1999-10-123914SENATE943101999-10-12The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice943194319431Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY 7G6ACTALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Does the government agree with an IOC Athletes' Commission plan to have all athletes carry doping passports requiring them to be available for out of competition testing at any time? Will the minister for sport be backing this proposal for Sydney 2000 at her drug summit, or does the government favour White House drug adviser Barry McCaffrey's push for a totally independent drug testing agency?9431Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I cannot put my hands on a brief on that question so I will take it on notice and get an answer to the senator as soon as possible.9431Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question that the minister can perhaps tackle. Can the minister confirm that the Australian Olympic Committee has refused to attend the government's proposed international drug summit later this year in an official capacity and may only attend as an observer? Isn't this so-called drug summit simply a grandstanding exercise to cover up for the minister for sport's inability to take effective action against drugs in sport, including her failure to attend the IOC drug summit earlier this year?9431Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—That is rather a tiresome accusation against the excellent work being done by the minister for sport, Jackie Kelly. This is going to be an extremely successful summit on drugs in sport. It is being attended by countries around the world. They are enthusiastic about attending this international drugs in sport summit. Australia is regarded as a world leader in the fight against drugs in sport, and I note that representatives from Olympic committees in a number of countries will be attending the summit as part of their country's delegations.94319431McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs. Will the minister inform the Senate of the success of the Australian Federal Police Overseas Liaison Network?9431Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator McGauran for his question. The Federal Police Overseas Liaison Network currently comprises 29 agents operating in 17 posts in 16 countries. The relationship between the Federal Police liaison officers and overseas law enforcement agencies is growing and provides a very sound basis for continuing operational successes.The government's commitment to strengthening the Federal Police's international links is paying dividends. I am delighted to be able to inform the Senate that yesterday in Sydney the Australian Federal Police arrested a major international fugitive from justice. This man was indicted in the United States for his role in the importation and distribution of 180 kilos of cocaine into the United States in 1990, and conspiracy to import and distribute 2.5 tonnes of cocaine between 1989 and 1992. The arrest of this major crime figure stemmed from Federal Police investigations into the activities of a Sydney-based syndicate of South American nationals. The investigations resulted in seizures of large quantities of cocaine, heroin and cash as well as the arrests of several people within Australia, Germany, Italy and the United States.His arrest and the success of Federal Police investigations is just another fine example of international police cooperation and the effectiveness of the Federal Police Overseas Liaison Network. The end result is that the good work of the Federal Police has helped break a large international drug syndicate.But this is not the first time that the overseas networks have located a fugitive from another country. As the Senate will recall, in November 1998 the Federal Police located and arrested Carlos Cabal Peniche who was wanted by the Mexican government for an alleged $600 million fraud. But, as the Demtel person says, `Wait, there's more.' The AFP successes over the past year also include contributing to the arrest of dozens of suspects and the seizure of hundreds of kilos of illicit drugs in countries other than Australia. Just as we receive intelligence from overseas countries that help us with our drug busts, so we contribute back to the international pool of intelligence. We have contributed to successes in Thailand, Hong Kong, Canada, Papua New Guinea and Japan. The AFP's efforts in these cases have had considerable significance in the creation and success of cooperative law enforcement networks in our region.Of course, the drug seizures and other operational activities do not complete the picture of cooperative assistance in the Pacific region, which is important in the fight against transnational criminal activity, which then directly impacts on Australians. Success also comes from a cooperative approach to law enforcement training and the exchange of ideas and personnel, and that is reflected in the Federal Police's work in Vietnam, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Singapore and China. The government recognises that work of the Federal Police and was very pleased to commit additional funding in May 1999 of roughly a third of a million dollars to expand that network. It is an excellent return from a strategic investment.I was very pleased in April to attend the opening of the Federal Police liaison post in Vietnam and to be present in China at the first appointment of a Federal Police liaison officer in Beijing.94329432Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, representing the Minister for Defence. How serious is the breakdown in the relationship between the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, which is reported on the front page of the Financial Review today? Is it true that the factors contributing to the breakdown are the minister's sacking of his former secretary, Mr Barratt, the choice of Mr Barratt's successor, and a proposal by Mr Moore for a meeting of defence ministers in Darwin? Whose version of events are we to believe—that being put about by Mr Moore-Wilton or the one being put about by those who are backgrounding on the defence minister's behalf?9432Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As a representative of the Minister for Defence, I have no intention of adding to the scuttlebutt that is being put about by members of the Labor Party. I would caution the ALP, the opposition, to not believe what they read in the newspapers.9432Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I would have thought that a senior minister of the government, representing the Minister for Defence, could have provided—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. It cannot possibly be relevant to any supplementary question to know what Senator Faulkner's thoughts on any matter might be.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner has had six seconds and I would ask him to come to his question.5K4Senator FAULKNER—What I was asking, before I was so rudely interrupted by Senator Alston, was this: given the importance of a good working relationship between the defence minister and the country's senior bureaucrat—the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—at such a critical time, can the minister reassure the Senate that the report in today's Financial Review is entirely without foundation?9432Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I repeat the answer I gave at first. I caution the ALP not to believe the scuttlebutt that is in the paper.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Answer the question.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am answering the question in the way that I choose to—a question which you asked.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Newman has the call to answer the question and opposition senators should stop shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I have answered the question, Madam President.94339433Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Will the Assistant Treasurer advise the Senate of the significance of recent APRA superannuation assets figures, which showed that total superannuation assets in Australia topped $400 billion for the first time ever in 1998-99? Will he also inform the Senate what effect the government's proposed changes to business taxation will have on superannuation?9433Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Watson for that very important question. Senator Watson has a longstanding interest in superannuation and it comes as no surprise that he is pursuing this matter in the chamber today. The superannuation system, as we all know, plays a key role in helping Australians enjoy higher living standards in their retirement. I have great pleasure in informing the senator today that the superannuation savings of Australians continue to grow very strongly. In fact, as Senator Watson said, the recent figures from APRA show that superannuation assets in Australia reached over $400 billion in June 1999. This is a growth of some 14 per cent in the year to June. Contributions ended the year some 39.5 per cent higher than the year before, increasing from some $33.9 billion to $47.3 billion.Australians are now contributing almost $1 billion a week into their superannuation. Both voluntary member contributions and employer contributions, under the superannuation guarantee, are showing strong growth. Retail funds, industry funds, corporate funds and self-managed funds all shared in the growth. I think we are seeing very strong confidence in superannuation. Madam President, you may recall that some years ago when superannuation was being debated in this chamber there were comments from the other side—and Senator Sherry in particular—that people lacked confidence in superannuation.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The SG—the superannuation guarantee. It is Labor policy.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry, on one remarkable occasion, came into this chamber and indicated that he had spoken to his hairdresser—who I think was Barry, Bruce, Johann or Stefan—and said that this particular gentleman lacked confidence in superannuation, and so Senator Sherry lacked confidence in superannuation. Fortunately, the Australian public do not lack confidence in superannuation. That is why—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Go out and ask them.WW4Senator KEMP—`Go out and ask them,' says Senator Sherry. You went out and asked Bruce. Bruce gave you an answer and Bruce was wrong.The second part of Senator Watson's question related to the business tax reforms. It will be well-known that, as part of the capital gains tax reforms, only two-thirds of capital gains will now be taxed, effectively meaning a rate cut from 15 to 10 per cent. This move, I think, has been very widely welcomed by the superannuation industry. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia hailed the Ralph report as positive and balanced. The Investment and Financial Services Association—IFSA, as it is often known—said that the business tax reforms would greatly enhance the capacity of the economy to produce improved savings and investment rules.It is the coalition government that is cutting capital gains tax on superannuation funds—remembering, of course, that it was the Labor Party that imposed the tax in the first place. The government not only wants to cut the CGT on superannuation but also wishes to give people choice and control over their superannuation. This is another important policy from the government which will further improve superannuation in this country.94339433Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware of the recent scaremongering comments by the royalist Senator Minchin, attempting to raise community fears about the fate of crown land under a republic? Has the Howard government sought any authoritative advice on this matter, and can the leader assure the Senate and the Australian community that the position of crown land would be calmly and properly dealt with by the states? Does a republic threaten the position of crown land in this country?9434Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—In the circumstances, I think I will adopt the Senator Mark Bishop defence. This morning he said, `Why are you asking me silly, irrelevant and futile questions?' I am not aware of Senator Minchin's contribution, but I know that he is out there supporting the monarchist side. I am supporting the republican side and I hope that my side gets up.9434Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is quite obvious that Senator Hill has not taken this question seriously. The question of crown land is indeed a serious matter. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: why does the Prime Minister only directly take action in the referendum debate to stifle republican coalition members from promoting the yes case, yet allow rabid royalists like Senator Minchin to make outrageous, inflammatory and misleading statements, and to do so at will? When will the Prime Minister actually take seriously his public commitment to remain neutral on the referendum, instead of using his surrogates to take the running on the royalist cause and to do so in an inflammatory way?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That has only the slenderest connection to the question or the answer, but if Senator Hill has anything to offer, I will give him the opportunity to do so.9434Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Repeating what I said yesterday, there is a misunderstanding. The Prime Minister actually barracks for the monarchist side. What he is doing is ensuring that the Australian people have the opportunity to vote for an alternative.Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, I call you to order.BH4Senator HILL—What he is ensuring is that the Australian people have the opportunity to vote for an alternative—that is, an Australian as head of state. I welcome the opportunity for Australians to have a chance to move forward in that way.94349434Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Does the Assistant Treasurer agree that the capital gains tax cut is not fully funded? Is the minister aware that if the `extra realisations' figure is excluded from the funding of the tax cut, as the most recent official American research suggests, then the capital gains tax cut could be unfunded by up to $2 billion? Is the government prepared to revisit its capital gains tax cut to ensure that it is fully funded without relying on some selective and over-optimistic United States economic theories, thereby ensuring that the tax is fair and not regarded as a gift to the rich?9434Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The tax is fair. The capital gains tax measures have, I think, been widely welcomed. To the extent that there is confusion, it is confusion over the Labor Party's position on this matter. You would have thought that the Labor Party could have at least come to some policy position on the Ralph report. The truth of the matter is that they find it exceedingly hard to do so.It is true that Australia currently taxes capital gains comparatively harshly compared with many other countries. I think most of us in this chamber would agree with that. Ralph estimates that the proposed CGT reforms will be revenue positive, notwithstanding the reduction in the CGT rate. I point out to Senator Murray that overseas experience supports the conclusion that a lower CGT rate increases realisations. As I think I pointed out in this chamber before, it reduces the lock-in effect—that is, the reluctance of some people to sell because of tax—it encourages capital formation and will make Australia more competitive. A relatively strong short-term positive revenue response is expected to follow the lowering of the CGT rate. In the first two years, the Ralph review estimated—I do not think anyone has questioned the integrity of Mr Ralph and his colleagues—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No, just the study.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Conroy may have, but of course he questions the integrity of everybody around this place. Apart from Senator Conroy, there is no doubt about the integrity of Mr Ralph and his colleagues. In the first two years, the review estimated a 50 per cent increase in the rate of realisations as investors realigned portfolios due to the CGT rate cut and the revenue gains from increased realisations more than offset revenue losses from the lower rate. The Ralph estimates are not inconsistent with the findings reported in the study commissioned by the ASX.