training sector in Australia. Before I do that, I summarise by saying that the primary purpose of the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 and the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 is to reflect in legislation the agreement that already exists between the Commonwealth, states and territories on vocational education and training, which comes under the ANTA agreement. This agreement sets out planning, accountability and funding arrangements for the three years from 1998 to 2000.The ANTA agreement is founded on a recognition by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments that vocational education and training is integral to the development of an Australian work force with a range and depth of skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry as we move into the new millennium. The key feature of the agreement is that it provides a stable basis for funding. The Commonwealth has made a commitment to maintain funding in real terms for the duration of the agreement. The states and territories have agreed to fund growth in their systems through efficiency gains. A number of senators touched on this point, and it is one worth noting.The drive for efficiencies, which the states and territories have accepted, is not about cost cutting or reducing quality; it is about making better use of the substantial contribution taxpayers make to supporting vocational education and training. It is about creating additional quality training places, especially for young people. The vocational education and training system has grown considerably over the last couple of years. State and territory ministers have estimated that by the end of this year there will be an additional 70,000 training places provided nationally, compared with 1997 levels. This, of course, is only good news for those in Australia who want to take up training, especially young people.In a recent publication, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research showed that 1.54 million students undertook training in the publicly funded VET sector in 1998. That means that more than 12 per cent of Australia's working-age population participated in vocational training during the course of the year. This is more than ever before. Not only that, during 1998 there was a significant increase of more than eight per cent in training, and at the end of March this year the number exceeded 232,000 people. That is a record. That is an unprecedented number of people in training. A vital element of meeting the training challenge is not only to provide more training opportunities but to ensure that the training delivered is of the highest quality. The ANTA agreement reflected in this bill ensures the quality of training by reinforcing the national framework for competency standards, recognition and qualifications.On 1 January 1998 the Australian Recognition Framework was introduced. This provides a structure to ensure that training organisations meet high standards and that skills and qualifications are recognised across Australia. For the first time, we have a truly national training system. Another major initiative, training packages, links industry, competency standards and assessment guidelines directly with national qualifications. This is not a technical change; it is a whole new approach that creates the basis for moving away from the cumbersome and rigid arrangements based on external course accreditation.This brings me to the second reading amendment moved by Senator Carr. The first part of Senator Carr's amendment notes that quality vocational education and training plays a vital role in Australia's future. The government would not disagree with that; in fact, the government's policy has recognised that and promoted quality vocational education and training in this country. That is why we have been working with ANTA and the states and territories to implement the new training framework. This new framework has stronger standards for training providers than the previous system. There is a strong national commitment to the new framework.At their most recent meeting, the chief executives of the state and territory training authorities noted that quality assurance is a critical component of the framework and agreed that states and territories are responsible for the registration and quality assurance of registered training organisations, including monitoring performances and outcomes. This signifies and points to a vocational education training system which is one of the best in the world.The second part of Senator Carr's amendment is totally unjustified. The condemnation of the government for undermining the quality of the system, failing to meet its responsibilities and failing to properly administer the provision of training to overseas students is totally without foundation. The amendment criticises the government's administration of vocational education for overseas students. In fact, the government is working to strengthen the education services for overseas students act which was introduced in 1991. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, announced a review of the act in August this year. It will involve wide consultation with states and territories, the education industry and other stakeholders. The consultations are already under way. This review was foreshadowed last year when the sunset clause for the act was extended. It is just a part of the government's overall efforts to improve the lot for overseas students. You merely have to look at the numbers of people coming to Australia to train and to engage in our educational system to realise how highly regarded our vocational education training system is.There has been growth in the vocational education and training sector—there are record numbers of people in training. I reject the criticism of opposition senators and Senator Stott Despoja that there is no real growth in training. This is quite the contrary when you look at the number of people in training and the opportunities. In relation to overseas students, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs is working with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on an electronic system of confirmation of enrolment. This will replace the confirmation of enrolment forms introduced by the previous government and will reduce the risk of fraud. This in itself is a streamlined approach which will make the system more efficient and more accountable. I note that Senator Carr raised his old chestnut of fraud in the vocational education and training system. There has been no finding of fraud in any of the matters that Senator Carr has raised to date. I think it is terribly unfair to try to taint the whole system with the allegation of just a few matters and to say that the whole system is corrupt.Senator Carr also mentioned that there was delay in bringing these bills forward for debate. It was always the government's position that these bills should be debated as non-controversial. They could have been passed much earlier. That would not have deprived Senator Carr of a chance to have his say but, in view of the opposition's approach to these bills not being dealt with on a non-controversial basis, the bills are having to be debated now rather than earlier.Senator Carr also criticised user choice. The national evaluation just completed has shown that user choice is welcomed by the employers of new apprentices in making providers, including TAFE, more responsive. So what we have here is a complete rebuttal of the allegations and criticisms of Senator Carr. I think other senators, including the Democrats, joined with Senator Carr in stating that TAFE had been downgraded. The numbers in TAFE in 1998 were the highest ever, and that is even with a growth in the private sector.This government is all about having a strong TAFE sector and a strong private provider sector. That will give the people of Australia choice in relation to training that they have never had before. The system is doing very well. The system is internationally recognised as being one of the best in the world, and it provides choice to those who want to participate. The government totally opposes this amendment to the second reading. It is of the type we are quite used to from the opposition, and it is one which is totally unfounded.Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.9401The bills.19:53:009401Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I have raised concerns with the minister privately and following representations in the chamber about the operations of registered training organisations operating in the overseas students sector. I heard the minister say to the Senate in his concluding remarks that there had been a growth in the number of overseas students in the VET sector last year. My information is that, on the department's own figures, there has actually been a decline in the percentage of students from overseas at those training organisations catering for overseas students. The decline has been from 40,865 to 37,325. I ask the minister: are those figures correct?19:54:009401Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that on notice. We should be able to provide an answer in relation to that shortly. Could Senator Carr give us another question in the meantime?19:55:009401Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I understand that they are departmental figures, and I would hate to think that you were being provided with advice that is not consistent with the facts. On the other hand I fully acknowledge that, from time to time, we are able to get things wrong on this side of the chamber, so I would appreciate a detailed answer to the matter.Minister, I have raised with you concerns about the operations of the National Business Management College, which had various names, operating out of Sydney. I raised a question with you on 12 August this year and again on 28 September, when I asked you for a further update. You indicated to the Senate that you would do all that you could to secure an answer to those matters. I note that, to date, those answers have yet to be provided.This college was a registered training organisation. I am sure that your departmental officials will be only too happy to tell you that this is really not an issue for them; it is a matter for the international division of the department. Nonetheless, it is a registered training organisation and, like so many registered training organisations seeking to enter into this area of business, there appears to be a small group operating in an unethical manner. As I understand it, this particular college collapsed in June. The department appears to have acknowledged the existence of some 232 students. My information was that 600 students were enrolled at the college. Subsequent advice to me suggests that I may well have been wrong on that score, and it may well have been closer to 800 students. Urgent messages were sent by the department to all registered training organisations operating in this field. A letter from the department signed by Ms Bennett said that, when the department had the addresses of the students, they would in fact be contacted.My information is that, at the time of its collapse, that college had a significant number of students, but the department had lost contact with those students. I am seeking answers to the following questions. How many students were enrolled at the time the college collapsed? What was the maximum number of students allowed under the CRICOS registration? How many of the students have actually been identified by the department and found, that is, actually contacted and that contact acknowledged by the students concerned? How many of those students have in fact been deported in various raids around Sydney in recent months? And is it the case that the college's insurance company is ceasing to acknowledge liability because, on their count, fraud was involved in the operations of the college? Is it possible, Minister, to get answers to those matters?19:58:009402Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take those on notice for the time being. Senator Carr did indicate that he wanted further answers to a question which he put to me on 12 August this year. I will deal with those first, whilst we are looking at the other ones. This information, which is as at 18 August, relates to that question. The question was:Can [the Minister] confirm that, despite being expelled from the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, the college still received approval with regard to 600 students?I am advised that ACPET expelled NCA in September 1997, but did not advise the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs of the reason. It appears now that it was because the principal was holding himself out as possessing a PhD that he did not have. Membership of a tuition insurance scheme is not mandatory under the ESOS Act, as the insurance alternative held by the NCA is allowed. At the time, NCA demonstrated compliance with the ESOS Act. Senator Carr then asked:Can he also confirm that, of the 600 international students enrolled at the college—or allegedly enrolled at the college—approximately 300 are missing and that not all the students who paid tuition fees actually attended the college?I am advised that investigation of the records of the NCA liaison with the liquidator appointed to wind up the NCA, also with DIMA—that is, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—has not revealed the exact number of students who had been enrolled at the college. These investigations indicate that 733 students were associated in some way with the NCA at the time of its closure but were not necessarily enrolled. At least 273 of those may never have attended the college, and at least 18 were not issued with visas to come to Australia. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs' records, based on visa issue data from DIMA, show that 639 students were issued with a visa to attend NCA. The grant of a visa does not mean, however, that a student will necessarily commence study either at the enrolling provider or at all. Therefore, the figure of 639 visa grants may not necessarily equate with the number of students who were enrolled at the NCA.Senator Carr asked a further question which was: how many students has DETYA now located? DETYA has addresses for 332 students. So far only 168 have supplied some form of evidence of having been enrolled at NCA. Overall, DETYA holds information which indicates that at least 204 former NCA students have enrolled with other providers. DETYA continues to investigate and update information about former students of NCA. Senator Carr asked a series of questions which I am happy to table. I can carry on referring to them, but if I show them—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Are you prepared to table them?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I am prepared to table the document in order to expedite matters. Senator Carr can see the tenor of the questions and the way in which we are dealing with them. The first page that I read sets the tone. The other matters have been taken on notice. Perhaps Senator Carr has some other matters which we can deal with in the meantime. 