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I point out to opposition senators that, if they wish to debate this topic, there is an appropriate time to do it after question time but not during the answer to the question.WW4Senator KEMP—The estimates in the Ralph report are not inconsistent with the findings in a study commissioned by the ASX. There is a very extensive discussion on this in the Ralph report and, if people wish to pursue this topic, I think there would be some merit in reading that discussion. The government has accepted the findings in the Ralph review.9435Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I have read the Ralph discussion on CGT and regret to confess I am still confused. Is the minister aware that the charities and churches sector has today labelled the capital gains tax as unfair? Is the minister aware that tax experts like Professor Rick Kreever, Professor Chris Evans and the Taxation Institute have raised concerns about the lower, unfunded capital gains tax creating new tax avoidance loopholes? Can the minister provide an absolute assurance to this chamber that a lower capital gains tax will not open up things like the pre-1985 bottom-of-the-harbour schemes that allowed high income earners to unfairly reduce their tax burden?9435Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We believe that the tax is fair. We believe that in adopting the proposal of the Ralph Committee we are bringing in a fairer tax system, a system that encourages investment, encourages savings and would therefore ultimately lead to the creation of jobs and a better functioning economy. We believe that the tax system is fair; we believe that there are in the Ralph review a range of measures in relation to tax avoidance; we believe those measures are effective and important. The government is very conscious that people pay their fair share of tax, and I do not think there is any doubt about the government's commitment to this. Certainly, the previous government was very lax in the tax avoidance area and has been rightly criticised in this chamber by me and others for its performance. But Senator Murray should have no doubt about the commitment of this government to make sure that people pay their fair share of tax.94359435Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. In light of the minister's unbelievable denial yesterday that there are any serious demand problems for the Australian car industry, is the minister aware that motor vehicle registrations for August 1999 are at their lowest level since August 1997? Does the minister agree that one of the primary reasons for this decline is a GST inspired buyers' strike? In light of this, is the minister aware of any government review—expected or currently under way—examining the impact of the GST on the car industry prior to 30 June 2000?9435Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The opposition seems to be drying up. This is almost exactly the same question as I had yesterday, and I will give the same answer. The fact is that 1998 was the record year for Australian car sales. It was the biggest year ever, under our government, with sales of 807,000 units. That followed the 1997 year, which was also a record year for car sales. We had two record years in a row. It is not surprising that, after the incredible sales figures of those two years, there has been some fall-off. I said yesterday that in the year to September—that is, looking at the nine months of 1999 to September—sales are down 2.9 per cent from the same period in 1998. But they are 11 per cent higher than they were in 1997, which was the second biggest year on record. If this continues, this year is likely to be the second biggest year on record for car sales. At worst, it will be the third highest year for car sales ever in Australia. So to say that they are the worst since two years ago is really a fiction.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators talking across the chamber are out of order.JX4Senator MINCHIN—It is only two years, and 1997 was itself a record year. Sales are running ahead of 1997, and 1998 was an outstanding year for the car industry. We congratulate them on that. There has been a downturn. It is 2.9 per cent lower this year than at the same time in 1998. It is not clear that the marginal downturn is a direct function of buyer anticipation of lower prices under a GST. We are in close consultation with the industry. From the very start of this process, we have undertaken to consult with them closely to keep the matter under constant review. We are watching it very carefully, but we do not want the car industry to suffer.What you have to remember is that we are talking about a product which will be considerably cheaper as a result of our tax reforms, and we are being attacked on this by an opposition that actually wants to keep the sales tax on cars high. You want to keep the 22 per cent sales tax on cars. As I said last night, your record on this is an absolute disgrace. In 1992 you dropped the tax on cars from 20 per cent to 15 per cent simply to match our promise of a 15 per cent GST. As soon as you got back, in 1993, you engaged in the most cynical act ever seen when you increased the sales tax on cars to 22 per cent. You did not put it back to 20 per cent; you went even further and put it up to 22 per cent. Where was the compassion for the car workers then? You did not care about the consumers of cars then when you did that. You put car workers out of work because of what you did to the price of cars, so don't come in here lecturing us because we are about to lower the price of motor vehicles.9436Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the minister's answer that the government is actually conducting a review. Could the minister inform the Senate when the results of the review will be announced?9436Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The government, through the relevant departments, is working closely with the industry to keep car sales under constant review. It is a constant process of examining car sales on a regular basis. We are talking to the companies about their forward orders so that we have as clear a picture as possible of what the automotive situation is like. It is an ongoing, constant review, and we will act if necessary.94369436Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Mrs Eileen Nixon has leased and operated Shelburne Station for 31 years, utilising environmentally responsible techniques including sweet water, natural pasture and organic roads programs, and the implementation of a property management program. Will the minister inform the Senate of the federal government's preferred course of action in relation to the management of the Shelburne Bay area, given the environmental sensitivity of the area?9436Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for the question. Shelburne is, as most senators will know, to the north-east of Cape York. It is a pastoral lease and is also an area of exceptional natural beauty and, I think I can say, rare beauty.Senator Schacht interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—The north-east area of Cape York. I am sorry that these geographical issues might be difficult for Senator Schacht.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, ignore the interjections.BH4Senator HILL—The honourable senator will be aware that this property has been recognised for a long time as ideal for inclusion within the national reserve system because of its exceptional national beauty, as has the adjoining property to the south, that of Bromley. The property was leased, and I understand that the lease has now expired. I gather that there is some dispute between the Nixon family and the Queensland government as to whether the Nixons have rights upon expiry. No doubt that will be determined through processes in Queensland.Consistent with what I have just said, our attitude as a government is that we would like to see these properties within the National Reserve System. That does not necessarily mean that they need to be held by governments. Our attitude has been that the reserve system should encompass not only assets that are held by governments—the most traditional form was national parks—but also assets that are held under tenure by other parties such as non-government organisations or individuals who are prepared to commit the assets for their conservation value for the benefit of the total community. In some circumstances where individuals have been prepared to do that, we as a government have supported those individuals in that objective because we recognise that in some instances it is at a cost to them and it is a cost they are paying for the benefit of the total community.We do not have a firm view on the best form of tenure for these properties, but we are strongly of the view that they would be wonderful assets within our National Reserve System. We are very much committed to the concept of a comprehensive and representative reserve system across Australia that reflects the broad and unique ecosystems with which we have been blessed. We have helped fund the development of the National Reserve System through the Natural Heritage Trust. For the benefit of the honourable senator, I stress that we have made those payments only on a voluntary basis; we have not funded compulsory acquisitions. We see the building up of the National Reserve System as being on a voluntary basis.I hope that sheds some light on our attitude to these matters. I believe that one of the Nixons still lives on the property. Our attitude in relation to individuals who obviously have a very strong bond to these properties, whether the leases have expired or not, is that they should be treated sensitively. As I understand it, Mr Nixon, who still remains on the property, is elderly. I would have thought that some arrangement could be entered into that might allow him to remain on the property and perhaps assist government in its responsibility to conserve the natural assets for the benefit of the total community.9437Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Senator, for clarifying that position. Is the minister aware that Mick Hayes of the Stock Squad, two plain-clothes police officers and a gentleman named Mr Mick Barrat have at this present moment entered Shelburne Station and the Nixon's home without providing a reason for their visit and have not produced identification to Mrs Nixon? Would the minister inquire as to the purpose of the visit?9437Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will make inquiries of the Queensland government. I repeat what I said a moment ago. Whether a lease has expired or not, I think elderly people who have lived on the property for a very long period and obviously have a very strong bond with the property should be treated sensitively.94379437Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Has the minister received representations from the Taxation Institute of Australia expressing its view that the 1996 cut in the R&D tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent has meant, in its words:Significant R&D projects have either been abandoned or deferred and Australia's relative attractiveness as an R&D centre has diminished.Is the minister aware that, according to the authoritative Rogers and Feeney 1999 R&D Scoreboard, 18 of the top 20 companies in terms of R&D intensity, including cutting edge companies such as Cochlear, Resmed and OzEmail, reduced their R&D effort this year? Why will the government not act to stop the serious decline in R&D in Australia?9437Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Expenditure on R&D under this government is actually higher than it ever was in any full year under the Labor government. It is true that in 1995-96 expenditure on R&D increased dramatically. We know, and Labor admitted this in its changes that it mooted in late 1995, that that was a result of runaway expenditure under the R&D syndication scheme, which was being significantly rorted and which Labor itself admitted had to be changed. While changes were mooted by Labor, we acted in our first budget to clamp down on the rorting of the syndication. We keep getting lectures from the opposition about all this. It did nothing about syndication during its term of government.Senator Cook interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, you can debate the matter at the appropriate time.JX4Senator MINCHIN—We did something about syndication: we got rid of it. Also, because we were left with a $10,000 million annual deficit, a debt for the nation approaching $100 billion—an increase of $70 billion in Labor's last five years—we had to do something about government expenditure. It was very important to us to ensure that the burden of reducing that deficit was shared right across the board. We were not going to make sure that it was just workers who had to bear that burden; business had to bear that burden as well. That meant that, as a responsible government, we had to reduce the tax concessions for R&D from 150 per cent to 125 per cent, which was a saving to the revenue of $300 million.We keep getting lectured by this mob about putting it back up to 150 per cent. They never tell us where the $300 million is going to come from. We are being lectured about the Ralph reforms and being told that they must be revenue neutral, but they never tell us where they are going to find the $300 million to put the R&D concession back up to 150 per cent. Of course we would like to provide more incentives for R&D, but R&D is at what are otherwise record levels. It has fallen off from those peaks that occurred in 1996-97 and 1997-98. Expenditure in 1997-98 was down about four per cent. But what the opposition fail to recognise is that we have had the lowest commodity prices for the mining industry since 1800. A large proportion of R&D conducted by business in this country is conducted by the mining industry. Obviously and inevitably mining industry expenditure on R&D has fallen quite significantly because they are facing the lowest real commodity prices since 1800.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Where was the mining industry in Australia in 1800, Nick?JX4Senator MINCHIN—You would not know anything about the mining industry, Senator Schacht. Just wait till Senator Bolkus sends you out to Makin.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many senators persistently interjecting, and I am noting that you are doing so.JX4Senator MINCHIN—The 125 per cent tax concession remains a commitment of this government, and it remains a substantial and considerable concession to encourage R&D. I also point out the significant encouragement to R&D that will occur as a result of the implementation of the Ralph reforms, through both the reduction in the company tax rate, providing greater after tax dollars for investment in R&D, and significant cuts in the capital gains tax. The entry of pension fund moneys from the US into venture capital moneys will be a significant boost to R&D, as many commentators in this industry have said.9438Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister also aware that the Taxation Institute of Australia has said:I wish to express our concern that the recommendations of the Review of Business Taxation to reduce the corporate tax rate to 34% and then 30% will dilute the benefits of the R&D tax concession.Does the minister accept this analysis, and if not, why not?9438Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—This really is an absolutely and utterly hypocritical proposition being put to us by Labor. When the former Labor government reduced the corporate tax rate in 1988 from 49 per cent to 39 per cent they made absolutely no adjustment to the R&D tax concession. And what happened to R&D? It actually went up as a result of that cut in the tax rate. In 1993, Labor again reduced the corporate tax rate, from 39 per cent to 33 per cent—and again it made absolutely no adjustment in the R&D tax concession at that time—and at that time R&D actually went up after that reduction in the corporate tax rate. We are very confident that that history will be repeated when we reduce the corporate tax rate to 30 per cent.Senator Cook interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, I invite you to read standing order No. 203 and reflect upon what it says.94399439Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. There have been many misleading comments and press articles recently about the funding of women's organisations. I therefore ask the minister whether she would be kind enough to inform the senators as to how government funding of such organisations ensures that there is a broad range of input into women's policy?9439Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am very pleased to be able to speak about our new approach to the national women's NGO funding programs, because this approach will foster a professional, representative and influential women's sector. All applications for funding for women's organisations for national secretariat purposes were assessed on selection criteria made explicit through a public tender process. The three successful organisations which I announced provided an impressive range of activities, extensive affiliations, active input into policy processes and detailed plans to deliver quality secretariat services over the next three years. For the first time ever, women in Australia know that there are three key bodies who are well supported to represent their interests to government. The funding to these organisations has been doubled—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease interjecting. You are in breach of the standing orders.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The funding to these organisations has been doubled to $100,000 a year. These organisations are all very robust, vibrant, well-established and national women's NGOs with involvement in a wide range of issues relevant to a very broad range of women. I draw your attention to the fact that for women's organisations to be funded on a triennial basis means that they have certainty as to their funding and they have the ability to plan to take on staff and to become even more professional than they are now.The YWCA, the National Council of Women of Australia and the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women will be required to abide by the same standards as the rest of the community sector—standards that the taxpayer would expect. Anyone who knows these organisations would be well aware that they do not always agree with the government. Indeed, most of the peak organisations funded through different portfolios speak out strongly.I would like to remind the Senate that this was a very rigorous process and it followed consultations and workshops with women's organisations all around the country over a number of months of the first part of this year. We have not defunded women's organisations. We have maintained a minimum—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!9439Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, they would like to shout me down, but the facts defy their dishonesty, and I am afraid that the information—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left should abide by the standing orders and stop persistently shouting during the answer to a question. There is an appropriate time to debate the matter if you have a difference of opinion.BE4Senator NEWMAN—There are in fact now two rounds of funding for women's organisations through the Office of the Status of Women and there is a further round of funding through the mainline departments. The first round of funding has been announced, and the second round of funding is now in process—it is now in the assessment phase. I will shortly be announcing a further round of project grants for women's organisations to undertake projects which advance the status of women or strengthen their organisation. These projects will be assessed similarly to the previous round, by competitive merit against selection criteria. The two tranches of funding will bring the total funding for women's organisations' activities through OSW to well over $500,000. We agreed to requests from organisations to delay this second round to give them more time to prepare their submissions.Our strategy to assist organisations which provide services to women includes not only the OSW funding but also the encouragement of other portfolios to fund specific issues women's groups. Last year an extra $350,000 was received by women's organisations from other Commonwealth areas. Those organisations that performed well in the secretariat tender process, but whose focus is more portfolio specific, I have referred to my colleagues to consider for further attention. This in fact has occurred with my announcement today of funding for the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, which will be funded by my own department, through the Department of Family and Community Services. Our government has delivered considerable benefits for Australian women, and I would like to have the opportunity to say some more. (Time expired)9440Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I must say it has been very difficult to hear Senator Newman's answer because of the number of interjections from the other side. Therefore, I would like to ask Minister Newman if she would further elaborate on the strategies that have been undertaken and also what other consultative activities have been initiated by her.9440Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Let me make it quite clear: in 1998-99 this government overall has provided women's groups with more than $850,000 in funding from OSW and other agencies. That includes $50,000 to women's sport—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left are in breach of standing order 203 in persistently, and I believe wilfully, interjecting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I understand the sisterhood do not like these facts getting put on the public record. As I said, $50,000 to women's sport, funding from the Office of Disability to support Women with Disabilities Australia and funding to rural women's groups through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.When you look at the government's record in providing a sound economic environment, low interest rates for women for their home purchases, new women's health initiatives, especially for rural women—Opposition senators interjecting—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I would ask you to remind senators on the other side of what you have been telling them about five times while Senator Newman has been speaking, that they have been constantly interjecting. I cannot hear what she is saying.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left know, I believe, that they are behaving in a disorderly fashion.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I would like to conclude my summing up of the government's record for women, which is a very good one. There have been improvements in superannuation for women, which the previous government ignored for years and years, and a real breakthrough on prevention and early intervention on domestic violence so that we do not just accept that it can go on forever. We are committed to achieving more. (Time expired)94409440Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Minister, what action have you taken to ensure that the proposed selling off of BHP's Whyalla facilities does not jeopardise any of the 2,000 direct jobs relying on those works or any of the many more jobs in the Whyalla community which indirectly depend on BHP's presence?9440Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Schacht for this question and wish him well in his campaign in Makin. BHP has been keeping us closely informed of its plans in relation to its steel assets, and we appreciate very much the way in which BHP has been keeping the government properly informed. I have said on behalf of the government that we appreciate that cooperation. We understand BHP's rationalisation of its assets, that it has decided that its future lies essentially as a minerals company with some steel assets and that that is a good direction for BHP and will make BHP a stronger company. We are reassured by BHP that these sales will not result in any plant closures. They will be sold as going businesses. They will not close any plants. The chairman of BHP Steel has given that assurance repeatedly and it is one that I think the community can accept. We are being kept closely informed and will work with BHP as it rationalises its assets.I am very pleased that the people of Whyalla have reacted very positively to the announcement by BHP. I think this does mean that there is potentially an even brighter future for the steel assets in BHP and for the steel industry in Whyalla. I look forward to those assets being purchased by a company or interests that have a real commitment to the Australian steel industry, that will make a very big contribution and a big investment towards a real future for Whyalla. As I say, the very positive reaction from the people of Whyalla has been terrific. We are working with the state government, and the state government with the company and the community, to ensure that there is a real future for those assets and for that company in Whyalla.9441Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, BHP have stated that they will not close the works if they cannot sell it. What guarantees has the government sought from BHP that they will not allow the works to run down by not reinvesting in modernising or updating the plant, which will be needed in the immediate future, such as approximately $90 million for the relining of the blast furnace at Whyalla by no later than 2005? In view of the response from the Whyalla community being, as you say, positive, do you have any plans to visit Whyalla, or are you more interested in supporting Camilla as the next Queen of Australia?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Ignore the last part of the question, Senator.9441Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Senator Schacht purports to come in here and express some concern and sympathy for BHP workers and for the community of Whyalla but completely debases his question by a cheap little shot about a very important public issue which we are all facing. The ALP have said they are going to devote all their resources to campaigning for a republic. That is their right and I am not going to criticise them for that. They have actually said they are not going to do any policy development or announce any policies until after this referendum is over. So you completely debase your question. We are concerned about the people of Whyalla. We want to have a bright future for them in their steel industry. You have completely cheapened your shot by your ridiculous assertion.94419441Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The minister recently announced that he would not be withholding money from the Natural Heritage Trust for the Bushcare Revegetation Program in Queensland. This is despite, as the minister would be aware, recent satellite data which shows that the already staggeringly high rate of land clearing in Queensland has jumped in the last two years by another 18 per cent across the whole state, with a 55 per cent increase on freehold land alone. Moreover, the minister will no doubt be familiar with the performance indicators in the national vegetation initiative document, which include bringing the rate of habitat destruction below the rate of revegetation and that there be no clearing of endangered ecosystems. Given that Queensland meets neither of these key criteria, why has the minister decided not to withhold the relevant NHT funds from Queensland until such time as the criteria are met? Why is the government providing funds when trees are being cut down and land cleared yet is not providing funds for the South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement, which is stopping native forest being cleared?9441Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, we are supporting through the Natural Heritage Trust programs of revegetation and protecting remnant vegetation, and we think that is an important public investment. We are also, in a comple mentary way, seeking to encourage the states to provide effective land clearing regimes in order that clearing takes place only on a broadacre basis where it is sustainable in ecological terms and does not include clearing that will have a detrimental effect upon endangered or threatened species or ecological communities. So it is true that there are two sides to this ledger. On the one hand, we are trying to retain native vegetation through support programs and, on the other hand, we are trying to encourage states to play their part, as having a primary responsibility for natural resource management in this country, to achieve better results as well. And it is true that the Queensland government has signed up to complying with that obligation, both in terms of land clearing controls and protecting threatened and endangered species.The argument that I think the honourable senator is putting to me is: shouldn't you refrain from supporting the revegetation programs whilst overclearing is still occurring? The downside to that—the contrary argument to that—is, firstly, that you would be missing opportunities to support good revegetation programs, and that is not in the national interest. Secondly, you would be missing opportunities to support good natural resource managers—good farmers—who are acting responsibly in relation to their land, and that is not in the national interest either. So I have not really seen the matter as an either/or one. I want to see us achieving better outcomes on both sides of the ledger; that is, in revegetation and in protecting, through better and more effective clearing regimes, Australia's native vegetation.It is worth recalling that overclearing in Australia has cost this nation a great deal, both in economic terms and in ecological terms, and out of that we should at least be learning from the mistakes of the past. Overclearing is not good in terms of providing a healthy natural system for future commercial gain and it is not good in terms of loss of biodiversity, which in many cases will never be replaced.So, having acknowledged the principle that we have overcleared, that we should learn from the mistakes in the past, that over clearing where it is still existing today should be countered and that better practices should be in place, the response of this government is then to work constructively with landholders and state governments to achieve those goals. In terms of the fact that clearing rates around Australia are reducing, we are achieving some success but I say that with a recognition that in some parts of Australia—Queensland being one—overclearing is still occurring, and we want to see better results.9442Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister's quite accurate comments about the damage done by land clearing, I would be interested to know what form of pressure he is bringing to bear on the Queensland government to ensure that in my home state, where land clearing is still increasing, that situation changes. Given that the minister has also made a firm commitment to keep the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases to no more than eight per cent above 1990 levels, in accordance with the Kyoto protocol, and that the ongoing land clearing in Queensland contributes about 10 per cent of Australia's CO2 discharge, what support will the Commonwealth give the Queensland government in terms of putting together an effective on-farm conservation incentive package to assist the Queensland government—in the constructive manner that the minister is talking about—to effectively halt the clearing of Queensland's endangered as well as threatened ecosystems on freehold land, which together add up to some 4.25 million hectares of my home state's most threatened vegetation?9442Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Briefly, most Australian states instituted clearing control—minimum regulatory environments—without any Commonwealth support at all. Therefore you could argue that for the Commonwealth now to come in and support the Queensland government in doing what it should be doing in any event is inequitable compared to the other states.On the other hand, I recognise, because of the extent of the issue in Queensland, that some Commonwealth support could constructively help achieve a better outcome, and that is the message that I have given to the Queensland government. But it has to take the lead because it is primarily responsible for natural resource management in Queensland. When it demonstrates that lead and comes to us and asks if we can support it in achieving better outcomes—better outcomes for the land-holder, better outcomes for the community—then, as we have indicated, we are prepared to work positively and constructively with it towards that goal.94439443Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Does the minister recall telling the Senate yesterday that, while cars will be a lot cheaper after the GST for new car buyers, `I would say that buyers do need to take account of the changeover price'? Was this just a subtle way of admitting that, while new cars will be cheaper, buyers trading in their existing car can expect to get substantially less on their trade-in, potentially wiping out the gains made from the cheaper new car? What does the minister believe will be the effect of the introduction of the GST on the trade-in value of second-hand cars?9443Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The real point is that Labor wants more expensive cars, we want cheaper cars. Both second-hand cars and new cars will be cheaper under this government. Australian workers and consumers will be much better off under this government when the tax changes come into effect on 1 July 2000.9443Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the Motor Trade Association of Western Australia has produced figures which show that, after the introduction of the GST, a new Corolla will be $2,208 cheaper but the trade-in value of a second-hand Corolla will be lowered by $2,000? Doesn't this mean that a person wanting to upgrade their Corolla after the GST will save only $208 on a car valued at $24,538? Why has it taken this minister so long to finally admit that many new car buyers will basically gain nothing out of the introduction of the GST?9443Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Those figures mean that the people that the Labor Party purports to represent, the low income earners of Australia, will have access to cheaper second-hand cars and cheaper new cars. We thought that was something that you might support, but clearly you do not.94439443Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Jocelyn Newman. The Howard government has a strong commitment to maintaining a fair and sustainable social safety net for those in the community in genuine need. Can the minister please inform the Senate of any further developments regarding the first ever green paper on welfare dependency?9443Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am pleased to announce today the terms of reference for the development of that first ever green paper on welfare dependency for Australia. The terms of reference include: the development of options for change to income support arrangements, aimed at preventing and reducing welfare dependency for those of work force age; and options relating to the provision of associated services, including employment, education and training, that will assist in preventing and reducing welfare dependency. In providing this advice, the reference group will give particular consideration to the broader application of mutual obligation, demographic changes, sustainability of the current system, the particular incentive effects associated with the design of social security payments for people of work force age and international best practice.The reference group will draw on community input and provide me with a preliminary draft paper early in the year 2000, with the final paper to be provided to me by 30 June 2000. On the issue of the discussion paper, I regret that I am not in a position to give any discussion paper to the Senate today. It is still being developed as the government's submission to the reference group, and it will be completed shortly. As soon as it is complete, I shall give it to the reference group, and I am happy to give it to the Senate at the same time. I am not opposed to an open and transparent policy making process—quite the contrary, as I made clear in my speech to the National Press Club and I also made clear to the Senate a couple of weeks ago. In fact, it is difficult to think of a more transparent process than a green paper developed out of public submissions, published with an invitation for further public debate. I now table the terms of reference for the green paper reference group.