20:02:009403Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I appreciate the minister's answer. Obviously considerable effort is being put into the preparation of the answers. I am troubled though by the discrepancy between the 733 students that the minister says are associated with the college and the 639 visa applications. Minister, can you explain to me the difference between those two figures?20:03:009403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I expected, this is not an easy situation: it is somewhat complex. The 639 were visas which were readily identifiable with study. The remaining 94 could well have been from overseas, but they had other visas. They had entered Australia lawfully by other means, but it was not readily identified as being for the purposes of study. That is perhaps the best explanation I can provide at this point.20:04:009403Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—You are saying there were other types of visas—visitors visas and so on. Is that what you are suggesting?20:04:009403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am not suggesting a specific sort of visa, but I am saying that they could well have been present in Australia as a result of other visas being granted to them. I cannot say whether in this instance they had visitors visas or were entering for business reasons or some family reason. Suffice it to say, we believe that the 94 students would have been in Australia via other means, if you like.20:04:009403Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I have just noticed in the answers which the minister has just tabled that the question of fraud that arises in relation to the insurance policy, which under the ESOS Act the particular RTO was able to exercise, allowed for the college to provide an insurance premium to the company based on the number of students that were enrolled. My information is that the insurance company was similarly defrauded as was the Commonwealth in terms of the number of students enrolled. However, your answer suggests that there has been no advice tendered by the insurance company. Is it your understanding, Minister, that the number of students identified and paid for under the insurance policy of that RTO was less than the number of students on the books, in whatever form?20:06:009403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that there are negotiations pending with the insurer and that the insurer is considering some form of payout. I am not sure whether I can take that much further because of the delicate stage of negotiations.20:06:009403Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Has the department identified any breaches of the law and, if so, what prosecutions have been launched?20:06:009403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—My advice from the department is that some prima facie cases of a breach of the law have been identified. Prosecutions have not been launched at this stage. Perhaps it is a bit premature at this stage, but I am advised that there are some prima facie breaches of the law identified. I think that to take it any further than that might prejudice the Commonwealth's position—if we were to signal where we were looking and what we were anticipating in relation to this matter. I think that is as far as I can take it in answering Senator Carr's question.20:07:009403Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—There were other questions relating to CRICOS in regard to this college. I take it those answers are not available. If so, do I need to speak on another matter?20:07:009403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I think they were the questions that Senator Carr posed a few moments ago. We are still obtaining those details. Senator Carr also gave me some departmental figures earlier. Perhaps we can move on.20:07:009403Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—In his reply to the second reading debate, the minister failed to mention the Senate inquiry which is being launched into the issue of the quality of vocational education and training operating in this country. I might take this opportunity to say a few words on that matter while information is being sought. I ask whether the minister is able to respond to the following propositions: that the Senate inquiry provides an opportunity for the entire education community to express their views about the performance of the vocational education and training system in this country; that the TAFE sector, despite having experienced huge growth, despite the arduous circumstances and given the extraordinary pressures placed upon the system as a result of the ideological agenda that is driving this government, does an extremely good job in meeting the needs of a range of Australians; but that it requires an opportunity to take stock of the changes that have occurred in recent years and to examine the means by which the quality of provision might be improved.The reform agenda in VET has enjoyed considerable support across the country, it has to be acknowledged. Certainly, when initiated by this side of politics, it enjoyed considerable support at a range of levels within the community. That is not to say that there is a golden era to which one could return. Nonetheless, considerable concern is now being expressed about the current administrative arrangements. I think the Senate inquiry will provide an opportunity for all persons interested in vocational education to evaluate some of the unintended consequences which have arisen from these changes.The terms of reference are particularly broad, deliberately so, to allow a wide range of views to be put forward as to the current practice and future directions of vocational education in this country. This provides a unique opportunity to strengthen the system. There is a chance here for all players to participate and to place pressure upon departmental officials at a state and national level as to some of the profound structural flaws that are emerging within the system at the moment. It provides us with an opportunity to evaluate the priorities, especially in relation to the appropriateness of the present resource allocations that are occurring.I am particularly interested in some comments that have been made about whether or not the objectives of the New Apprenticeships system are being met. I would ask the minister whether or not he would be in agreement that the drive for efficiencies has resulted in a compromise in terms of quality, and whether or not the government has now acknowledged that the lowest cost is not necessarily the most efficient. While recent documentation presented is, in the minister's view, not demonstrating fraud—and what constitutes fraud is an issue in itself within a system which is sufficiently wide open so that you could fly a jumbo jet through it, as we are demonstrating with some of these RTOs in the overseas student market—I ask the minister whether or not the appropriate administrative audit and assessment procedures are in place to protect the quality of vocational education and training in this country.It is important for us to identify some of the concerns that have been voiced. For instance, I note the letter which I tabled in the Senate estimates from Bob Marshman to the secretary to the department where he indicated that the New Apprenticeships system's objectives were not being met. He said that in his experience training outcomes, on the evidence available to the officers in Queensland, were of diminished quality, that people already in the work force were the main beneficiaries rather than young people seeking to enter the work force, that the system was now more complicated rather than simpler, and that the system was being driven by financial incentives and targets rather than by industry needs.Further advice has been tendered to the Senate, through reports by Dr Larry Smith, which has shown that there was a poor standard of provider training, that there was a widespread assessment of malpractice, that there were ineffective learning resources, that there was a perceived policy and funding focus on numbers not on quality, that there were widespread allegations of rorting in the user choice contracts and that there were inappropriate and ineffective auditing arrangements. It is not surprising that Minister Kemp has said that this was just a problem in Queensland. I ask the minister: is he now aware that these sorts of concerns are being expressed in other states? Is he aware that inquiries in Tasmania, South Australia and other places have demonstrated that there are considerable concerns being expressed about the number of RTOs currently operating and the registration processes which are operating and that some RTOs clearly are not able to fulfil the functions of quality provision? The operation of RTOs in the back of Volvos is all too common. I ask the minister whether or not it is possible within existing bills to improve those situations, because I cannot see any mechanisms to do it. I am sure he will enlighten me if I am wrong.I also ask the minister whether he appreciates that the current inquiry that is before the Senate will give an opportunity for people to examine the effect of the principles of growth through efficiencies, which of course is the cornerstone of this present agreement; whether it is possible for participants in the industry to examine whether or not the funding models that are being pursued are having an adverse effect, especially in regional Australia; and whether or not they are having an adverse effect on the quality of structured training, on the quality of teaching, on the appropriateness of curriculum and learning resources and on the level of charges and fees that are operating within TAFE institutions. These are all opportunities that present themselves for this Senate inquiry, opportunities which, while the terms of reference are extremely broad, will provide people with the chance to comment on those aspects of the terms of reference that are of direct relevance to them.These are all opportunities that do present themselves for this Senate inquiry, opportunities which, while the terms of reference are so extremely broad, will provide people with the chance to comment on those aspects of the terms of reference that are of direct relevance to them.Has the minister been contacted by various state governments seeking support for the sorts of submissions that they are likely to put, given the robust nature of the dialogue between Minister Kemp and the various training and education ministers across this country?Finally, would there not be an opportunity, through this inquiry, to allow the VET sector, in all its diversity, to provide some discussions about its objectives? The VET sector is more than just New Apprenticeships, more than industrial training; it provides a range of skills and opportunities for Australians which, in my judgment, and I ask the minister to comment, are too little valued by this government. I ask whether there will be opportunity in this bill to improve the level of assistance to so-called targeted equity groups, to particularly the more regional and the more remote parts of this country, and whether the obsession with unit costs and lowest common denominator economics has had an adverse effect on the social equity demands which have traditionally been placed upon the VET system.These are all issues which I trust the minister will be able to respond to, and I expect that by now he will have had some answers to some of the other issues I have pursued.20:17:009405Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to the last point Senator Carr made, I understand that there has been a growth rate in participation by indigenous groups in training, and I think the figure I saw the other day was over 5,000 indigenous people in training. Indeed, whilst we have still got a long way to go, there has been a good trend in relation to that.I also mention, in relation to the inquiry into RTOs, that I am only aware of Tasmania conducting such an inquiry—apart from Queensland, which Senator Carr referred to. I am unaware of there being the same inquiry anywhere else. I understand that inquiry has not revealed anything to date in Tasmania.In relation to appropriate audit procedures, I understand that state CEOs recently met and undertook to cooperate in this regard and that this was a priority for them. At the end of the day, Senator Carr must realise that the states are at the coalface in relation to vocational education and training. Really the states have to accept some responsibility for the carrying out of the training involved, the auditing of it and the accountability of it. Senator Carr cannot just say that the Commonwealth has to wear everything that happens within the borders of Australia.One other point Senator Carr made concerned efficiency breeding compromise. This is not the case. The states do not think it is the case. What we have is 70,000 new positions being created. I do not think anyone in the states would volunteer any admission that they were part of a system which was breeding compromise. Quite the contrary. The national training framework we have has done away with the bygone years mentioned, I think, by Senator George Campbell, who likened the old system to the standard gauge railway system.Senator Carr also mentioned apprenticeships for young people and said that growth was being diminished. The participation rate for 15- to 19-year-olds grew from 5.7 per cent in 1995 to 6.2 per cent in 1998. That is good news for young Australians.Finally, Senator Carr has invited me to comment on a pending Senate inquiry. I think it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt what a Senate inquiry might come up with or what should be done in relation to that inquiry or how it will be received—or whether various people who want to give submissions have been putting their heads together to put forward a point of view. The fact that there is a Senate inquiry is well known, but, Senator Carr, as an old member of the Privileges Committee, I would not dare pre-empt the outcome of a Senate inquiry by committee.That deals with those questions. Senator Carr asked some questions previously. I am having the departmental figures checked in relation to the first question he asked. I am advised, though, that the second set of questions which I took on notice in fact are the same as the ones he placed on notice on 30 September this year and are ones which the department is currently working on. That is being checked at the moment. Perhaps Senator Carr might have something else for us in the meantime.20:21:009406Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Are you saying that is being checked at the moment, or is the answer being checked?20:21:009406Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—What is being checked are figures which you put to me at the outset which you said were departmental figures. The officers understood that the questions subsequent to that that you put to me were the same as questions you placed on notice on 30 September. If they are identical, they are questions which the department is working on and I do not believe it has a reply for you as yet.20:22:009406Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I have a question in relation to the Jobs for the regions report on the inquiry into regional employment and unemployment, September 1999. The report says at 5.63:The committee recommends that additional funding support for TAFE providers be negotiated with the states to improve the provision of flexible, structured training opportunities to meet changing local market requirements.It is recognised in that report that there is a need for additional funding support, given that we are talking about funding in the vocational education and training area. Does the minister intend to take on board that recommendation and provide additional support for TAFE and negotiate with the states to improve the provision of flexible structured training opportunities to meet changing local market requirements?20:22:009406Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to people living in regional Australia, as part of our election platform back in September when this government was facing the polls, we said that we have carried out, and will carry out further, a policy of providing new apprenticeships in regional Australia. Can I say that the national participation rate for people living in rural and remote areas is slightly higher than that of the whole population. As well, the course enrolment profile of rural and remote clients is broadly comparable with the national profile of all students. In relation to the policy of this government, as I recall we put forward a policy which would bring about 30,000 new apprenticeships in regional Australia. The training of people in regional Australia is something which this government takes very seriously.20:23:009406Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I wish to mention another matter that has been raised in the Independent Investigation into the Quality of Training in Queensland's Traineeship System , the final report of 2 July 1999 by Kaye Schofield. I imagine the minister is aware of that report. In 5.11, it speaks of strengthening the Commonwealth-state interface. It says:The lack of consultation with Queensland by the Commonwealth over the initial introduction of NACs and the scope of services they were to provide has created difficulties for the State Training Authority and considerable confusion for many customers of traineeships (and apprenticeships).What does the minister intend to do regarding the Commonwealth-state interface, in respect of that report and the recommendations flowing from that—if the minister has been made aware of that?20:24:009407Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that in the most recent tender for the new apprenticeship centres, there was broad consultation with the states and territories, and that has been reflected in the latest announcement which has just been made in relation to these new apprenticeship centres. My understanding is that the states and territories are happy with what is taking place.20:25:009407Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—On the issue of overseas students, I have in the past sought to take up the issue of representation on behalf of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, which has indicated its concern about the failure to secure an appointment to see the minister, given its views. For instance, on 15 September, Mr Clive Graham said:ACPET has lobbied hard to clean up the post-secondary vocational education and training sector, and has on numerous occasions presented to State, Territory and Federal Governments details of the ways in which some unscrupulous operators exploit students . . .That the Government has ignored the industry association warnings, to the detriment of Australia's export earnings, is surely a matter of concern to all Australians.Mr Clive Graham indicated that agents in Singapore had advised him that quality students were not being sent to Australia from within those agents' influence; they were going to Canada. Given that these claims are being made, given that the association has sought to present a secure network system which it says would overcome some of the difficulties and given that you have said now that the government is independently developing its own computer monitoring arrangements, I ask: will the government now see ACPET?I also draw your attention to the Australian Council of Independent Vocational Colleges, who, similarly, are concerned. I have correspondence here which I received today, indicating that the Australian Council of Independent Vocational Colleges is:. . . extremely concerned about the standard of some VET providers. We have put a number of suggestions, which we believe will strengthen the industry, forward to various government departments but need to get our message through to State, Territory and Federal Ministers.I ask: given that both these organisations are saying similar things about the declining quality of some registered training organisations, will the minister now at least see these organisations, rather than try to fob them off to some well-meaning departmental official?20:28:009407Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I have a further question which comes on the back of the matter I raised earlier in relation to the Independent Investigation into the Quality of Training in Queensland's Traineeship System . In 4.8 of the report by Kaye Schofield, it says:Roles and responsibilities are poorly defined. The Commonwealth and State Governments have achieved a great deal through cooperative policy development over the past decade, most recently in establishing the New Apprenticeships and the National Training Framework, through ANTA arrangements.However, it then goes on to say that there appears to be confusion about the roles of various stakeholders in the traineeship system. What is the policy of the government in respect of improving the roles defining the responsibilities and ensuring that there is a cooperative model in place? Where there is a choice not to use the user-choice purchasing model but to implement quality training, what does the minister intend to do in respect of that?20:29:009407Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I understand it, all the states and territories bar New South Wales have agreed to user choice. In fact, in the latest round there has been an agreement reached between the state training agencies and the new apprenticeship centres. I do not think I can take it much further than that. User choice is something which has been agreed to between the various states and territories and the Commonwealth government.20:30:009408Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—The question I asked went to user choice but it also went to what other arrangements you were going to put in place. It was not only on that point. That was the second part of the question; the first part was a bit broader than that about improving the relationships that exist. I was asking the minister what actual detailed issues were going to be put in place to address some of the shortfalls identified in that report.Certainly the report goes to a whole range of issues but, if you look at the essence of the report, in part it is critical of those relationships that the Commonwealth has with the various states, including Queensland. What I was trying to elicit from the minister was what detailed policy prescriptions you were going to consider to address those shortcomings that the report has highlighted. The report has been available since 2 July 1999.I would also like to ask the minister what arrangement the minister has put in place to talk to Queensland about that particular report and about addressing some of those concerns that have been raised in the report. I have gone to two or three specifically this evening, but the minister would be aware of others contained within the report that go to those particular matters in detail.20:31:009408Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—My advice is that the concerns of the Queensland government have been allayed. As I mentioned earlier, the interaction between the new apprenticeship centres and the state training agencies was to sort out any deficiency or any problem there might be. Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, I think that is the detail in relation to your question, Senator Ludwig. As far as Queensland goes, I understood they were happy with things. The new apprenticeship centres had been consulted during the latest tender round and were working with the state training agencies. I think that would sort out any concern you have.20:32:009408Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—On that basis then, is it fair to say that I can take back to the Queensland government that, in terms of the Schofield report, you say that those matters that have been raised in there are now addressed and the concerns allayed?20:32:009408Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In terms of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state of Queensland, yes. Before we lose track of all the questions that have been placed on notice, Senator Carr raised the question of ACPET and also the Australian Council of Independent Vocational Colleges. As I understand it, the minister was unable to meet with ACPET but they had a report requested from them. That has been provided and an arrangement has been made for ACPET to meet with officials from the department to discuss matters of concern and the report.It is a bit unfair to simply belittle or cast aside their role by saying that people have been fobbed off to meet officials from the department. The officials that I have dealt with in the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs have been thoroughly cooperative and, when I was minister for training, they assisted those people who came to them. Their knowledge of detail was even more widely acknowledged. Therefore I would say, certainly in my case, that it was better for people to meet with the department than with me.Minister Kemp is far more experienced and knowledgeable than I am. As for whether he can meet with the ACIVC, I do not keep his diary. The portfolio he has is a wide-ranging one and a very demanding one. I do know that there was some approach made by the Australian Council of Independent Vocational Colleges, and I understand that is being addressed.20:34:009408Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Just finally, Minister, the Australian Council of Independent Vocational Colleges indicated to me today:As you are aware the education industry in Australia is one of our largest export industries and its future is dependent upon ethical conduct by all participants. ACIVC & ACPET are working hard to ensure the ongoing quality of the industry but cannot do this without government assistance.While I do acknowledge that the officers, particularly senior officers of the international section, have demonstrated a genuine commitment to improving the operations of this division and the activities of some providers in it, I think the issue being raised by these organisations is that these are matters that require urgent action by government, not just a review.While I acknowledge that a review has taken place and that the review itself implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of the concerns that are being expressed by the Labor Party about the operations of some of these unethical providers, the fact remains that action can now be taken if the government has the political will to do so. That is something for which I do not hold departmental officers responsible. It is not their responsibility; it is a matter of government policy to pursue these questions. While I would like to commend the officers on the answers that have been provided to me tonight—and for that reason I am obviously not pursuing a range of questions that might otherwise be the case—this issue should not be lost upon the government insofar as it is the minister's responsibility.The minister is publicly accountable through this parliament to the industry more broadly and to the community at large. He cannot simply say, `Go and see a public servant who knows more about it than I do.' That is not good enough. It may well be true that the public servants do know more about it. That would not surprise me. But they are not responsible for the administration of this department as far as this parliament is concerned. The minister has executive responsibility and ministers are the ones who will ultimately be held accountable for the actions of government.There are a number of questions I asked to which, I take it, answers have not been able to be provided. If the information is not available, I would be satisfied if Mr Mann or one of the other senior officers here tonight was able to communicate with me on those questions, because I do believe we are ready to conclude this matter if that is your intention.20:37:009409Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can deal with one matter, which was the first of Senator Carr's searching questions. The number of overseas students on courses in the vocational education and training sector in 1998 was 37,328 compared with 40,865 in 1997. That accords with the figures that Senator Carr raised. These figures, of course, have the backdrop of the Asian economic crisis, and one has to read them in that context. These figures were published in Overseas student statistics 1998 . That deals with the question raised by Senator Carr at the outset. As regards those other outstanding questions, I assure Senator Carr that the department will do its utmost to get answers to him as soon as it can.Bills agreed to.Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.9409Bills (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills9409A message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following law: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Bills9409r815Billsr814Billsr8189409Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Senator Heffernan:That these bills be now read a second time. 20:40:009410Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The opposition is supportive of the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the two related bills. I note that, as with most other matters that have come before the Senate relating to the industry policy area in the last 12 months, this is not an initiative of the current Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. It is an overhang from an initiative announced by the former minister in response to a very long and active campaign by the industry with the active support of the opposition, led in particular by the then shadow minister for industry, the member for Hotham. It is not surprising then that the broad direction of these bills is consistent with the view of the opposition in regard to tariff reduction and helping improve Australian industry competitiveness in the global marketplace.The automotive industry and the textile, clothing and footwear sector struggle to meet the challenges involved in the progress towards freer trade. Combine this with the potential risk of losing high levels of employment and revenue from the industry and it becomes important that prudent steps are taken to ensure that the transition does not result in the fracturing of the industry, leading to significant job losses.What are these bills offering? The bills put a pause on tariff reductions as they apply to the automotive industry and put in place the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, or ACIS, which is essentially an assistance scheme for the industry during the transitional period prior to the implementation of a lower tariff rate. From 1 January 2000 the tariff applying to passenger motor vehicles and original equipment components will be frozen at 15 per cent until 1 January 2005, when it will then be reduced to 10 per cent. The transitional scheme will operate for five years, beginning 1 January 2001. This transitional scheme will confer on participants the benefits of duty credits from the production of motor vehicles and engines, from investments in improved plant and equipment, and, in some circumstances, from research and development. The scheme encourages the industry to remain competitive despite the change in the environment within which it operates. We are therefore supportive of the scheme. We also acknowledge the reason behind the scheme's limited lifetime.What does not make sense in this package is the proposed timing of a review. The government intends to conduct a review of the scheme and the effect of the tariff level on the automotive industry in 2005. Why 2005? Why do a review so late in the process, just before the industry is about to face a new, harsher tariff environment? The timing is totally inappropriate. You could mount an argument on the tariff point that the government is committed to going to 10 per cent and the review will be about what happens afterwards. The 10 per cent is a major move, which must eventually take place unless the whole world trade scene so unravels that we are in some unforeseen crisis. Nevertheless, you would expect the nature and timing of such a change to follow the review, not to proceed it. What is the rational basis for saying that the transitional arrangements will expire? We will have a hiatus in which we conduct a review, and then we might do something to fill the void. Not one person has explained why that is a sensible thing to do. The government has just announced it and defended it in its stoic enthusiasm to defend the indefensible. By the end of the operation of the scheme, the government will not be able to tell what is going to happen to the automotive industry or what opportunities will be open to the industry. There will, in effect, be a period of uncertainty and policy vacuum in this area while the review is being undertaken.The review will be undertaken during a period in which the automotive industry has to contend with an adverse environment—a significantly lower rate of tariff. This government will be putting at risk the viability of the industry and the benefits that the Australian economy derives from it by pushing the industry off the cliff without first determining if it is ready to fly. We therefore believe it prudent that the review should be scheduled much earlier, perhaps sometime in the year 2003, to ensure that the industry is capable one way or another of facing the new regime. Since the government asserts that a review will inevitably take place, I hope the government will be prudent in seeing the merits in our argument. The opposition will be moving amendments so that the proposed review will be undertaken in 2003 at the latest. The government is simply being pig-headed if it does not support our amendments in this regard.Having said that, I emphasise again that we are not opposed to the direction in which the government has proposed to take the customs tariff on this industry. It is consistent with the broad policy position that the Labor Party outlined in government, and it is consistent with the position we outlined in the last term in opposition and again in the Leader of the Opposition's recent speech about trade. But we are opposed to making decisions about where we are going before we have conducted an analysis of where we are. These two