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice9444944415:02:009444Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Senator Lundy asked me a question in question time about drugs in sport, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism. I seek leave to incorporate my answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—. The Government and the Minister the Hon Jackie Kelly have on the Communities concerns regarding drugs in sport.. For example, in May of this year, she launched the Tough on Drugs in Sport strategy which clearly spells out a comprehensive set of measures to combat doping in sport.. Reducing the illicit supply of drugs banned in sport is a key element of the strategy and the Government is already acting in this area. For example, on 13 September 1999, Senator Vanstone announced tough new restrictions on the import of EPO. Importation of EPO is now prohibited, except via permit.. In addition, the Ministerial Council on Drugs Strategy and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General are currently looking at penalties across all jurisdictions, on the illicit manufacturing and trafficking of anabolic steroids.. Also, the Australian Customs Service has deployed a range of strategies to combat the importation of prohibited drugs in Australia ahead of the Sydney 2000 Games. . The reason that almost 30 countries are enthusiastic about attending the International Drugs in Sport summit is that Australia is regarded as a world leader in the fight against drugs in sport. It is interesting to note that representatives from the Olympic Committees in a number of countries will be attending the summit as part of their country's delegation.. The OAC has advised they have an issue about the appropriateness of attending as part of a Government delegation.. They want to preserve their independence.. The Federal Government has issued an invitation for the AOC to attend as part of a national team.. I commend the initiative of Jackie Kelly in organising this international summit.944415:03:009444Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—On 30 September, Senator Stott Despoja asked me a question about irradiated food. I undertook to obtain further information from the minister, and I have obtained that. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—SENATOR STOTT DESPOJA —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I am wondering if the Minister is aware that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority's own fact sheet states:. . . it is not always possible to detect an irradiated ingredient when it is a component of a large food product or if—for example—an irradiated spice is blended with a large volume of non irradiated spice.Given this, how does ANZFA intend to implement its recommendations endorsed at the August health ministers meeting to label all irradiated foods when detection is so difficult? And can the government really guarantee that all irradiated foods will be labelled, if irradiated ingredients are present and undetectable in the food supply?SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following additional information in answer to the honourable senator's question.Labelling of irradiated foods or irradiated ingredients will need to comply with the current regulations in the Food Standards Code , not to do so will put a food manufacturer in breach of the States and Territory food laws and the Fair Trading Acts. It is illegal to sell irradiated food in Australia. The new standard requires a case-by-case approval of any product to which ionising radiation may be applied.All irradiated foods, no matter how minor the ingredients, will be labelled, and approval will be subject to a demonstrated technological need. Applicants must also show that irradiation would not be used as a substitute for good manufacturing and food hygiene processes.Manufacturers will know that their ingredients have been treated by irradiation because of the approval process.If a manufacturer knows the product to be free of irradiated material there will be no requirement to so label the product but it may be so labelled.SENATOR STOTT DESPOJA —Madam President. I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his response in particular, his recognition that there is a distinction between cooking of the food through irradiation procedures and actually sterilising the food and therefore there is a health issue for consumers. I acknowledge the minister's comments in the relation to keeping consumers informed, but I must ask the minister: Given your concern about informing consumers about what they are eating, why is it that the health minister did not include, in their post-meeting communique, the decision to lift the 10-year moratorium on irradiated foods? Why was that not open to the public and the media? Is this just another issue like that of cadmium in peanuts, which was snuck through without proper debate while everyone else was focusing on the gene food decision?SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following additional information in answer to the honourable senator's question.The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC), which consists of the New Zealand and State and Territory Health Ministers and is chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Grant Tambling, met on 3 August 1999. At the conclusion of the meeting, ANZFSC issued a communique about the meeting particularly describing the issue of the labelling of genetically modified foods. The communique also noted that the Council had considered strict control on food irradiation, food safety standards and cadmium in peanuts.It was the view of Health Ministers at the meeting that the media and public would in the first instance only be interested in the topical agenda item dealing with the labelling of genetically modified food. The other issues are complex and a detailed information package on all these issues was subsequently prepared, issued to the media and placed on ANZFA's website on 6 August 1999.944515:03:009445Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin) to a question without notice asked by Senator Schacht today, relating to the operations of BHP in Whyalla.Today I asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources what the government was doing, in conjunction with BHP, to guarantee the future of the steel industry in Whyalla, South Australia's biggest regional town. Whyalla is a town in which over 2,000 people are employed by BHP, with many hundreds—if not thousands—more employed indirectly because of BHP's steel industry there. The minister answered that he has had some discussions; he is confident that BHP will find a buyer for the steelworks and that the industry will continue. BHP have indicated that if they do not find an appropriate buyer, they would not close the works. But when I asked whether the government has sought any guarantee from BHP that they would not allow the works to wind down, that they would make the necessary reinvestment in equipment to keep it as a modern plant, the minister made no response. The minister has given no indication that he is willing to go directly to Whyalla and talk to the local community, as well as BHP, and be involved in ensuring that that community is given first-hand contact with the government.When the announcement was made by BHP last week that it was selling the Whyalla steelworks, the main interest that the minister for industry had was a major speech he gave to the Australian constitutional monarchists defending the present system. And what an extraordinary speech he made! I wish he would make as vigorous a speech in ensuring that the 2,000 workers at BHP in Whyalla had a future, as he did in defending the present system of Australia, the constitutional monarchy. It is extraordinary, Mr Acting Deputy President, that in this said speech, delivered last week, Senator Minchin spent a large amount of the time directly attacking and abusing the campaign director of the Australian Republican Movement, Mr Barnes. Mr Barnes, Senator Minchin recognises, was a former coalition staffer—as I understand it, senior adviser to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Senator Minchin described a former colleague's senior staffer in his own government as a `republican bully'. To quote Senator Minchin:I didn't spend two years of my life helping Trish Draper win Makin from Labor just to have this republican bully give the seat back to Labor as the price of his perverse version of a republic.That is an extraordinary attack by this industry minister on a former senior staffer of his own government. It shows where this minister's real interest is. It is not in the industry portfolio; it is off defending the present Constitution of Australia, which has the Queen of Australia as our head of state. In this amazing speech that the minister makes, he is more interested in trying to redefine the Governor-General as the constitutional head of Australia. He is not the head of Australia. The minister tries to support the myth that the Governor-General is the head of state in Australia, not the Queen, to save him the embarrassment of having to defend the Queen.As a senator from South Australia and as the industry minister, Senator Minchin should be paramount in ensuring that South Australia's largest regional town has a long-term future in the steel industry. He has done nothing so far to indicate that he has other than a marginal passing interest in the future of Whyalla. One would have thought the industry minister would have been up-front, dealing publicly with BHP and seeking their assurances about the future of the works. Advice I have been given is that, in the next few years, the steelworks at Whyalla have to have significant reinvestment in new equipment to maintain it as a modern steel plant. For example, by 2005 the main blast furnace will have to be relined. That is estimated to cost around $90 million.Even if BHP do not sell the works, what commitment will we have from BHP that they will not allow the works to just dwindle away and disappear? Or if they do sell the works to another company—maybe a foreign company—what guarantee has the minister sought that the buyer will have a caveat on their purchase that they will not just dispense with the asset, dismantle it and sell it for scrap, or shift the works offshore? These are the issues people in Whyalla are absolutely keen to get answers about. They have reacted positively in the hope that they can keep their steelworks under a new owner. But this minister is doing nothing to assist them in that long-term optimism that they have a future. This minister is more interested in defending the constitutional monarchy of Australia by denying that the Queen is our head of state. In doing so, he is out there abusing his former staff members and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Costello. (Time expired)15:09:009446Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—That was a most curious speech from Senator Schacht. He started talking about the steel industry and then we found ourselves wandering off around the monarchy issue. Fortunately, he did come back to Whyalla at the end. I think this shows the cynicism of the speech that we have just heard from Senator Schacht, and I think it shows that he does not really care about the steel industry. He has just brought up this issue today to score a cheap political point.Let us go back to the real issue at the centre of this. The real issue relates to what BHP have done with the steel industry. This is a matter very close to my heart, being from the Hunter Valley, and I have been following BHP's actions on this very closely over the last few years. As a matter of fact, I was a member of a special task force set up by the former minister for industry, Mr Moore, and I have actually crawled through every steelworks in Australia, along with people like Allan Morris and other members of a wideranging cross-party committee. During those many days looking at the steel plants at Whyalla, at Newcastle and at other places around Australia, we spoke to a whole range of people in the steel industry. From that set of hearings, we appreciate first-hand the problems presented by such a complex issue in the current international trading environment.Let us have a look at that bottom line, because steel prices are at a historic low. We have had problems right across the last few years, with the slowdown in the Asian economy and with the dumping of steel from the USSR, which have created very unfavourable market conditions. Despite all that, we have had over recent years an excellent performance from BHP, but they do have an enormous problem with the state of the steel assets in certain parts of their business. If you go back to the key area of their business, and that is the Port Kembla plant, that plant has been rejuvenated over the last 15 years. It is now the third most efficient integrated steelworks in the world, and it has a great future with follow-on products, with coatings such as Colorbond and with the things you can do with flat products.The problem BHP have is in the Long Products Division. They have made a commercial decision. This is not a decision for government; this is an adjustment within BHP. They have decided to refocus their business into a narrower range of products, in particular in the natural resources area. Of course when BHP started, at the end of last century, they were a natural resource producer. They did diversify into steel and they are not getting out of steel. They are refocusing and staying in part of steel, and they propose to sell off their other assets.I would have thought the ALP would actually welcome such a move. Here is the party which over the last 70 or 80 years have been railing against monopoly production of steel in this country with BHP, and here we have a proposed divestment where other firms can come in and produce in steel and of course go through a process of competition, which I thought the ALP would welcome. It is a great pity that BHP did make this commercial decision, from our point of view. Perhaps they could have stayed in long products steel, but they have made a commercial decision, which any firm can make. That decision has been welcomed by people like Kevin Maher, who is the head of the ironworkers in Newcastle. He made the point that if BHP are not committed to rod and bar type production and do not want to stay in that part of the business, they have a right to move on. He would welcome another player who would be prepared to put more money into that area and create some competition in the steel business. So I would have thought that the ALP, who have been against monopoly capitalism for all these years, would actually welcome this move. BHP have the right to make this decision. It is not really the role of government to tell businesses the way in which they should develop their business, what sorts of things they should focus on, and whether they should divest or not divest. This government actually supports BHP in making that commercial decision. (Time expired)15:14:009447Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I am a bit concerned this afternoon. I certainly support what Senator Schacht said about Whyalla and, indeed, some of the other questions this afternoon to Senator Minchin, but I am somewhat concerned. I think Senator Minchin is not quite the same Senator Minchin that we had 12 months ago. I remember Senator Minchin in here, day in and day out, talking on the native title dispute and in the debates that went through this place on two separate occasions which I think spanned 100 hours. He sat there cool, calm and collected through the whole exercise. He just seems to be so agitated today. He is a bit like a cat on a hot tin roof. In fact, we asked him a series of what we thought were fairly reasonable and sensible questions. I asked him one about the trade-in value of cars. I would have thought that he could have answered that one in any one of a number of different ways. Before anyone wants to jump up, the steel for those cars came from Whyalla. At the end of the day, straight up and down, he was asked a simple question about it. What did he do? He got up and was just plain cranky. He took one minute, did not answer the question and sat down.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—He lost it.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—As Senator Mackay says, he just plain lost it. This is not the Senator Minchin whom we are accustomed to and, some would say, love—not all, but some would say love. On this side, he is quite popular. But over there, he is not so popular. In fact, a few of them were chasing him out of the chamber a minute ago. I saw Senator Hill wanting him to get out of there. He almost had to drag him out by the legs, you know. He just would not leave the chamber, because he knew that we were going to say nice things about him. At the end of the day, we really have to ask what has happened in the last 12 months to poor old Senator Minchin. Unfortunately, I think this monarchy stuff is really getting to him. I really have to say that. All the interjections that have been made on this side about what Camilla would give a tick to and what she would not give a tick to—its not true. Its Prince Charles who has been his mentor over all these years. I can tell the Senate here and now that Prince Charles—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Come on, Quirkie, get back to the steel industry.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—He has been to Whyalla, too.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek your guidance on a point of order. Is it within standing orders for a senator to attack the character of another when that senator has been plotting with another on his side, Senator Bolkus, to unseat Senator Schacht and therefore comes to the debate without clean hands? In those circumstances, isn't this unjustified attack out of order?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—There is no point of order, Senator Hill.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—It is a pity there was not a point of order. I could in fact have answered that point of order very well. Senator Hill should have been listening to this debate. I fully supported Senator Schacht in this debate today because he raised a very important point that matters to South Australians, with the exception of members of the Liberal Party—namely, Whyalla. We care about Whyalla. We care about those 2,000 workers out there and it is not good enough to say that, as the minister said here today, `They're going to get looked after; we've got some vague promises from the company.' Well that company gave a few promises to a few thousand other workers around the place—Senator Murphy interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—It may well be that Senator Tierney, who has more experience of crawling through steel plants—Senator Murphy interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Senator, he is not a bad fellow, really. He is trying to do his best, crawling through the boardrooms and all the rest of it, but at the end of the day he may know more about it than we do. But we are genuinely concerned about what is happening at Whyalla. What did we get from Senator Minchin? We got a very uncharacteristic approach from him. What we got was just cranky. He is losing it, and he is certainly not looking like the threat to Senator Hill that we thought he was a couple of months ago. Senator Hill worries, obviously, about senators knifing other senators.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I am worried about Senator Schacht.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Indeed! We are worried about you, Senator Hill. On the basis of today's performance, I can tell the Senate that Senator Minchin is going to have to go back and confront some of these issues and, somehow or other, take it a bit easier because, at this stage, he is not ready to take over Senator Hill's job here in the chamber. He is not there yet.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Give Schachty a fair go.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—We will, Senator; we always do. I have supported fully his motion to take note of Senator Minchin's answer. You should support him as well. Whyalla is important to all South Australians, including you. Can you go and have a quiet word with Senator Minchin and tell him to take it just a little easier.15:20:009448Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Well, I have heard just about everything. When I heard Senator Quirke get up and say in his opening statement, `I support Senator Schacht,' I really did a double take, because it is true that Senator Quirke has never supported Senator Schacht for anything. I must say that Senator Schacht really drew the short straw today when he was the first to have to get up and raise the issue of Whyalla and the steelworks because, in fact, Senator Schacht is not that concerned about Whyalla or the steelworks or jobs. Just right now there is only one job that is important in South Australia to Senator Schacht: his own job. His good friend and colleague Senator Bolkus, who sits alongside him, quite publicly in South Australia says that Senator Schacht has been in the Senate too long and that it is time he moved on. You are lucky that you came here a bit later, Senator Quirke, because your good friend Senator Bolkus and you have been able to come to some accommodation. But I do not know what that makes Senator Bolkus, because he has been here six years longer than Senator Schacht. So if Senator Schacht has been here too long, I do not know how much longer Senator Bolkus thinks he should stay here before he has been here too long.We saw Senator Schacht get up and raise the issue of Whyalla and the steelworks. I have to say that it was one of the worst preselection speeches I have ever heard. If he has to convince his preselectors in South Australia, or should I say if he has to convince Senator Bolkus and Senator Quirke because they actually conduct the preselections in South Australia—BH4HILLSenator Hill—You'll never convince them; its all a plot.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I know he will never convince them. It is all a ploy, but Senator Schacht tried valiantly to justify his own position in taking note of answers today under the very small pretence of being concerned about the steelworkers at Whyalla and what is happening in Whyalla in relation to BHP's sale of their steelworks in that city.Senator Bolkus and Senator Schacht both chose to leave—they are possibly out sorting something out without you, Senator Quirke, so I would be careful if I were you. The people of Whyalla have welcomed this move. Senator Schacht never mentioned that. The people of Whyalla welcomed BHP's decision to put their steelworks on the market, because they think they would have a better future if the steelworks were bought by somebody else and there is a change of strategic direction. Senator Schacht is not speaking on behalf of the people of Whyalla or the workers of Whyalla, because those people themselves want the sale to go ahead.Senator Schacht, on the pretence of raising an issue of jobs and Whyalla and steelworkers, wanted to talk about other matters, such as the proposed referendum on 6 November. Incidentally, unlike the Labor Party, people on our side have a free choice as to which way they will vote and who they will support. Senator Hill and I happen to be on opposite sides of the fence, but it does not make any difference to our contributions to the real substance of what is happening in this chamber—and neither does it to Senator Minchin. Unlike the Labor Party, Senator Minchin has the capacity for work that some of them could only dream about, and he is able to do all of the work that is required of his portfolio.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Why can't the Labor Party cope with a touch of democracy?EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—No democracy. I did make a note about that, Senator Hill. I said that I do not know why, when we have a free vote. The Labor Party, with their historic in-built prejudices are a party that hates democracy. It is the worst thing because they could not arrange little jobs on people like Senator Schacht if they had a true democracy. Senator Quirke would realise that. The former deputy leader of the state parliament in South Australia, Mr Ralph Clarke—one of Senator Quirke's former close friends—knows all about democracy. The Labor Party performed so well in South Australia that one of their own not only took them to court but also got the court to agree with him that he was right. The Labor Party sitting opposite us have no idea of what democracy means and will not give their own a free vote, like we happen to do in the Liberal Party. We have a free vote on this particular issue, and always have had.BH4HILLSenator Hill—It's a tragedy what has happened to the once great Labor Party.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Senator Hill, I am a couple of years older than you, and even I cannot remember `a once great Labor Party'. I would love to be able to, because I know there was a time when they actually had some principles and stood by them. But, unfortunately—even at the tender age of 56, which I reached the other day—I never knew that once great Labor Party which fought only for the worker and for workers' conditions, instead of getting themselves involved in every other matter that they could conceivably become involved in. (Time expired)15:25:009450Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I want the Senate to take note of the answer Senator Minchin gave to my question today in respect of the effect of the downturn in car sales on the car manufacturing industry in Australia and on the general car industry.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. As I understood it, Senator Schacht said he wanted the Senate to take note of Senator Minchin's answers on Whyalla and the steelworks. I think you should put that question before Senator Murphy starts talking about the car industry, which is a totally different question and a totally different issue.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—I am sure Senator Murphy is coming to the point.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—It is the same matter, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will talk about the steel industry and the car industry all in one. We will put the steel in the car and we will try to put a bit of steel in your minister to make sure he can stand up for the car industry. Yesterday, Senator Minchin came in here and would have us believe that there was some record amount of cars sold. He said:The facts relating to car sales—which are made of steel, some of it coming from Whyalla—are that 807,000 cars were sold last year . . . For the average punter, a car is a passenger vehicle that you get in and drive. That is what people would generally accept. Senator Minchin was very liberal—in fact, bordering on misleading the Senate—in his statement yesterday about 807,000 cars. It is simply not true. He went on to say:. . . for three-quarters of this year, sales are down 2.9 per cent . . . That is true in respect of total vehicle sales only.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—So we don't want to hear the truth?EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—My point of order is that it was clarified at the start that Senator Schacht asked the Senate to take note of Senator Minchin's answer to a question in relation to Whyalla and the steel industry. Senator Murphy probably has the wrong set of notes, because I think he was going to refer it back to steel and the steel industry, but he has not done so in his time thus far. He then said that perhaps some Whyalla steel was used in motor cars, but in fact it is not. Somehow or other he should be drawn back to the subject—which is steel, jobs and Whyalla—and he should make his answer relevant.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I distinctly recall the contribution that Senator Ferguson made just a few minutes ago. I hardly recall him referring to the steel industry at Whyalla when he was talking about the Labor Party and preselection processes, so I would suggest that there is no point of order on Senator Ferguson's behalf. In fact, I am talking about the car industry, which also is related to the steel industry at Whyalla.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Senator Murphy's contribution to date has been well within the practice of relevance so far in this debate.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—The truth is obviously hurting Senator Ferguson, and it is obviously hurting his colleague Senator Minchin, who has almost misled the Senate either inadvertently or deliberately. He said that 807,000 cars were sold last year and claims it as a record. It is simply not true. If we look at VFACTS—which I assume Senator Minchin would get as the relevant industry minister—for the year, only 407,544 passenger vehicles were sold, which is down by 6.2 per cent.That is the relevant question here. That is the point that you as a government have to address with regard to the car industry of this country. It is not as though you have not known about this.Another misleading statement that Senator Minchin made in response to a question from my colleague Senator Quirke was in regard to the price of cars. Somehow the government, when it was proposing to introduce a GST, wanted people to believe that there was a major benefit in car prices. We know there are statements—and I think Senator Quirke quoted one of them—but one which I find interesting refers to a Commodore Executive. Of course, there may be some benefit for those people who can buy top end of the market cars, but if you look at the actual value that you get from trading in a VS2 Commodore and buying a new one, or from buying a new one and trading in, the net benefit to the consumer is only about $146.Over and above that, the relevant point here is this: what plan does this government have for the car industry? The fact is that there is a buyers' strike on, both in fleet terms and in passenger market terms. People are not buying cars. And why should they? Even if it is only $146 they can save, they may as well save it. So they are postponing buying vehicles.The Premier of South Australia, Senator Nick Minchin's colleague John Olsen, says that he has secured a deal that will see a review conducted of the introduction of the GST on the motor vehicle industry. In his answer today I think Senator Minchin clarified that there is a review, but when will the results of the review be known? What is the process? Why hasn't the government taken heed of the warnings it has been given by the fleet industry, by passenger market sales and by the retail end of the market that there is a problem? What is the plan? There is not much time to go. You will be seeing significant drop-offs in car sales. On one occasion already, the drop in car sales led to the standing down of some 3,500 workers. If that is going to continue, what is the real benefit?Why haven't the government planned around this to introduce a staged reduction in the wholesale sales tax? Why haven't they done that? There is no plan, which means there could be a major impact on the car industry and the people working in it. I say to the minister again, and to the government: you have no plan at the moment but you ought to hurry up and get one because it is a serious problem and will have a major impact. The statements that you are making in here are not true; there is no review and you have no plan. (Time expired)15:32:009451McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—The trouble with going third in this debate, this attack on Senator Minchin, is that by the time my two colleagues have carved up the other side the whole debate has basically flopped over. This attack on Senator Minchin has amounted to absolutely nothing, except a waste of time—which is what I believe you accused him of doing, of being distracted from his portfolio. Talk about a waste of time. The man who led this debate, Senator Schacht—as we were told by Senator Hill, and that is about when the debate fell apart—has his preselection under attack from Senator Quirke, who purported to support him in this debate. It is the Labor Party who are totally distracted from the main game, not Senator Minchin.On the contrary, Senator Minchin is the most consummate performer on the front bench here—or at least in cabinet. Before the industry and science portfolio, he was given many briefs—such as native title and the Constitutional Convention—to get across. Not only did he get across these complex, difficult issues—native title, in particular—but he got the bill through. And there was the Constitutional Convention. So skilful is Senator Minchin at his job that he is the only man who ever got Senator Brown to vote with this government on anything. That was the only time Senator Brown used his vote to support the government, to actually swing a bit of power instead of wasting it while he babbles in the corner there, wasting a whole career.BH4HILLSenator Hill—But that was because he thought he was going to gazump Senator Harradine, but he was too late.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—No doubt Senator Brown's motives were not good; there is always some deviousness behind them. But the charm of Senator Minchin got him across nevertheless and the convention went ahead. Thank you, Senator Brown, though your motives be dark and devious—as they were. Because of that, we now have the referendum on 6 November—thanks to Senator Minchin. So we can see that behind most of the government's policies—in relation to native title, in relation to the Constitutional Convention—he is a top performer in cabinet; we know that. We know he is a political hardhead; we do not run away from that. He is one of the most hardheaded politicians on this front bench.I thought across there you would actually admire that. I thought maybe Senator Quirke might get some tips from him regarding Senator Schacht. But then again Senator Schacht is an easy target. You do not have to do too much to move Senator Schacht on. I remember that when he was the minister for science he got moved on. He could not oversee that portfolio.