industries which are having a most difficult transition to a free trade environment, TCF and autos, are being treated very poorly through the way in which the government is treating the review proposal. Not one person has put forward a logical explanation as to why the government's proposal to have the review after the scheme concludes and after the tariff cut takes effect is more rational than having one before. As I have said, we will act on these criticisms by moving an appropriate amendment.I want to note, however, that these are not our only criticisms of this bill. For example, we are not so enthusiastic about the production bounty approach which this bill implements. It would be better, if we are going to spend large amounts of taxpayers' money assisting industry in transition, for us to look for something a little closer to what a previous Labor shadow minister in this portfolio used to talk about as being the reciprocal or mutual obligation on companies receiving government assistance. This government has been very big on reciprocal obligation. It likes to talk about it when it comes to welfare payments. It likes to talk about it when it talks about Work for the Dole. It likes to talk about it in relation to the mooted huge review of social security that quickly vanished without trace once people began to realise what the government actually meant. What we are suggesting is that there are some obligations that the industry must be involved in as well as just taking the government funds. There are areas to do with investment and research and development that continue to be below the levels that this country needs to survive.The government says that the logic behind this bill is that we want a high skill, high wage future for this country. We want jobs in this country that are based on high skill and high wage outcomes. That means that we need to be looking at where the automobile industry and component part design centres are and where the R&D is being conducted. The production bounty approach does not provide that incentive. Of course, some of our manufacturers will still go in that direction because of Australia's natural strengths in that part of the industry—our educational strengths and traditional strengths in some of those research and development and engineering sectors. But there is no incentive in either the way the government is approaching the issue of education or the way it is providing assistance to this industry for more of that to happen.In large measure, the scheme would have been better had there been greater emphasis on credit claims based on the value of their new investment in plant and equipment and in R&D. That would be a smart way to be taking this industry. That would be a way that would encourage jobs and exports and all the benefits that come from a cleverly targeted scheme, not just a blunt tossing of money at a problem—something the government is often lecturing the Labor Party and sometimes the Democrats on in this parliament. If we are giving assistance of this magnitude, those are the sorts of incentives we should be providing.I am disappointed that it does not have an element related to design, unless we are very liberal in our definition of research and development and allow some of the design aspects to be included. I think it is unlikely to be a prevailing interpretation, and for it to be done through the back door as implied R&D is probably not the right way to go about providing that sort of incentive. But perhaps in this industry, where design is such an important part of development, it can fit in. However, I would very much like to see incentives for more and more of Australia's design skills, to provide assistance to component producers. I support the position that, where motor vehicle producers themselves produce automotive components, tooling or services for a third party, which many of them now do, they too can access these elements of the scheme, the 25 per cent investment allowance and in particular the 45 per cent R&D allowance.A second area where some criticism can be levelled is in the decision to apply a fiscal cap of $2 billion to all benefits paid over the five years of the scheme except for that uncapped production credit relating to Australia and New Zealand. The idea of a fiscal cap always has pluses and minuses. I understand why the Minister for Finance and Administration would want it. I am sure that strong submissions were made to that effect in the cabinet and that that is what led to this capping. In terms of good fiscal planning it has some logic, but the problem is that, when you have a demand driven scheme with a cap, you do find management difficulties about fitting the demand driven scheme into the cap. It is not as though we say that we will give a certain amount each year and distribute it in proportion to people's performance against these criteria. Then, of course, you would have a comfortable cap. This is a demand driven scheme based on how much investment you do, how much R&D you do and how much production you do, and then there is a cap for which you will be retrofitted.I think that towards the latter years of the scheme there is the potential for this to cause some administrative difficulties both for the industry and for the government of the day. But the government is determined to have that cap and it is, for fiscal reasons, a not irrational thing to do. I just point out the fact that I can see how it may cause some problems down the track.A final area in which we also have some criticisms is in relation to the so-called aftermarket. The problem arises because automo tive components producers, in order to gain access to this scheme, must meet an eligibility requirement that they produce annually either $500,000 worth of original equipment for use in at least 30,000 new motor vehicles or engines, or $500,000 worth of original equipment which represents at least 50 per cent of total production value by the participant.It is the group of ACPs that do not meet this eligibility requirement who are now raising their voices. These are the people who produce parts for the aftermarket for subsequent replacement and repair rather than for use in new vehicles or motors. They say the scheme will cause unfair competition because most ACPs produce components for both new cars and the aftermarkets—a set of shock absorbers is the same regardless of whether it is produced for a new car or as a replacement part.Clearly, those ACPs whose substantial business is the supply of components to new motor vehicle manufacturers will get a government subsidy, yet those whose substantial business is supply to the aftermarket will not. Yet these ACPs directly compete. This is a scheme that is designed to disadvantage companies that may be into exporting spare parts to other countries. You are actually setting up a system that says, `If you can comply with some arbitrary rule designed by a minister or a department that allows government subsidies to go to one section of the market, and if you are in direct competition but do not fit neatly into this arbitrary criterion, you are going to be at a competitive disadvantage.'The government as a rule—supported by the Labor Party—has always tried to have as much neutrality in these issues as it can. But what we see today is a bill that will actually disadvantage one group of manufacturers as opposed to another group of manufacturers, and the end target of the component is what determines whether you are in the scheme and get the subsidy or not. There must be a way, hopefully with the goodwill of the chamber, for us to find a solution for the groups of manufacturers in these situations.Their other complaint is that they were previously able to participate in the Export Facilitation Scheme, which is being replaced by ACIS, yet they will not be able to participate in ACIS. The government's response to this apparent unfairness—and this has been provided by the department—is that the policy focus of ACIS is `on the production of new vehicles and engines, and therefore on the supply chain leading to this production'. In the explanatory memorandum—see page 13—this was put in a somewhat different way, saying that the eligibility rules `will identify those firms with a long-term commitment to the industry in Australia'.There are two obvious responses to these suggestions: one, there is no reason why ACPs substantially supplying the aftermarket are not equally committed to the industry in Australia; and, two, it is unfair to exclude the ACPs simply on the basis of which particular supply chain they belong to and to what extent. In terms of the actual activities of the ACPs, that is actually an arbitrary matter. The government also says in the EM that most of the current participants in the Export Facilitation Scheme will be eligible to apply for registration under ACIS. There is one obvious response to this: unfortunately, not all will be eligible.This then is an issue which we would like the government to address. In this I can only hope that we will have more success than on another issue in the auto sector about which we have been pressing this minister: concerns about the inadequacy of the transitional arrangements for the tax package which has now been legislated. There are serious concerns now that there will be a feared buyers' strike—and indeed that it has well and truly begun—as a consequence of the change in new car prices for car buyers. I remind the minister of these facts that were put to him in question time today. Ford has already stood down 3,500 workers and is planning further stand-downs in the next three weeks. Sales of passenger vehicles slumped by 9.7 per cent last month, the fifth consecutive monthly decline. New vehicle registrations are at their lowest level since September 1997. I remind the minister that one senior executive of an Australian car company has stated:Unless the government is prepared to act, we are looking down the barrel of plant closures at least at Ford, Toyota and Mitsubishi.I urge the minister to act now on this issue to provide some certainty for this industry and to move on the question of transitional arrangements for the GST. We see today that the Democrats are clearly beginning to realise the true implications of what they have actually done to the Australian community with their support for the GST and the ANTS package. There was an article in the Age by Senator Murray, saying, `Look, charities are doing it pretty tough and we've got to try and find some way to help them out of this situation.'The answer really is they would not need hand-outs if you had not voted for it—they would not have had this impost of a GST—and the same applies in this area. We say to the government and to the Democrats: there must be a way in which you can work through the situation for the automotive industries. They are starting to suffer. Ordinary Australian workers are being stood down—on leave without pay and being made to take holidays now—because this government has not done enough in this area. We have a minister who is spending his time trying to save the Queen. What you should be doing is saying to him, `That's not good enough.'JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—What did you do when you put up the sales tax on cars? You whacked it up to 22 per cent.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am glad the minister is awake. But he is on his white charger and he is out there looking after Lizzie. He only gets concerned when Fergie runs amok on him again; he cannot help himself.But what we have here is a minister who is not spending his time on his portfolio issue. He is not listening to the industry, he is not listening to the Democrats and he is certainly not listening to the government. He is more interested in criticising the Treasurer as a hypocrite because the Treasurer has been supporting the republic. We have seen a very disappointing response so far from the minister in this area. To conclude, I want to make it perfectly clear that the opposition regards the automotive industry as an Australian industry of the future. I move:At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate expresses its concern about the failure of the Government to provide for a review of the future of the automotive industry before tariffs are reduced in 2005".(Time expired)21:00:009414Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I am glad to see that we are talking about the automotive industry. I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I would like to make it clear at the outset that the Australian Democrats support the creation of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme and we will support the passage of the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 , the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999. I understand that the intention of the scheme is to encourage competitive investment and innovation in the automotive industry in the context of a reduction in the motor vehicle tariff from 15 per cent to 10 per cent in 2005 with the possibility of a further reduction to a zero tariff by 2010. Those two qualities alone—competitive investment and innovation—are things to be applauded. But whilst we support the creation of the scheme, we do have a number of concerns.Our first concern is that the government has labelled the scheme as transitional. But the question will inevitably arise as to whether the scheme should be continued beyond the end of the year 2005. To achieve the APEC target of free trade by 2010, the tariff wind-down program for automobiles will need to continue beyond 2005. Hence it must be expected that, when the government reviews ACIS in 2005, as is proposed, there will be industry pressure to extend this assistance program to 2010 as a trade-off for the further tariff cuts. If this transitional assistance package is likely to last for 10 years rather than five, we would like the government to be realistic and acknowledge the possibility of that fact. Our second major concern relates more generally to this government's industry policy which largely has as its focus the provision of assistance to mature and general ly slow growth industries like motor vehicles and textiles, clothing and footwear. The government still does not seem to recognise the gains that could be made if the focus were shifted towards the newer, high growth, knowledge intensive sectors like information technology and telecommunications.The Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 contains the amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 which will reduce the tariff on motor vehicle imports from 15 per cent to 10 per cent from 1 January 2005. I understand that the Australian Labor Party will be moving an amendment, the effect of which will be to require that review to commence by 1 July 2003 which will, among other things, consider the appropriate rates of customs duty to apply from 1 January 2005. The Australian Democrats can see sense in the approach being proposed by the Labor Party, and we intend to support their amendment. This assistance package is about ensuring competitiveness and innovation in the automotive industry in the context of trade liberalisation. We think it is appropriate to put the assistance package in place and review its operation to ensure that we can pursue the tariff reduction from 15 per cent to 10 per cent without causing undue harm to the industry itself.The government has committed itself to a review of this scheme in 2005. We understand the government's position to be that the reduction in tariff from 15 per cent to 10 per cent is set in stone and their review will consider whether assistance should be continued and how we will achieve a zero tariff rate by 2010. The Australian Democrats cannot see why an inquiry cannot consider all of the issues: namely (1) whether the industry can sustain a reduction in tariff from 15 per cent to 10 per cent; (2) whether assistance should be continued and, if so, in what form; and (3) if and how we can achieve the reduction to a zero rate tariff by 2010. We do not believe, nor do we think, that it is appropriate that the tariff reduction to 10 per cent must be taken as a given. That should occur only if there is an expectation closer to the time that it can be sustained by the industry.In closing, I think the point to be made amongst all of this is that there has to be accountability in policy development. I believe that one way of moving towards that goal is by ensuring that there are appropriate mechanisms in place for monitoring and review to ensure that there is long-term sustainability for the industry. The Australian Democrats support this package of bills and when we reach the committee stage we will be supporting the amendments to be moved by the Australian Labor Party.21:06:009415Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—A couple of things need to be said about this proposal. Firstly, I guess you could have gone along to John Cleese in Torquay—Basil Fawlty—and said, `Basil, I want you to devise an industry plan for the automotive industry in Australia. It is in a bit of trouble. It has survived so far in many respects through bad management and massive tariffs that, in reality, in the 1960s and 1970s didn't help the industry at all. In fact, for those of us who have had the pleasure of travelling overseas to where there were Australian cars in the 1950s and 1960s we saw virtually no Australian automotive presence at all in the 1970s and 1980s.' On this side of politics we do agree that the tariff needed to be wound back. It was an admission that the industry in Australia was just not coping and needed other policy settings.I want to come back to Basil now because it seems to me that this measure before the House, unfortunately, is something that he and Polly would have dreamed up. The reason I say that is that, as I understand it, what the measure does is put money into the industry. In terms of investment, as I understand it, it will be $2 billion over the time to the year 2005. If I have that wrong, I am sure the minister will correct me later. We agree with that. We understand there is to be a review and that it will be done on the basis of how effective this particular scheme is. I understand that the need for a review is actually in the legislation. Again, if I am wrong, I am sure the minister will correct me. Where the Basil Fawlty bit comes in is that the review will be conducted months, if not six months, after the whole thing has been crystallised and we have seen tariffs drop from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.I cannot understand this. I think a review is necessary. I think if you are throwing public money at something you ought to review it. Before you change the tariffs, you ought to review it. Before you put them down or up, it ought to be reviewed. It ought to be reviewed beforehand, not six months afterwards—by then, the damage is done. It may well be the case that the government are confident that this is the back-door way of saying that two years ago they really wanted to wipe out tariffs by a certain time in the future, or to drop them down to, say, five per cent. They did not want to keep them at 15 per cent. In effect, this bill says that to the Senate tonight. It says that we just gave in to public pressure a year or 18 months ago and that what we are going to do now is chuck some money at it and, at the end of it, it is a fait accompli. The tariff is going down in 2005. You can forget about the money and you can forget about the review and all the rest of it.In reality, the decision was made two years or more ago. What we did then was this: we were not travelling too well in the polls so what we wanted to do was make sure that all the car workers around Australia, particularly a lot in my home state, at least thought they were going to be looked after. I hope they get it right because, if they manage to get this particular bill up and the tariffs go down to 10 per cent, there is an awful lot at stake. We all know here that the Ford, Holden and Mitsubishi companies, and to a lesser extent Toyota, are reliant on some level of tariff support in a heavily traded economy like this. In fact, over the last couple of weeks, we have seen the Australian dollar go up and then down again. Some argument should be made that a 10 per cent tariff at least needs to take into account fluctuations in the Australian currency. In fact, sometimes it is greater than 10 per cent. In recent times we have had years where the currency has fluctuated at more than 20 per cent, and it depends what you are measuring it against.The key issue here, though, is not only the big automotive manufacturers in this country; it is the whole cluster of small industries that live off them. Indeed, in my home state of South Australia we have Mitsubishi and we have General Motors-Holden's, which employ between them, as I understand it, about 8,000 people. Clustered around those industries is a whole range of other component manufacturers that supply to both car companies and, indeed, supply product over the border into Victoria to the Ford plants. They are the ones who are really vulnerable in this whole exercise. I want to say here tonight that one of the issues I am most concerned about on behalf of those 8,000 workers directly affected in South Australia, and the other thousands of workers in South Australia and in the other states in the component industries, is the reduction of tariffs from 15 per cent to 10 per cent as a fait accompli, as this bill, in its pure form, proposes. I think this is an issue that we really need to look at again.I think the very large tariffs in the 1960s and 1970s did not do much for this industry at all. Indeed, I suspect that if you went to a member of the Australian public today and said, `We would like you to pay $70,000 or $80,000 for that Commodore,' instead of $30,000, $35,000 or $40,000, you would find that there would be such buyer resistance to it that the pressure to bring down tariffs would be overwhelming. A slow process—in fact I think arguably slower than the one we went through—of dismantling those tariffs was necessary. But we have now reached the point where those tariffs are, by world standards, quite small. When you have an economy where the Australian dollar is traded as much as this one is, you have to have some level of fall back on tariff and industry policy to help this industry because, if you do not and you have zero tariffs and suddenly the Australian dollar were to take a battering, it would have a very big impact.There is another issue, too: in this country we buy upwards of two-thirds of a million motor vehicles every year. As I understand it, the figure for this year will be a bit lower than last year but, in the last couple of years, records have been set and I understand that somewhere around 650,000 to 700,000 units were purchased in this country. If the industry in Australia collapses, even if one of the big players collapses, the overseas implications of that will be considerable. It will mean that hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars worth of motor vehicles sourced and manufactured overseas will come into this country. That will have considerable implications for the trade balance of Australia.I have also been told that Mitsubishi's fate is probably intertwined with that of the other South Australian car manufacturer, General Motors-Holden's. I have been told that the two of them are in a symbiotic relationship in the sense that they source many of their components from the same small- to medium-sized manufacturers, whose economies of scale are already stretched because of the number of units of local production that are sold here in Australia. If Mitsubishi or General Motors-Holden's were to exit from the market, it probably would lead to the demise of the other one as well. The reason that would happen is that the decision to manufacture here in Australia is based on a competitive environment where small components can be sourced locally, and the economy of scale would be disturbed in such a way that it may see the flight of a considerable part, if not all, of this industry overseas.South Australia does not have a lot going for it—I think it is a great place to live, but the unemployment rate there is much higher than in other parts of Australia. If this policy is wrong, it needs to be reviewed regularly, and certainly before major changes are put in place. The implications of South Australia minus the car industry are rather terrible to contemplate. They would have an enormous impact in my home state. We are already carrying a large share of the unemployed in this country. No doubt, if the automotive industry were to be hit hard, we would carry an even greater share of that into the future.I understand that Senator Conroy will be moving some amendments to try to sort out this mess. His amendments will seek to put the horse in front of the cart instead of behind it. He will seek to ensure that the process is reviewed as we go along and in sufficient time to make sure that any further decisions on any further dismantling of tariffs will take place—indeed, that there will be time for that decision to take place—well before 2005. The effect of the amendments means that the review will take place some two years before this proposed reduction in tariffs.I think that, given the volatile state of the automotive industry in Australia right now and the problems that the Ford plants have experienced over the last few weeks—indeed, buyer resistance is growing by the day and cars may well be cheaper after 1 July next year—we need to tread very softly on this particular matter. We are no longer dealing with tariffs of 60 per cent and 70 per cent and an industry that not only is not very competitive but exports nothing; we are now dealing with an industry that is quite efficient, exports large volumes of product overseas and in many respects helps our trade balance immeasurably. If we are not careful, that will be put at risk.I think this is something that we really need to go very slowly on, particularly as South Australia has such a narrow industrial base and given that so much of that relies on the automotive industry in that state. Senator Conroy's sensible amendments—and I understand the Democrats are voting for them—are a more prudent way to go than opening the stable door, letting the horse bolt and then trying to whistle it back, which is what the government's policy is all about. I commend to the Senate tonight good old Senator Conroy's amendments. I am sure that before the night is out, particularly if I sit down in the next minute, we may have a chance of seeing them succeed in the Senate tonight. I commend you, Senator Conroy.21:19:009417Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I also want to speak in support of the amendment to the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the two related bills, moved by Senator Conroy on behalf of the opposition. As someone who has spent a lot of time in the 1980s and the 1990s talking to governments about policy in this area and who has spent a lot of time and energy on the Australian Manufacturing Council talking about the future directions for the automotive industry as well as many other industries, it is pleasing to see that this bill will attempt to bring some stability to the automotive industry for at least a period of time. But it beggars belief as to why you would put in place legislation that would provide stability for a five-year period and then say to the industry, `But we're going to blindfold you, and you will have to guess at the end of the five-year period what we are likely or not likely to do with support for your industry into the future.' That seems to me to be an absurd policy position for any government to adopt.The proposition put up on behalf of the Labor opposition—and I understand that it will be supported by the Democrats—is eminently sensible. It is that we should have a review well before this current package of support expires so that the industry can be given some window into the future to make the decisions that are necessary to ensure the continuity of the industry in this country. Car manufacturers do not make decisions about investing in new models or new production lines five minutes or five days or five months out from when they are about to do it; they do it five years out and beyond. They will make only those decisions which are substantial. When you talk about investment in the automotive industry, you are talking in millions and millions of dollars when you want to make significant change. No company is going to make those decisions unless it has some reasonable expectation of what the future will hold for it as an investor.We said in a Senate Economics References Committee report on promoting the future of Australian industry—and Senator Ferguson, who is sitting beside Senator Minchin and holding his hand in this debate, was on that committee—that we ought to have a bipartisan approach towards industry policy. We ought to be looking at setting a time frame for industry policy outside of the political cycle. We ought to be locking it into the business cycle. We ought to be doing it in a 10-year time frame—Senator Alston interjecting—NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I know, Richard, you cannot think beyond 10 minutes. But we ought to be doing it in a 10-year time frame so that when businesses have to make investment, they will, in fact, have a focus upon where that investment will take them and will have some degree of stability in what they believe the government policy will be.It is interesting to look at some of the comments that were made in 1997 when the government adopted the Labor Party's position on this industry and on the TCF industry. The current policy that is now being implemented is not the government's policy. They picked up the policy that was put on the table at that point in time by Simon Crean, who was the then shadow minister for industry. They adopted it, like they do with a lot of the Labor Party's policies, and put it in place as their own. We did not have any qualms about that because it was in the best long-term interest of this industry. We were quite happy for them to adopt our position, put it in place and give some stability in the industry.It was reported by Malcolm Farr on 31 March 1997 in the Daily Telegraph that the Prime Minister had told a Shanghai business luncheon—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Who was that?NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, told a Shanghai business luncheon that he considered the car industry of strategic importance and could not envisage Australia without a strong manufacturing capacity. If he believes it to be of strategic importance, then we ought to be actually sitting down and planning with the industry now what we are going to do in 2005 or 2010, not five minutes out from it happening but now if it is an industry of strategic importance. I actually agree with the Prime Minister. It is not often that I agree with him, but on this I actually do agree with him. I think it is a strategic industry. It has always been a strategic industry, not in terms of the volume of cars we produce necessarily or the volumes of models we produce or the number of cars we export, but it is strategic in the sense that our engineering capacity is built upon the skills that have been developed out of that industry.The automotive industry has been the driver of skills development and engineering right throughout the world. It is a key driver in the development of those skills. If you lose the automotive industry, you lose a major component in developing engineering skills and an engineering base in this country that go beyond just the manufacturing of car products. It is a central component of our manufacturing sector, not just of the component sector which feeds off it but also other components of manufacture that feed off the component sector.What has this government done to manufacturing? When the government was elected in 1996, John Moore, the then minister for industry, stood up and said, `We will grow or create 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing by the year 2000.' What has been the result? There has been a net deficit of over 60,000 jobs in manufacturing since this government took office. So we are actually 60,000 behind the target. The current minister for industry was smarter when he came in to the portfolio. He ditched the 200,000 jobs commitment. He is not committed to creating any jobs in the manufacturing sector.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—Don't you talk about jobs.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—He is not even committed to the manufacturing industry. He is more committed to the monarchy than he is to protecting manufacturing in this country. I would like to see Senator Minchin, as the minister for industry, spend a little bit more time going around regional and rural Australia, the various capital cities or even his own capital city of Adelaide, to talk to car workers or whitegoods workers about their future, about the policies the government is putting in place to defend their jobs and to develop new jobs in the manufacturing sector, rather than spending it running around, trying to beat up support for the monarchy and the Queen. Your time, Senator Minchin, would be much better spent undertaking that task to the one you have currently got.