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! Senator McGauran, this has not got much to do with the steel industry or the car industry. This issue has been drawn to my attention before. So could you please, within the context of this debate, make it relevant.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I will try. I can say, in regard to Whyalla, when I was watching the news services I saw the mayor and many other public representatives from that township actually say, `Well, it is a good thing that BHP are on-selling their steelworks.' That is completely different to shutting it down.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Who is going to buy it?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—That would hit a township, but they support the on-selling because it gives those steelworks a future.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Who is going to buy it?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—A future, because the key point for those townships, as you would know, Senator Murphy—to state the obvious—is employment. Because it is going to sell the steelworks as an ongoing concern, that township welcomes BHP, which is fundamentally going through a complete restructure at the moment. It is a weak company at the moment. It is better it on-sells those steelworks so that the employment in the town can stay in the town. The steelworks can survive as an ongoing concern. So that is what I have to say about Whyalla.And what you brought up, Senator Murphy, about the car industry is absolute rubbish. You were misquoting the figures. Senator Minchin was making the point that, if the sales of cars continue this year, we will have a record year of car sales. At the very least, it will be the third best year. Last year was a record and the year before was a record. When we look at this year's sales graph—and we admit this year has not finished—what we can say is that, in June 2000, the car industry will receive its greatest advantage through the reduction in sales tax by some 22 per cent, and that will continue on ad infinitum. Not many industries can claim that their industry will get a 22 per cent tax reduction which will lead to cheaper cars.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has elapsed.Question resolved in the affirmative.945210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:94523141M6Allison Sen LynTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or current operating site.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator Allison1M6Senator Allison(from 314 citizens)94524671M6Allison Sen LynTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled:The Petition of the Undersigned shows that we believe that the current Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme provides benefits to retired members which are overly generous and unfair. Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:Act swiftly to bring the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme in line with community standards by:(1) Reducing the taxpayer subsidy which currently stands at an average of $6 contributed by taxpayers for every $1 contributed by Senators and members;(2) Instructing the Remuneration Tribunal to substantially reduce benefits;(3) Removing the early payment of benefits, so that they are payable at the age of 55 in line with the rest of the community;(4) Supporting the Australian Democrats' Private Members' Bill to overhaul the politicians' superannuation scheme to achieve these aims.Senator Allison1M6Senator Allison(from 467 citizens)945312DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows strong disappointment in the Australian Government's inadequate protection of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area from the destructive practices of prawn trawling. Prawn trawling destroys up to 10 tonnes of other reef life for every one tonne of prawns while clearfelling the sea floor. There are 11 million square kilometres of Australia's ocean territory of which the reef represents just 350,000 square kilometres.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support the phasing out of all prawn trawling in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by the year 2005.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 12 citizens)94534TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement;2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations;3. Not sign the MAI unless substantive amendment is made, including the observance of interna tional agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards;4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be held.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from four citizens)9453208O15Tierney Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition undersigned shows:(1) There is a likelihood that amendments to the federal anti-discrimination legislation are to be introduced to the federal senate in 1999.(2) These amendments will take the exclusion clause away for all religious organisations from not employing or not accepting practicing homosexuals within their organisations due to their religious beliefs.(3) That these amendments could be of great concern to different groups within the community.The petitioners ask and seek the federal government that it:(1) Reject any amendments to take away the right of religious organisations to reject the employment of homosexuals when it infringes upon the organisations religious beliefs.(2) Reject amendments, which are contrary to S116 of the constitution, which states that the government can not make any law that interferes with the practice of religion.(3) Recognise that in part 1 section B:25 page 24 of the 1999 draft resolution on the Commission on Human Rights Report on the Fifty-fifth Session (22 March-30 April 1999) from the United Nations, a right of belief of faith is a fundamental right for all religious bodies. Australia needs to keep hold to this article which we the Country of Australia has already signed.Senator TierneyO15Senator Tierney(from 208 citizens)945361X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable President of the Senate and members of the Senate assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transition to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to: Withdraw Australia's original de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor; Suspend Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia; Support calls for international institutions to suspend all financial assistance to Indonesia; Advise the Indonesian Government to direct forthwith the Indonesian Army to disarm the pro-Jakarta militia in East Timor; and Advise the Indonesian Government to authorise forthwith the UN to dispatch a peacekeeping force to East TimorAnd your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator West1X4Senator West(from six citizens)Petitions received.Notices9454945415:38:009454Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during this sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 SPRING SITTINGSFISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999The proposed amendments implement key reforms to Commonwealth fisheries management legislation necessary to combat the increasing problem of illegal and unregulated foreign fishing. They include provision of a more effective forfeiture scheme against foreign fishers and a doubling of penalties. The amendments will also enable Australia to ratify an important international fisheries management agreement—the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (the UN Fish Stocks Agreement)—which will assist in combating illegal fishing. Implementing the Agreement is also vital to ensure the sustainability of valuable fish stocks, such as Southern Bluefin Tuna, Orange Roughy and Patagonian Toothfish, on which our domestic industry relies, both within and outside the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ).Reasons for UrgencyIllegal foreign fishing impacts on the sustainability of resources and adversely affects the Australian domestic fishing industry The fish stocks affected are high value species on which our domestic industry relies. Illegal fishing undermines the strict environmental controls imposed on Australian vessels fishing on the high seas, and the sustainable management measures taken within the AFZ.Australia signed the UN Fish Stocks Agreement in December 1995 and there is increasing pressure from industry and conservation organisations to ratify and implement it. Twenty-three countries have already ratified the Agreement to date and it will come into force once the number reaches 30. It is understood that New Zealand will be in a position to ratify in November 1999, and a number of other countries are well advanced in the process towards ratification. Australia is recognised as a world leader in fisheries management and played an active role in negotiating the Agreement. Being an original party to the Agreement (in the first 30 countries) will ensure that our reputation as a leader in sustainable fisheries management is maintained.The Government committed to ratifying the UN Fish Stocks Agreement in Australia's Oceans Policy, launched in December 1998. At the recent meeting of the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Ministers endorsed proceeding towards ratification of the Agreement. The amendments are consistent with current Australian fisheries management and environment policy. Industry and the Commonwealth will benefit from expeditious implementation.Based on consultation to date, there is general agreement amongst Government, industry and conservation groups that the benefits to be gained from implementing the Agreement far outweigh the costs. Extensive consultation with these groups will continue to occur on the practical implementation of the Agreement. This will enable increased understanding of the implications and costs and assist in minimising administrative complexity.Without ratification Australia would not be in a position to authorise fishing on the high seas which would have adverse financial and operational impacts on industry. There would be negative implications for successful enforcement of Australian action against illegal foreign fishers.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to ensure that leave for participation in service and training as a member of the Australian Defence Force Reserves is one of the matters which may be taken to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation and arbitration.Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 (No. 2) .Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) reports that the United States (US) Senate in the week beginning 10 September 1999 will consider ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty relating to nuclear weapons, (ii) the need for the treaty for non-proliferation and disarmament objectives, and (iii) the significant support the treaty enjoys in the Australian and international communities; and(b) urges the Government to make urgent representations to the President of the US Senate, Senator Al Gore, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Senator Strom Thurmond, to inform all US senators of the Australian Senate's hope that the US will ratify the treaty in the interests of international peace and security.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table, within 5 days of signature on behalf of the Commonwealth, notification of each Commonwealth-State agreement together with a statement of the nature of the agreement, details of its publication and any legislative action, Commonwealth or State, required to implement it.15:39:009455Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Before giving a notice of motion, I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to the notice.Leave granted.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I thank the Senate. My statement relates to the return to order from Minister Newman. The minister was required to table a discussion paper at 3 p.m. today. Whilst she tabled the terms of reference of her reference group, she indicated that she was not willing to table the discussion paper. She indicated that it would be tabled in the Senate when she provides it to the reference group and that she was still preparing the discussion paper for the reference group.I would like to indicate prior to giving notice of this motion that, given I moved for the return to order, it was very clear that a discussion paper was prepared prior to the minister's National Press Club speech, and that was what the return to order related to. We are usually provided with a number of reasons by ministers when they choose not to comply with returns to order—which does not happen that often—which relate to commercial-in-confidence, legal advice and matters such as those. None of those reasons were put forward by the minister. The only possible reason could be one of political management, which is maybe what the government is concerned about. But, from the point of view of the parliament, we are here to scrutinise the actions of the executive and we have made an order of the Senate requiring this paper to be tabled. We cannot accept a duck-and-weave approach to debate on an important issue such as this. That is the reason I am proceeding with giving notice of this motion. Therefore, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:(1) That the Senate: (a) censures the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman) for her contempt of the Senate in failing to comply with an order made on 30 September 1999, that a document, namely the welfare reform discussion paper originally prepared for her Press Club speech on 29 September 1999, and now being provided to the Minister's newly-established reference group on welfare reform, be tabled by 3 pm on 12 October 1999; and (b) resolves that: (i) the Minister purge the contempt in which she has held the Senate by tabling the document on or before 3 pm on 18 October 1999, (ii) if the document is not tabled by this time, the question on any motion moved by the Minister for: (a) the introduction of any bill, (b) the consideration of any stage of any bill, or (c) in committee of the whole, any amendment or any request for amendment to any bill, not be put until the Minister has undertaken to lay the document on the table, and (iii) the Minister not be heard on any other matter relating to her activities as a minister.(2) That this resolution remain in force until either the document is tabled or until the last sitting day of 1999, whichever is earlier.(3) That, as the first item of business on the Monday of each sitting week, the Minister be required to make a statement to the Senate outlining whether she is intending to comply with the order and, if not, outlining her reasons, and a motion may be moved without notice to take note of the Minister's statement.Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Tierney, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that on 30 September 1999, BHP shut down its steel smelting operations in Newcastle and case-managed the affected workers through its Jobs Pathways Program, and (ii) that, as the global `knowledge' economy moves from the smokestack age to the information technology age, the Hunter region is one of the regions in Australia to spearhead that change and is set for a brighter future;(b) commends the Howard Government for its pro-active role in acting as a `change leader' through the Prime Minister's Hunter Structural Assistance Package, which has generated some 804 direct jobs, with some further 4 000 indirect jobs to follow; and(c) expresses its appreciation to the Australia Council for the Arts, for sponsoring, and the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation (Mr McGauran) for opening, the `Ribbons of Steel' exhibition, which celebrated, through art, the 84 years of steel making at Newcastle. 945615:43:009456Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I now withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 standing in my name for the next day of sitting, and business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 5 and 6 standing in my name for nine sitting days after today.9456Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 329 standing in the names of Senators Crowley, Bourne and Payne for today, relating to world population, postponed till 19 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 334 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to world population, postponed till 19 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 337 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the University of Melbourne, postponed till 13 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 338 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the University of Melbourne, postponed till 13 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 13 October 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Greig for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Procedure Committee, postponed till 13 October 1999.Miscellaneous945615:44:009456Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 318 standing in my name for today, relating to a call to the Australian government to withdraw de jure recognition of Indonesian control and rule in East Timor, be taken as a formal motion.15:44:009456O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—Consistent with the view of the opposition in relation to general business motions which are contentious, the opposition does not agree to formality. In this case, we support the motion to be moved by Senator Brown. We understand the government opposes the motion. We would not want the matter to go through without debate but indicate that, if it is so moved, we will be supporting a motion to suspend to allow the motion to be dealt with immediately.945715:45:009457Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank Senator O'Brien for that explanation. Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion no. 318.This matter is both urgent and important. There arose in 1978, after the invasion of East Timor by the Indonesian military in 1975, the situation where Australia became the one country that gave effective recognition of Indonesian's control of East Timor.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Can I make an attempt at a constructive and helpful point of order to indicate that, as the numbers are there for the suspension, perhaps we could save a bit of time by having these motions carried and move to the substantive debate.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I would be prepared to do that.Question resolved in the affirmative.9457Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 318 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.945715:48:009457Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That the Senate—(a) notes the overwhelming vote for independence of the East Timorese people and Indonesian President Habibie's endorsement of this outcome; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to withdraw its de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. As I was saying a moment ago, in 1975 the Indonesian military invaded and took control of East Timor against the wishes of the people. In 1976, President Suharto signed a bill declaring that East Timor was Indonesia's 27th province. But the United Nations did not recognise that and said that Portugal remained the administering power. Notwithstanding that, on 20 January 1978, Australia—the Fraser government—granted de facto recognition to Indonesia's control of East Timor. At the time, Mr Andrew Peacock was the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In February 1979, Australia extended de jure recognition to Indonesia's rule in East Timor and became the one country in the world to do so.As we know, there has been a terrible process for the East Timorese people ever since, which has left many Australians aghast at those events and also at the very forward role Australia took in recognising the Indonesian authority over East Timor which gave at least a veneer of legitimacy to the domination of East Timor by massive military repression.Things have now greatly changed. In the wake of the overwhelming vote by the East Timorese people, the world sees East Timor as moving rapidly towards full independence as a small nation which will join the community of nations in full independence. Before the referendum, the Indonesian authorities indicated that they would be very accommodating to moving towards recognising independence if that was the wish of the people. In the wake of the referendum, President Habibie has endorsed the outcome.The process is now for a meeting of the Indonesian parliament to give its full endorsement as far as Indonesia is concerned, but the world recognises East Timor's right to independence. However, there remains Australian recognition of control and rule over East Timor by Indonesia. This is despite the fact that Indonesia has withdrawn every single member of its armed forces, in an official capacity at least, from East Timor, burning and pillaging as it went. Nevertheless, there is no remaining rule or control by Indonesia over East Timor—none whatever. It then becomes an absurdity for Australia to maintain its recognition of that control and rule.I do not know why the Howard government has not in the wake of the referendum reversed the decisions of 1978 and 1979, but at some stage or other those decisions ought to be reversed. I move a lot amongst people who have been in the protests, who have supported the independence of East Timor and who have wanted Australia to send peacekeepers. There has been a very strong call amongst those people for months now for Australia to reverse its recognition of Indonesian control over East Timor now that the people of East Timor have spoken overwhelmingly for their independence. We are in an absurd situation. It is ridiculous that the Australian government effectively recognises East Timor as being under the control of Indonesia when patently that is not so and everybody can see that is not so.I am one of the many Australians who believe we never should have given any form of recognition to the Indonesian military's control of this poor benighted neighbour of ours of East Timor. But now the time has come for that to be reversed by those people who thought it was a good thing, and that includes the current government of Australia, which came to office endorsing that proclamation of recognition of Indonesian control. Events have moved rapidly, they have moved far, there has been a turnaround, and the world recognises no longer that Indonesia has control over East Timor. The world recognises that East Timor, if it is de facto anything, is in de facto control of its own destiny. What we will see in the wake of the peacekeeping mission to East Timor is the development of administration, security and democratic government.We are at this moment hosting Xanana Gusmao on our soil. Australians have warmed to this leader of the East Timorese and have warmed to his giving, his magnanimity and his humanity. Yet, at an official level, we have this absurd notion by Australia that the East Timorese are not in control of their affairs, and that Indonesia, which has totally withdrawn from the country, is still in control. It is sensible diplomacy that we reverse that. This is a call, if it succeeds here today, to the government to recognise the need to remove yet another barrier to not only our accommodation of and assistance to East Timor but a very necessary rapprochement with Indonesia itself. This is an historic remnant, an impediment, an anachronism. This recognition ought to be removed. I commend this motion to the Senate.15:56:009458Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—The Democrats naturally support this motion. This is something that we have been calling for since 1981. The earliest reference I could find on the parliamentary database was in 1981 when Senator Colin Mason was asking questions of the then Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. Ever since then we have been calling for it. We have had no luck.I am sure senators are aware that de jure actually means `by right'. I do not think anybody in this chamber, or probably in Australia, would agree that Indonesia has any right to East Timor. They certainly invaded, took it over and were there for a long time—24 years—but I do not think anybody thinks that they have a right to remain there. Senators will also know, if they have read the 5 May agreement between Portugal, Indonesia and the United Nations, that it says that if the vote is in favour of independence, or not in favour of autonomy as it was put in the agreement—I hope I am getting this right because I do not have it in front of me—the effect is that the Indonesia government would do everything they needed to do in order to allow the people of East Timor their independence. That vote did go in favour of independence and against autonomy. So even the 5 May agreement of this year between Jaime Gama on behalf of Portugal, Ali Alatas on behalf of Indonesia and Kofi Annan on behalf of the United Nations acknowledged that the vote was the final substantive issue in this whole saga and that that vote would determine the actions of the Indonesian parliament.I am sure they will stand by that; I am sure that that is the case. I am sure that the Indonesian parliament will when it meets, which should be in a couple of weeks, determine that they no longer believe East Timor to be the 27th province of Indonesia. I must say I never believed it to be the 27th province, and it has now become very clear that at least 80 per cent of the East Timorese people never believed it to be the 27th province either. I see no problem at all in anyone voting for this motion. I cannot even see a problem in the government voting for it. I certainly have no problem, and I do not believe the opposition has a problem, with this motion. I think that it is a nice finishing off of Australia's attitude to East Timor. After the last 24 years, this would be a very nice finishing off, that is, removing the fact that the Australian government believes Indonesia ever had or, in particular, has now a right to the territory that is encased in East Timor.15:59:009459Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government will be opposing this motion. We are opposing it because, in essence, we regard the proposal for this action at the moment to be somewhat gratuitous, particularly in the wake of the 5 May tripartite agreement. Regardless of the debate about recognition of sovereignty over East Timor in the past, the achievement of the United Nations—with a significant contribution by the government of Australia under the leadership of our Prime Minister, John Howard—is, and the reality is, that there is a process in place that most commentators, and particularly the Australian government, expect will lead to independence for East Timor.As anticipated under the tripartite agreement of 5 May, the MPR—the People's Consultative Assembly—are to consider a motion which would effectively lead to a decree of separation. We expect that that will occur by no later than the end of this month. Once that takes place, there will be an end to the de jure recognition and Indonesian sovereignty. There would be a passing over to Portugal, which would be designated as the de jure administering power, but in practice the agreement provides that a UN transitional authority will be responsible, de facto, for the administration of the territory. As we have all seen in recent days, the UN are moving quickly to put that in place.After many years of effort by many people around the world and most particularly in Australia, this process is leading to independence for the East Timorese. That is the reality. It is something we should welcome. It is something we should applaud. It is something we should continue to work for on a daily basis, as people in this parliament and people in this government are doing. To seek to change the de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty at this stage is therefore regarded by the government as entirely gratuitous. It would not move us positively through the process that is envisaged by the tripartite agreement.That is not to say that if something goes wrong with the considerations within the MPR—and we certainly hope it does not, nor do we expect it to—other options do not exist. But we certainly fully expect that the process that has been set in train will see independence in East Timor, with the vote firstly of the People's Consultative Assembly, then the move to a decree of separation, the move through the UN transitional authority stage and the move to democracy and independence for the East Timorese people. This motion will not aid that process and will not aid the independence of the East Timorese people.16:03:009459Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Australian Labor Party support the motion of Senator Brown. It is probably worth recalling what the motion says. It is a simple one; it contains two parts, which read:(a) notes the overwhelming vote for independence of the East Timorese people and Indonesian President Habibie's endorsement of this outcome; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to withdraw its de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor.That is a motion we support. While recognising that part (b) of that motion is the contentious element, I will spend a few minutes recapping for the historical record the signifi cance of what part (a) says before I turn to the argument in support of part (b).On 30 August this year, under the auspices of the United Nations, a ballot was conducted in East Timor with the question before the population being: do you want to be an autonomous province of Indonesia or do you vote for independence? There was a massive enrolment leading up to that ballot. Of a population of something like 850,000 people—men, women and children—some 450,000 people were enrolled. It was regarded by the UN observers as a most impressive readiness and willingness to enrol and as demonstrating a desire to commit to the process set down by the United Nations.On the day of the ballot, 30 August, 99 per cent of those enrolled and able to vote turned out to vote. The reports that day were of long queues early in the morning waiting for polling stations to open. The reports were of people—many of them captured in dramatic footage on television—who had come out of hiding, down from the mountains and out of the jungle to express openly a choice on their own future, at some personal risk to themselves, as they believed, and upon voting they melted back to whence they had come. With that 99 per cent turnout and that early vote, when the vote tally was made 78 per cent of those voting voted for independence. A 78 per cent margin is a massive margin on an issue—the community of East Timor's view about their future and whether they should remain an autonomous province or not—that was thought by some, obviously and clearly wrongly, to have been a contentious issue.The act of that vote and that overwhelming endorsement leads one to a logical consideration of de jure recognition. The government has said that it would be `gratuitous' for Australia—in recognition of the process in place to move to independence—to now remove de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. There is a process in place. The government is right about that, and I want to remark on that in a moment. But we ourselves are a sovereign nation and we ourselves are masters of our own destiny and responsible and accountable for what we do. Nothing that we do here will disrupt the process and nothing that we do here will interfere with the movement to independence. But what we do here will say a lot about how we feel about that vote—that cry for independence—and where Australia stands in supporting it.The Labor Party support this motion because it will enable us to now remove recognition from Indonesia as an act of our own and provide recognition to the independence vote that has been given. It is important that Australia say something about where we stand on this matter because of the devastation, murder and destruction wreaked in East Timor since that vote for independence; the need to put in a peacekeeping force under the United Nations' command—provided mostly from Australia but, importantly, also from many other sources; the levelling of the community; the discovery now of mass graves; the clear involvement of the militia; the consistent reports of links between the Indonesian army and that militia; and the reports that are now emanating out of West Timor of military renegades training insurgent guerrillas in the form of that militia to harass and fight in East Timor. This motion of Senator Brown's enables us to say something, and that is why we will support it.The key argument of the government is that the process would be disrupted and we would be gratuitous if we did that. I now want to turn to article 6 of the tripartite agreement of 5 May, the agreement which set down Indonesia's obligations in the event of a vote for independence, to put on the record in this chamber what the binding responsibility is on Indonesia under the UN brokered tripartite agreement. Article 6 reads:. . . the Government of Indonesia shall take the constitutional steps necessary to terminate its links with East Timor thus restoring under Indonesian law the status East Timor held prior to 17 July 1976, and the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal and the Secretary-General shall agree on arrangements for a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority in East Timor to the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall, subject to the appropriate legislative mandate, initiate the procedure enabling East Timor to begin a process of transition towards independence. That is the tripartite agreement that gave force to the ballot for independence in East Timor, signed by the United Nations, Indonesia and Portugal. The last sentence of it bears repetition:The Secretary-General shall, subject to the appropriate legislative mandate, initiate the procedure enabling East Timor to begin a process of transition towards independence.The `appropriate legislative mandate' is, of course, a meeting of the Indonesian parliament—which may occur in the next eight or 10 days—at which it is expected there will be a vote to recognise the outcome of the ballot conducted in East Timor.Given that the government's position is that it would be gratuitous to endorse this motion and that there is a process that this motion may interfere with, it is important to record in this debate that on 7 October the various factions in the Indonesian parliament, the MPR—its proper name in English is the Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly, known in Bahasa Malay as the MPR—agreed to implement the outcome of East Timor's independence ballot. Because they have done that, it is important to note that, on the day of the meeting of the MPR, it appears absolutely certain that Indonesia