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—What is Beazley doing?NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I did not know that Kim Beazley was running around beating up support for the Queen.Senator Alston interjecting—NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—The thing that is laughable about the interjections from Senator Alston, despite the fact that he is not in his seat, is that he is the only minister for telecommunications in this country who does not understand telecommunications or know what it is about. He is an absolute embarrassment on the international stage as he is on the national stage. Do the right thing, Richard, get up and leave because you know you are being got.It is also interesting to look at some of the comments that have been made, again at around the period when this policy was put in place. An article in the Australian of 24 July 1998 states:Automotive analyst David Warner, of accounting firm Coopers and Lybrand in Melbourne, says it is a much-needed vote of government confidence in the car industry.Figures support this claim. With the freezing of tariffs, local automotive investment is tipped to increase by about $4 billion in the five-year period . . . increasing the value of exports to about $6 billion.Last year exports exceeded $2.5 billion according to the FAPM.. . . . . . . . .The Australian Automotive Export Group says component companies should be able to lift their offshore sales to more than $3 billion by 2005.. . . . . . . . .Mr Warner sums it up: `The bottom line is that the auto industry can get some benefits out of it . . . and when this tariff thing hits the wall in 2005 we can make sure that the automotive supply industry and the automotive industry can go on from 2005.'That is a very important point: the industry can go on from 2005 when the current policy hits the wall. We cannot stand back and wait for 2005 before we make a decision as to what will replace it. It is unrealistic and nonsensical to believe that any manufacturer will have confidence in investing in the future of his industry if that is the environment that confronts him. The Labor Party's amendment is a reasonable position to put and it ought to be supported by the government, because it will provide the opportunity to assess what the circumstances are in 2003 in terms of what other countries are doing in opening up and liberalising their trade. They are compet ing with us in this area. It will give us a reasonable opportunity to assess what is happening in the aftermath of what has occurred in many countries in Asia and where they are at with their manufacturing and automotive industries. It will enable us to make reasoned and balanced decisions about what we should do in this industry. If this industry hits the wall, we will not get it back: we will put a significant hole in our manufacturing capacity and our ability to sustain an engineering industry into the future. That has all sorts of implications, and not just in terms of those manufacturing jobs in regional areas like South Australia, Senator Minchin's home state.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—We're not regional. It's a city.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—That just shows how dumb you are, Senator Ferguson, and how little attention you pay to what is going on in this country. If you had read anything at all you would know that South Australia is regarded as being part of regional Australia. You would know that Elizabeth has been regarded as a regional part of South Australia. You don't have to live in the bush to be regarded as living in regional Australia.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Yes, you do.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I would like to know how many days you spend in the bush compared with how many days you spend in Canberra and Adelaide over a 12-month period.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Not nearly enough, George.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—You may well not be a bushie in real terms; you may well be one who relies more on what is happening in city living than in the bush to sustain yourself. The reality is that many of these car component companies that rely on the automotive industry are located in rural and regional Australia. I have visited many of them, in Bendigo, Ballarat and Nowra—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—They're cities.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—They are in regional Australia, Senator Ferguson. If you want to have a debate as to whether or not Nowra, Ballarat and Bendigo are in regional Australia, I suggest that you pick up the phone and ring Jeff Kennett. Jeff Kennett will tell you what the swings were in Bendigo and Ballarat, which are part of regional Victoria, and how people voted in the last state election. I assume that Jeff Kennett has the same view of the world as you do in terms of what constitutes regional and rural Australia. Had he paid more attention to regional Australia in Victoria, he may not be in the extreme difficulties that he is in at the moment.The reality is that we have an industry that is operating both in the capital cities and in rural and regional Australia. The component sector is linked into what the four manufacturers do, as indeed are many other small jobbing manufacturers around the country. If you do not create a policy position on this industry that allows reasonable time for companies to make decisions about their future—how they are going to invest, develop and put in place the framework that will allow them to make sensible investment decisions—not only will it impact upon the plant producers in this industry but also it will impact upon those component manufacturers and the small jobbing shops that supply them. It will impact upon the local corner store and it will impact upon other jobs in the region, because the multiplier effect in this industry is very significant. It is very important that we get it right in terms of future policy settings. One has to be concerned that this government has not given much thought as to how this policy will work out.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It's distracted. It's not paying attention.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—It is obviously not paying any attention. The minister has been in the job for about eight months—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No, nearly 12 months.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—He has been in the job for nearly 12 months and what do we have? We have a catastrophe in R&D, we have no direction in the manufacturing industry and we have companies not investing in research and development.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What's the minister doing about it?NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—He's the minister for research and development, presumably. I think his time would be well spent on doing some research into what is happening in his portfolio. But then you can't do two jobs at once. It is very difficult to sit down, concentrate and worry about textile workers, auto workers and whether people are investing and developing new products or researching new methods when you have to run around defending the Queen. Today in answer to a question Senator Hill recognised the role that Senator Minchin is playing in the debate over the republic. He is the one who has been designated by the Prime Minister to get out there and whip up support for the position that you and I believe in—you and I and a disappearing group around us. Blame Senator Minchin for ignoring what is happening in research and development, for ignoring what is happening in the automotive industry and for ignoring what is happening to jobs in manufacturing. I have told you about the deficit of 60,000 manufacturing jobs since this mob came to power. The minister is beholden to the Prime Minister for his job. The Prime Minister has said, `Senator Minchin, my minister for industry, forget about all that nonsense. You get out there and concentrate on selling the monarchy to the Australian people. If we can boost up a few extra votes as a result of that, your stocks will be boosted in the ministry and I might even think about a promotion for you. Never mind the jobs.'Senator Heffernan interjecting—NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—That is the second speech I have heard Senator Heffernan make in this place in the past year, and it lasted longer than the first one. There were three words in that speech. Senator Heffernan, why don't you come in here and make a contribution about jobs in New South Wales? Your good friend Bob Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, said there would be 70,000 workers in the car industry in New South Wales and that we could lose 18,000 jobs with the reduction of tariffs in this industry. You told me you are a good friend of his. You even turned up at his policy speech. I thought it was amazing. There was Senator Heffernan, prominent member of the New South Wales Liberal Party, with a choice of two policy speeches to go to—Bob Carr out at Penrith or Kerry Chikarovski at St George Leagues Club. Where did Bill Heffernan turn up? At Penrith. He was in the marquee with the other rat. There were two rats spotted in the marquee that day. One was reported in the Daily Telegraph and the other was Bill.He had a cup of tea and a sandwich with us and then took off. He did not go to see Kerry. He knew where Kerry was going. That is one thing you have to appreciate about Bill Heffernan. He knows where the numbers are going. He did not bother wasting his time turning up at St George Leagues Club and listening to a lot of nonsense being spoken by the Leader of the Opposition. He turned up at Penrith, where he knew the winner was. He came to see how we were going to handle Premier Carr for another four years in New South Wales and what sort of model you needed for the Leader of the Opposition to have a chance of winning. At least there is one thing: we will be able to mitigate some of the worst travesties of what this government does in policy terms in New South Wales because we still have the reins of power. The way you mob are going in New South Wales, we will have the reins of power for a long time to come. And with a bit of luck in Victoria we might be able to mirror the image. We will be able to do something real for the people of Australia in creating long-term growth and ensuring that they have a viable automotive industry into the future.21:39:009421Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—After that diatribe of personal abuse, it might be appropriate to return to debating the car industry. It was disappointing to see Senator George Campbell indulge himself in that way, particularly when, as Paul Keating says, he has the bodies of 100,000 manufacturing workers hanging around his neck. The government's commitment in 1996 to seek 200,000 jobs in manufacturing was, of course, a commitment designed to replace the 200,000 jobs that had been lost while Labor was in office. That was the number of jobs lost in manufacturing by the Labor government when it was in office.In the time remaining, I would like to speak about this legislative package and remind the Senate that this results from the Productivity Commission inquiry into the automotive industry which made certain recommendations to the government in 1997 so far as the post-2000 tariff environment was concerned. We actually differed with the Productivity Commission and decided in our response to that Productivity Commission report that there should be a freeze on automotive tariffs between 2000 and 2005. That was a very deliberate and sensible decision designed to ensure that this industry was in a position to make a transition to a lower tariff environment. It incorporates a scheme that is to the value of $2 billion to assist the industry to adjust to a new tariff in the environment.This is a scheme which the industry has strongly backed. It has the support of all the major car manufacturers, all the major industry associations and indeed at stages it is alleged to have had the support of the ALP. I remind you that its components are a freeze on tariffs at 15 per cent in January 2000 until 31 December 2004 when the tariff will drop to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005, and a $2 billion assistance scheme to enable the industry to make the adjustment to that lower tariff environment.The ALP love to have it both ways. They run around saying to the industry, `Look, we know you support this scheme. We know you want this scheme in place as soon as possible. Sure, we are going to support the scheme.' But what do they do when they come into this place? They say, `Sure, we're supporting it, but we're going to move an amendment to remove one of the absolutely fundamental parts of the whole package. That fundamental part of the package is that tariffs will drop to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005.'Senator George Campbell was rabbiting on about giving this industry certainty. Yes, that is what we must give it. The ALP is proposing to destroy the certainty which the industry needs by suggesting that there be no legislated drop in the tariff to 10 per cent in 2005 but a commitment to yet another review. That is exactly what the industry does not need. It will have no idea what the tariff environment will be in the post-2005 era.What this industry wants is certainty, just as Senator George Campbell said. We are providing that certainty by legislating that the tariff will stop being reduced at 15 per cent for five years and then move to 10 per cent. The only rationale for the biggest industry assistance scheme this country has ever had, the $2 billion ACIS scheme, can be that it is about enabling this industry to make the adjournment to a 10 per cent tariff. If you do not have a reduction legislated for a 10 per cent tariff applying in the year 2005, there can be no rationale for the whole $2 billion ACIS scheme, or to ask Australian taxpayers to provide that level of support to this industry. This is a unique level of support. Virtually every other manufacturing industry in this country now faces a tariff of around five per cent. The only industries in Australia that essentially do not have that relatively low tariff environment are the TCF industry and the automotive industry, both with tariffs currently above 15 per cent, enjoying at least three times the rate of protection of every other manufacturing industry in this country.We believe, as do the ALP, that these two industries, which had extremely high levels of protection, do need to be given the opportunity to adjust to a lower level of protection. That is why in both the case of the TCF and the automotive industries we are putting in place adjustment schemes. They are based on the fact that everybody else in this country is facing a five per cent tariff now and that the automotive and TCF industries must, like the rest of manufacturing industry in this country, adjust to a lower tariff environment. It will still be, in 2005, both for the automotive industry and for the TCF industry, a higher rate of tariff than is generally applicable to any other manufacturing industry. We need to say as a parliament to this car industry, `We are going to give you a five-year freeze in the tariff. We are going to give you a $2 billion automotive assistance scheme, but that is provided on the basis that you know and plan for a 10 per cent tariff in the year 2005.' We believe that is absolutely fundamental to this.What the opposition and now the Democrats are saying is not that they do not support this package at all but that they are prepared to vote for an amendment which undermines the whole integrity of the package. This is not something that will be welcomed by industry.The consequence of what the ALP and the Democrats have said tonight is that this bill will go back to the House of Representatives, where the Senate amendments will be rejected. We will not have a legislative package, a package which the opposition says it supports. We will not have that package, and the industry will face further uncertainty. The industry supports this package. It wants it legislated. It could be all done tomorrow or the next day, but no, we have the opposition and the Democrats playing games and trying to play up to certain segments of the political marketplace that they believe they can suck up to by not providing the certainty that this industry wants.The industry wants this scheme as it is presented to the parliament, and the parliament should vote for it. All you are doing is making this a political football which will now bounce around between the two houses and provide no certainty or security to this industry and will further delay the industry's investments. And that can only hurt the workers that you profess to support. So far as the ALP's professed support for workers is concerned, that is laughable given this opposition's refusal to support the GST package, the best legislative tax package there could ever have been for manufacturing in this country and for the car industry.This is the idiotic opposition which, when in government, reduced the sales tax on motor vehicles to 15 per cent to match the then proposed GST as a sop to try to demonstrate that under Labor car prices would be the same as under the then coalition. But, in the most flagrant abuse of the trust of the electorate and a damnable lie to the Australian people, immediately after the election, it raised the price of motor vehicles by virtue of an increase in the sales tax not back to the original 20 per cent but up to 22 per cent. It was a 50 per cent increase in the sales tax on motor vehicles perpetrated by the then ALP government immediately after it had lied its way back into office in 1993. Was there any concern or compassion shown by the ALP then, either for consumers of motor vehicles or for the workers in motor vehicle factories, by that 50 per cent slug, that 50 per cent increase in the tax?We do not want to hear all this crying from the ALP about the workers in the motor vehicle industry. We are the ones who are delivering for the workers in the motor vehicle industry. We are the ones who are putting forward a package, in the tax package, that will reduce the price of motor vehicles by some six to eight per cent, make motor vehicles cheaper for Australian consumers, Australian workers, and provide a very good future for Australian workers because their products will no longer wear the tax slug which this opposition wants to maintain on this industry.An integral part of our comprehensive package for the automotive industry is this $2 billion support package and the tariff certainty that this bill provides of 15 per cent for five years, reducing to 10 per cent. We urge the ALP to rethink its position overnight and not to destroy, by moving these amendments, which the government cannot accept, the certainty which the automotive industry needs and deserves.I do put on record that we have no in-principle objection to the review of post-2005 arrangements commencing prior to 2005, but there are two federal elections scheduled to take place before 2005. We believe it is a matter for the government of the day, which we believe will be us, given the performance of this opposition. We do believe that is a matter for the government of the day and I certainly have no objection to the review commencing prior to 2005. But we do not want to legislate to that effect and we do not want to provide any signal that there will be any other position than that tariffs will reduce to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005.Debate interrupted.Adjournment942310000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.942321:50:009423Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I would like to make a few comments about a recent trip I made to Southern Africa. If the Senate gives me leave, I would like to table my report, entitled Southern Africa—the next high-growth region , which I put out in August this year.Leave granted.RD4Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILL—At the outset, I would like to thank everyone involved in organising my trip to Southern Africa, especially the high commissioners for South Africa and Zimbabwe here in Canberra. My trip lasted 21 days and it took a lot of organisation. There are a few people I would like at the outset to thank: Jim Enright and Peter Langhorne from Austrade here in Canberra; DFAT staff, in both Australia and Southern Africa; and, in particular, in Southern Africa, the Austrade person in Johannesburg, Margaret Bounader. In particular, I would like to thank His Excellency David Connolly, our high commissioner in South Africa, and his wife Dominique for the help and support that they gave us when we were there, and in Zimbabwe I thank Her Excellency Denise Fisher and her husband Dennis for their hospitality and the help they gave us.It is interesting that you are in the chair, Madam President, because you did a trip to Southern Africa recently, and the good work that you did there was still manifesting itself when we visited in July of this year. You obviously must have done a fair bit of good because they could all still remember the fact that you had been there.I met about 75 people in the 21 days that we were away, and I took copious notes from them. My wife took longhand notes and acted as my secretary, and I can assure you she was excellent. I actually made nine hours of tape and, in the report, just quoted what people said about the country. I have left it for people to understand themselves what I had to say there.I have always wanted to travel to Southern Africa. It is a country that has always had a mystique for me, with the rich tapestry of its culture and the history it has had. Today was the anniversary of the outbreak of the Boer War, and the Light Horse was out there in front of Parliament House. There is a connection between our two countries, whether it is a precious and nice feeling of connection or the ruggedness of the wars that were fought there. There is also the wildlife of Southern Africa. Unfortunately, because of events in the National Party, I did not leave when I anticipated leaving, and I only spent three nights at a game park and one night at Victoria Falls. The rest of the time was spent meeting people and learning more about the culture of the place.There is no doubt that Southern Africa will undergo a period of rapid economic growth in the future. The only uncertainty is when that will occur. The only thing holding the region back at present is the recent history of political upheaval and conflict. The last few years of stable government have done a great deal of good and, if the situation continues, there will be significant investment throughout the region in the future. Australian companies and individuals should be undertaking serious research now, before they miss the early phase of really strong growth.It is good to think that, just recently, Austrade held the Linkwest Southern Africa 99 National Seminar Series in Australia. They told Australian business people that there are opportunities for Australian companies to get in there and do something. They gave practical advice and useful insights into how to do business in the region. Bilateral trade between Australia and Southern Africa has more than doubled in the last five years, growing by more than 30 per cent per annum. That is a healthy indication of the demand for Australian goods and services. Their figures rank Southern Africa as one of Australia's most attractive and fast growing export markets. It is Australia's fastest growing market for elaborately transformed manufactures. Linkwest Southern Africa really showed the opportunities that exist for Australian companies in an array of sectors, ranging from the booming mining industry to meat and live animals, food and beverages, telecommunications or ITC, and automotive components as well as machinery and transport equipment.My trip had two purposes: to study the potential for exports from Australia and to assess the potential for those countries competing in other markets against Australia. There is a strong potential for increased exports to the region, which I have just said, especially if it is about to enter a period of much stronger economic growth. I met people from all around the world who are already there making contacts and undertaking preliminary work, so Australia will have to be alert to the opportunities and make a significant investment in the near future to ensure that we maximise our exports.There is competition from industries such as the wine industry and other agricultural sectors. Southern Africa is largely undeveloped or undeveloped in terms of agriculture. But there is obvious potential for large increases in productivity in industries such as grain and meat, which are two of Australia's strongest export performers. That will give us strong competition in the future. It was interesting to note the differences between more developed countries such as Southern Africa and Zimbabwe, and less developed countries such as Mozambique and Botswana. But the one thing that is common to the whole region is enthusiasm and optimism about the future. When this region takes off it will be, in my opinion, very dynamic.My report also notes some negative aspects, with law and order concerns in some places, difficulties with land ownership problems, especially in Zimbabwe, and ongoing racial tensions. However, at this stage, it would appear that these are unlikely to have any significant long-term negative impact on economic growth. Once again, I thank the Senate and the Australian people for giving me the opportunity to do this study tour. Sometimes the media think these study tours are junkets. They are not junkets, and I invite any of the journalists who sometimes write derogatorily about some of our study trips to come and spend the time with us at their own expense—a lot of our trips are at our own expense anyway, all the pleasure side of things—and see how hard we work, what we get out of the trips, what we learn and the reports that we give back to the Senate. If anyone in the Senate or anywhere wants to have a talk about my trip and to look further through my copious notes that are behind this report, I would be only too happy to show them. I thank the Senate and the Australian people for giving me this opportunity.942521:58:009425Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I rise to speak this evening on `Yes, the Republic. It is time'. It certainly is. I recall the first campaign, `It's time'. It was then, as it is now, a time for change. It is a matter I personally hold dearly. The model proposed is safe, it is simple and, above all else, it allows my children to aspire to be President of this great country. In my first speech, I spoke of a new millennium being around the corner. A republic should go hand in hand with a new era. I also wish to clarify some of the confusions and myths surrounding the current debate on the constitutional referendum. Some extraordinary furphies are being peddled which have contributed nothing to the debate other than confusion and misunderstanding. Regardless of how people intend to vote on 6 November, I believe it is vitally important that people make an informed decision based on truths.There have been suggestions that a republic will result in a change to our flag. This is completely untrue and is not even desired by a considerable proportion of people advocating a yes vote. Our flag will remain the same regardless of the result on 6 November as it can only be changed by an act of parliament to amend the Flag Act 1953.It has also been suggested that, under the new system, the Prime Minister would have greater powers to dismiss the President. Again, this is not true. The proposed system reflects the powers currently held by both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. The ability to sack the Governor-General exists now, just as the ability to sack the President exists in the proposed model. The myth that Australia would no longer be a member of the Commonwealth also needs to be exposed. A majority of the countries currently in the Commonwealth are, in fact, republics. Becoming a republic would have no effect on our standing and we would still participate in the Commonwealth Games.A whole raft of other irrelevant debates have been raised to confuse voters, ranging from scaremongering about the ability of UK citizens to vote raised by Mr Abbott to the Prime Minister's preamble. I would implore voters to ignore the bizarre theories being promoted and instead to focus on the historic opportunity that we will have on 6 November. This referendum provides us with this historic opportunity to change our Constitution such that we may finally have a head of state who is one of us—an Australian.I urge the direct election supporters to look at this referendum as the first step forward towards constitutional reform. I also hope that a more sensible debate will ensue between those advocating a direct election and those supporting the adopted approach. The debate thus far has unfortunately focused again on half-truths rather than on the genuine merits and failings of either model. Both models for appointing the President are viable, as has been demonstrated by countries such as Ireland and Iceland, which hold popular elections, and countries such as Switzerland and Germany, which appoint their President. Suggestions that either model will bring about the collapse of our democracy not only are untrue but also allow the monarchists to gain an upper hand in this debate.The direct electionists who are advocating a no vote are ensuring that constitutional change is taken off the public agenda. In my view, this government will certainly not interpret a `no' result as meaning that Australians did not like the model for a republic; it will conclude that Australians do not want a republic at all. The model proposed may not have everything, but the minimalist change at least allows us to have an Australian head of state. The appropriate manner in which this head of state is elected and dismissed, and the powers of office, can surely be finetuned in the coming years.A resolution from the Constitutional Convention held that if a yes vote is carried, the government must have another Constitutional Convention in three years to review the position. This will provide an opportunity to make further constitutional change to the position of President, if necessary. However, if a no vote is carried, the government is not obliged to pursue this issue any further.I am also concerned about the lack of information received by people with regard to the referendum itself. It seems that, unless you read the Australian newspaper daily and live in either Sydney or Melbourne, you are not given any information on the issue let alone allowed any involvement in the actual debate. My constituents in areas such as Barcaldine, Longreach and Charleville need to be informed as to what their choices are and the implications of those choices. As a Queensland senator, I am doing my best to inform as many Queenslanders as possible about the issues surrounding the referendum.I also recently helped to open the republican campaign office in Brisbane. The office was opened by former Attorney-General Michael Lavarch; the Queensland minister for justice and the arts and Attorney-General, Matt Foley; and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Mr David Watson. The opening was well attended and provided a good opportunity to discuss campaign ideas with a wide cross-section of people.The responsibility for educating people lies squarely with the federal government. The government needs to ensure that by 6 November all Australians have received sufficient information to make an informed choice. I strongly believe that it is important for Australia's future that we support the yes case on 6 November. Having said that, I genuinely believe it is just as important that all Australians make an educated and well-informed decision.942622:04:009426Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I wanted to take up a bit of the Senate's time tonight to express my gratitude to a number of people who have assisted me through my illness, as I reported to the Senate earlier this year. A number of those people are the medical and nursing staff at the cancer care unit in the Nepean Hospital in Sydney's western suburbs. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those people who have cared for me during my illness. I still have a bit to go. They have been marvellous people. They are able to deal with people who are suffering what they call life threatening illnesses with a sense of humour and a sense of respect for their dignity. They provide care for people that I suppose a lot of Australians do not see.I would particularly like to thank the doctors who have looked after me: Dr Lam, who is my GP and who forced me to go and get checked up; Dr Cartmill, who is a surgeon; Dr Veness, who is the radiologist; and Dr Jenny Shannon, who is in charge of chemotherapy. I would like to thank the following nurses in the chemotherapy ward: Ann Atwood, Karen Dever, Di Dingle, Kim Harris, Gayle Berthold, Steve Jeffs, Cathy O'Hara and James Daley. In the radiology area I would like to thank Kylie Dundas, Liz, Tony, Maria Menzies, Mark, and Cuong Nguyen. In the administrative area I would like to thank Myree Brown, Tracey Brown, Shannon Fuller, Hayley Harris, Di Mackey, Susanne Topp, Julia Turtle and Carmel Woods. Undoubtedly I have missed a few and I may have to correct that at some later stage.I would also like to record my gratitude to my family, particularly my sister and my children whose strength, support and love during this period have been of great value to me. In particular I would like to thank my old friends in the Labor movement and in the transport industry and old friends from school days who have come out of the woodwork and have been there when I needed them. I would particularly like to thank my old preso, Paul Ritsch; Michael Lee, who is an old schoolmate of mine; Leo McLeay; and someone from the other side who has been very concerned about and kind to me, Senator Kay Patterson, who has been around when maybe I needed her.I would like to record that throughout this ordeal I have had support from a lot of people throughout the country and even from my family in Ireland, who have been praying for me as well. When I have gone through some of these labyrinths and looked for the key to unlock them, I was always able to say to myself a Latin expression: Deo fidimus. When I said that, it gave me comfort.942722:07:009427Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The National Youth Roundtable held in September in Parliament House announced a series of recommendations for the government and important insights into the young people that they had spoken with Australia wide. One of these outcomes was the overwhelming support from young people for an Australian republic to replace the current constitutional monarchy. Young Australians are very clear minded about the lack of relevance the monarchy holds for them and are very enthusiastic about being involved in the process of constitutional change. In fact, 80 per cent of the government's National Youth Roundtable members came out in favour of a republic and would vote yes if given the opportunity.If you speak to a young person about why they want Australia to become a republic, they give you very clear, simple and cohesive arguments. Young people do not identify with the British monarchy in any sense, and even though England and Australia share a common background in many respects, it does not mean our young overseas travellers are treated with any particular deference in England. Young Australians must apply and pay for a working visa whilst providing proof that they will not stay in the country with no visible means of support or without the capacity to return to Australia. Many young Australians have backpacked through Europe on a shoestring budget and know full well that they are treated no differently in the UK than they are in most other European countries—except for the inevitable questions about what happens on Neighbours.It is not only young people of voting age who feel strongly about Australia's future. The Youth Roundtable put forward a recommendation that young people be allowed to vote on a voluntary basis at the ages of 16 and 17, in conjunction with the compulsory introduction of civics education in all schools. This is because young Australians feel pas sionate about what is going on in the world around them, and would dearly like the opportunity to have some input into their community at an earlier age.Young people unable to vote are currently not part of the official decision making process, but they will certainly inherit the results of this process. The outcome of the referendum will have a long-term effect on their aspirations for their country. To help my contribution to hearing their voices, I have constructed my web site to provide a valuable opportunity for a direct input into the parliamentary dialogue for those Australians who are too young to vote in the November referendum.It is very useful—in fact, invaluable—for us to know how young people are feeling. The results of such a survey, when our decision has such an effect on the interests of those under 18, is an eminently useful mechanism for canvassing that opinion. In order to collect this information, my site will allow people of all ages to vote yes or no to the republic question, using the actual wording of the upcoming referendum. They will also have the capacity to make comment on the process or any aspect of the referendum they choose.The Internet, the vehicle for this particular web site and survey, is becoming one of the most important communication media for Australians generally, but most importantly it has great relevance for young Australians. With an increase in the public access to the Internet and with the potential to create a more equitable system for Internet access, Australia aspires to becoming a highly connected nation. The Internet has the capability to overcome the communication barriers related to the tyranny of distance, and it has the potential to facilitate the equal involvement of all Australians, be they from rural, regional or metropolitan areas. Most importantly, it allows Australians of all ages, regardless of differing abilities, to participate in political affairs in a real-time environment. In fact, the only contingency is the inability to access the Internet, hence my emphasis on equity of access as underlying any Internet based initiative.Young Australians, regardless of their ability to vote in the referendum, should be provided with a forum wherever possible to record their views on the issue and to voice their opinions about the proposed change. We older Australians may feel that we have been inundated with information about the republic, and indeed we have. We have had material in our letterboxes, on the television sets and so forth. But the truth is that most of this information that has been disseminated has come through decidedly non-youth-friendly media, such as newspapers and current affairs programs. I believe that the Internet is the preferred medium of young people who have the privilege and the capacity to be connected.In the 12 months leading up to May 1998, over 74 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds used the Internet. Anecdotal evidence confirms that under 18s are no exception, and the figure could well be higher. I hope that my web site will provide young Australians with a forum in which they can convey their feelings to the Australian parliament, as I will bring their responses to this place in whatever way I can. I hope that that will leave parliamentarians with little doubt as to the overwhelming support that young people feel for moving towards a republic.Seventy thousand young people have enrolled for the first time to vote in the November referendum. This figure alone is a ringing endorsement of young people's desire to play a significant role in the determination of the future direction of this country. I find it incredibly inspiring that these people have taken on a role and responsibility similar to that in any national general election and put themselves on the roll with the same vigour.So many young people understand that a yes vote for the republic is not one of dislike for or prejudice against Britain. It is, however, recognition that we were not all born in England but were born in a host of nations, and many of us were deported here or lured by promises of a new start in a land someone forgot to tell us was already inhabited. It is essential that young Australians, children or grandchildren of immigrants from all over the world, have a say in our future because they hold such a great stake in it. With each new generation our young people are less likely to feel any attachment to a foreign queen. Our population has made an amazing metamorphosis in terms of cultural heritage, and it is time our Constitution recognised that we are truly a multicultural nation.Initially the biggest fear of young people regarding the republic seemed to be that of a government elected President. However, I believe that they are realising that a direct election model would be more likely to result in a politician like President—the very thing they are seeking to avoid—with the ability and money to promote themselves through an election campaign process.What young people want, what they have expressed to me, is someone who has demonstrated their service and commitment to the public good; someone who has the humility and grace to endear themselves to a nation, regardless of political persuasion; someone who has shown themselves capable of altruistic representation, again regardless of age, gender or race; and someone who can represent us on the world stage with Australian and humanitarian interests at the forefront.I have already received some terrific comments on my web site from respondents who feel passionately about a republic, and often for widely varying reasons. Huguette Lammens, aged 12 and a supporter of an Australian republic, writes to me:I used to be a citizen of Belgium, and I was rather offended last time we went overseas to find that at Heathrow Airport there were three rows: British Passport Holders, European Union, and `aliens'.I then realised that if I had never pledged allegiance to her majesty (which was then unfortunately still the only way of becoming Australian) I would have been considered at least a friendly neighbour, whereas now I am an `alien'! As a migrant I have had the option of going back (which would have been easier than staying in the first year or so). The fact that I, as so many migrants, am still here, shows our love for this country. Long live Australia.Young Australians have led the way into the future with their overwhelming support for conciliation with our indigenous Australians and for a new beginning. These views were reflected at the roundtable and they continue to be reflected in youth fora around the country. They understand that Australia needs to come to terms with its past and they want to be a part of the process which decides the future of their country.Young people have put an amazing amount of trust in us, the parliament, and our ability to continue to provide a stable constitutional framework and move towards a republic with dignity and strength. I am confident that the model presented before them in the context of the question on 6 November will afford that, and I look forward to hearing the responses of those who are yet ineligible to vote, by virtue of their age, through the forum that I have provided. I look forward to presenting that to my colleagues in this place.942922:17:009429McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—I take this opportunity tonight to advise the Senate of an international event which will soon occur in Far North Queensland. In its mere seven-year history the event has grown from a local community fundraiser to being listed on the international sports calendar. On the first Sunday following the first real storm of the Wet, the annual running of the bulls will be staged in Weipa, on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula. The first real storm is one which, according to organiser Nigel Gould, has significant lightning and thunder and which will wake the children. I can assure the Senate that the weather is certainly hotting up in Far North Queensland and we should expect the running in the next few weeks.The event occurs at about two or three in the morning, and there is a good reason for this. The running of the bulls invites residents of the community to run the two-kilometre circular way in Weipa carrying plastic shopping bags to collect donations from the spectators. The only other apparel allowed is their running shoes.The run attracts international interest, and this year a Japanese television crew may be in attendance to cover the event. This follows extensive coverage from Japan and Europe last year. But the locals of Weipa are particularly excited by an expression of interest shown by Madonna, who followed up an interview with Nigel Gould played on a Los Angeles radio station recently. Apparently she is looking to show footage in upcoming film clips. The media attention, as you would understand, is significant. It is believed that at the 1998 running of the bulls a world record was set for the largest number of naked people ever interviewed, as many of the runners were interviewed by the ABC from a public phone box on the way.But the residents of Weipa do not participate in the running of the bulls, either as participants or spectators, simply as voyeurs. They are raising much-needed funds for the Royal Flying Doctor Service and other worthy recipients, including the Weipa Early Childhood Association and the Cape York Secondary Hostel.The organisers wish to make a challenge to the broader community to come together as they have done to raise money for their communities in this way. Nigel has said that raising $2,300 in 12 minutes, as was achieved last year, is the easiest money that he has ever raised. I encourage other senators to join with my support for the running of the bulls, and I would happily pass on their donations to the Weipa community.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Are you going to run?84LMcLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS—No way. I congratulate Nigel Gould, who is the CFMEU delegate at Comalco's bauxite mine, and all the other organisers for their ingenious and effective support for the Royal Flying Doctor Service.Senate adjourned at 10.20 p.m.Documents94299429The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 231.Acts Interpretation Act—Statements pursuant to section 34C relating to the delay in presentation of reports—Tiwi Land Council Report for 1998-99 and Anindilyakwa Land Council Report for 1998-99.Child Care Act—Child Care (High Need Regions) Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 1). Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations— Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument Nos CASA 931/99, CASA 1008/99 and CASA 1009/99. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 229.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 225.Defence Act—Determination under section 58B—Defence Determination 1999/40.Export Control Act— Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Export Meat Amendment Orders 1999 (No. 2). Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 221.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 222.Federal Court of Australia Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 232.Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 224.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 226 and 227.Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No. 3).National Health Act— Declaration No. PB 10 of 1999. Determination No. PB 11 of 1999. Health Benefits Insurance (Records of Organisations) Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 1).Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 228.Public Service Act— Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1999/10 and 1999/22-1999/24. Public Service (Defence) Determination 1999/7. Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1999/51-1999/57.Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Notices of Declaration—Notices Nos 9 and 10 of 1999.States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 223.Telecommunications Act—A Code of Access to Telecommunications Transmission Towers, Sites of Towers and Underground Facilities, dated October 1999.Trade Practices Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 230.Veterans' Entitlements Act— Instrument of approval under section 117, dated 22 September 1999. Veterans' Children Education Scheme (Additional Tuition and Special Financial Assistance) Variation 1999 (No. 3).Proclamations9431A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following Act to come into operation on the date specified:Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act 1999 —30 September 1999 (Gazette No. S 462, 30 September 1999).