will recognise the ballot for independence and the process in train under article 6 of the tripartite agreement of 5 May will begin.I want to pause on that point for a moment, because it is an important point. This motion acknowledges that President Habibie has recognised and endorsed the outcome of the independence ballot. But, as any observer of Indonesian politics knows, President Habibie at the moment is, in the view of several commentators, struggling to gain the endorsement of his own party, the Golkar Party, and even if he did he may not succeed in winning the presidential election in the MPR when it convenes to select the President. Indeed, most observers predict strongly that the outcome will be that Megawati Sukarnoputri will become the President of Indonesia on that day. That seems to be now a brokered deal.The fact that President Habibie has endorsed the outcome of the independence ballot is significant, but even more compelling is that all factions—including the one that is likely to provide the President and including the armed forces, who have a legislative presence in the Indonesian parliament, providing about one-third of members, I think—have endorsed the move to independence in East Timor. So the process that is in place will not be disrupted, and if it were to be disrupted there would be genuine reason to pause and say, `Let's not disrupt this process; let's get the independence done and put aside our need to express a view.' But there is no such cloud on the horizon, and it seems to me entirely appropriate that we can take a view here of expressing our attitude to this issue without in any way affecting the outcome, given the agreement by the various factions in Indonesia. I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion but, before I do that, what has outraged, shocked and horrified most people in the global community and nearly everyone in Australia is that, after the declaration of the poll in Indonesia, after the announcement that 78 per cent of those voting had voted for independence, a horrific campaign was conducted, seemingly in a well-organised, pre-planned way, that drove people out of the country of East Timor. It is also apparent that that was led, of course, by the militia. It is also apparent that it was done either under the benign gaze of the Indonesian military or in some cases with the support of elements of the Indonesian military, and it appears to be the case now that there are some elements of the Indonesian military conspiring to train militia to run insurgency operations in East Timor.I would have thought that there was an obligation of good housekeeping on Indonesia after the ballot to ensure that the peaceful transition that the world hoped would be achieved was in fact delivered. What has happened is far from a peaceful transition, necessitating again the intervention of a United Nations peacekeeping force. I might say in parenthesis that this is something the Australian Labor Party had called for early on, because when the 5 May agreement was reached and it was decided to have an early ballot, some voices were raised about running too quickly into such a ballot without there being a provision for the security of the people in East Timor, lest that lead to civil disturbance. Xanana Gusmao, the putative President of the new republic of East Timor, was one of those voices that raised concern that people may be at risk should there not be security cover. The Australian Labor Party was one of the organisations that raised concerns about this at that time too and talked about the need for a peacekeeping force then as well.Now I turn to part (b) of this motion, which calls on the Australian government to withdraw its de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. We are in a transition phase. The transition is on track in terms of the technical steps necessary to deliver it, and there is clearly a lot that has to be done to re-establish East Timor as a viable entity. This motion asks that Australia now withdraw its recognition that Indonesia has sovereignty. Given all of the developments that have occurred, it is appropriate that we now do so. It will not interfere with the transition. It will not mean that independence is not granted. I would contend that it is not a `gratuitous' act but a responsible one and a necessary one to state where we stand and how we recognise the determination by the East Timorese. Because of that, I support the motion.16:17:009462Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I just want to make a quick explanation under standing order 191. I will not delay the Senate. It is not something I would do very often. Senator Cook implied, I do not think maliciously at all, that I had said it was gratuitous to do this because it may interfere with or upset the process that will be put in train as part of the tripartite agreement. I did not say that. I am happy to be corrected if the Hansard shows otherwise. I am saying it is gratuitous because there is in place a process, and it is only gratuitous because it is a process which is leading to the end which I think we all agree on anyway, and to take the action that is proposed by Senator Brown today would be gratuitous in those terms. Further, because on 5 May or thereabouts Australia had expressed a very explicit commitment to that agreement and that agreement encompasses the continuation of de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty until their parliament has taken action, it would be changing Australia's commitments midstream, which is undesirable. I hope Senator Cook did not infer that it would undermine the process. I am saying it is gratuitous because this process exists already and therefore it would not achieve anything.16:19:009462Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I will make a quick remark on that, with the permission of the chamber, if I may. I did not mean any maliciousness in my remarks, and I acknowledge, Senator Campbell, that you recognise that too. But I am aware that on 10 September the Prime Minister made similar remarks on the ABC Radio National program and, as a consequence, my remarks were couched that way. The only point I was seeking to make is that, whatever that process might be, that is a process by the United Nations, Indonesia and Portugal. Australia should speak in its own voice—this nation should speak for itself—and this motion enables it to do so by withdrawing de jure recognition.16:19:009462Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank all sides of the chamber for their contributions to the debate on this very important motion. The government has effectively said that the edict from 1978 whereby Australia gave recognition to Indonesian control of East Timor stands and that it would be gratuitous to remove it. It was gratuitous to make that stand in 1978. If, as the government says, this is gratuitous, why not follow the same course in reversing what is now a harmful anachronism?The reasons that the government has given do not really stack up. I believe that the passage of this motion into effect, with the government adopting a call from the Senate to reverse the 1978 recognition of Indonesian control of East Timor, would have a positive influence on the deliberations of the Indonesian parliament in the next week or so. It would be the end of another impediment from times past to clearing the air and would help ensure that the Indonesian parliament does make the right vote and recognise the vote of the East Timorese people.Secondly, I believe that it would give a timely encouragement to the East Timorese people that their interests are considered paramount as far as their relationship with their country is concerned. There is an increasing absurdity in the situation where Australia clings to an outdated, outmoded and clearly ridiculous position of recognising Indonesian control over East Timor when that control has been relinquished and the Indonesian military has been withdrawn.Finally, I believe it is very important to the international peacekeeping force in East Timor, including the very large Australian contingent there, that this de facto recognition of Indonesian authority is removed. It does inherently give some sanction—totally unintended, unwanted and against the wish of everybody in this parliament—to people acting with some authority from Jakarta in crossing the West Timorese border, for example. Australia is then in the absurd position of saying, `Well, Indonesia does retain control over East Timor.' It is an absurdity and it ought to be ended.It is not a gratuitous act to remove the recognition of Indonesian control; it is supreme logical commonsense. I hope the government will think again. It is past time that the government should have made this move and I hope that, if this vote succeeds—as I believe it will—the government will give it very serious consideration and will move to reverse the 1978 edict to help pave the way for the Indonesian parliament to make the right decision in the coming fortnight.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees946394639463Motion (by Senator Ridgeway)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 1999:(a) the provisions of the Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill 1999; and(b) the practice of multi-site franchising by oil companies and, in particular: (i) whether this practice allows oil companies to avoid restrictions placed on them by the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 , and (ii) whether the Act should be strengthened.94639463Motion (by Senator Denman, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 13 October 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office.94639463Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Gibson) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous94639463946316:25:009463Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator Crane, I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee relating to the additional estimates hearings for 1999-2000.Bills9463r747946316:25:009463Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents94649464946410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 14 of 1999-2000—Performance audit—Commonwealth debt management .Committees9464946410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Appointed: Senator Allison Discharged: Senator Bartlett, and Senator Allison as a participating memberEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator CooneyForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Allison to replace Senator Bourne for the committee's inquiry into the proposed sale of Australian Defence Industries Ltd to Transfield Thomas-CSF.Bills9464A message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill:Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999.Bills9464r880Billsr872Billsr9089464Bills received from the House of Representatives.16:28:009464Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that these bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.946416:29:009464Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 and the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999. I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (SUPPLEMENTARY ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1999The bill amends the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 to give effect to initiatives announced in the 1999-2000 Budget. The bill will provide for the continuation of the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program (IESIP) for the 2000 calendar year including the application of cost supplementation to these new funds. Further, the bill provides for the continuation of the mixed mode course delivery away-from-base element of the ABSTUDY scheme which will now operate more effectively under IESIP. This bill specifically contains funding arrangements for education providers delivering ABSTUDY approved courses during 2000.The bill contains a consequential amendment to the Student Assistance Act 1973 transferring the appropriation of the away-from-base element of the ABSTUDY scheme to the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989.The passage of this bill will enable the Commonwealth to play its part, in concert with the States and Territories, in pursuing the goal of educational equity for our Indigenous students by 2004. This goal is vital if Indigenous people and communities are to enjoy the many opportunities available in Australia.This bill relates specifically to the year 2000. IESIP funding (including the away-from-base element of ABSTUDY) will continue to the year 2004. Further legislation for Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) will be introduced during 2000 with the aim of more closely aligning this with States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) legislation which operates on a quadrennial basis. This is due to commence a new quadrennium in 2001. It is hoped that this will result in consistency between the acts in areas such as educational and financial accountability and other outcomes requirements.This bill proposes changes in the administration of the ABSTUDY scheme. This follows the Review of ABSTUDY which was undertaken in 1998 in the context of the introduction of the Youth Allowance. The Review has informed the government's recent decisions on ABSTUDY. On 15 December 1998, the government announced that ABSTUDY would be retained as a separate scheme and that changes to it would be implemented on 1 January 2000. These changes improve opportunities for disadvantaged Indigenous people.Specifically, the mixed-mode course delivery away-from-base element is to be transferred from ABSTUDY to IESIP in the form of block grants to institutions. As IESIP currently provides supplementary assistance to education providers under outcomes focussed agreements, away-from-base assistance will build onto these existing agreements and monitoring arrangements.ABSTUDY away-from-base assistance is designed to help meet travel costs, meals and accommodation for students participating in compulsory course activities such as placements, residential schools and field trips. The `mixed mode' courses, that are part of the away-from-base activities, are delivered through a combination of distance education and face-to-face teaching. It is generally acknowledged that this method of course delivery is more culturally appropriate than on-campus delivery for many Indigenous students from remote areas as it enables the student to remain in the community for much of the time but still receive the support of face-to-face teaching. This is an important aspect that allows Indigenous Australians with community obligations to participate and benefit from higher education.The block grant amount paid to each provider in the Year 2000 will be determined by a formula which takes into account the number of eligible Indigenous students enrolled in 2000 and an Education Provider Unit Cost, based on 1998 allocations, which varies from provider to provider.The ABSTUDY changes will not decrease the government's financial commitment to Indigenous education. While there may be some reduction in the forward estimates for ABSTUDY, the funds will be redirected to other areas of Indigenous education.This funding affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to Indigenous education in Australia.I commend the bill to the Senate.ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS BILL 1999In December 1997 the Prime Minister made a commitment in his Investing for Growth statement to develop a light-handed regulatory framework for the online environment which supports and encourages business and consumer confidence in the use of electronic commerce. The Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 delivers on this commitment, balancing the need for greater certainty against flexibility for business and the community as the prime movers in the information economy. It removes existing impediments to electronic commerce in Commonwealth law and facilitates the development of new opportunities for business and the community in the information economy.The Government recognises that it is essential that we have an internationally consistent approach to electronic commerce legislation. The Electronic Transactions Bill is based on the Model Law on Electronic Commerce prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, as modified by the recommendations of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group which reported to me in March 1998. The Model Law is recognised as the leading international template for electronic commerce legislation. Australia has encouraged other jurisdictions to adopt the Model Law through our involvement in a number of international forums including APEC and the OECD. The Government has successfully sought the cooperation of the States and Territories to develop a national legal framework for electronic commerce. The bill is the blueprint for national uniform legislation that will remove legal impediments and facilitate the growth of electronic commerce in Australia. At the April meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General all Attorneys-General agreed to implement uniform legislation in their jurisdictions.The bill is the result of extensive public consultation. This implements the policy statement that the Prime Minister made in his `Investing for Growth' statement in December 1997 that business should lead the development of the information economy in Australia. We sought the views of the public on the report of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group before finalising the Government's response to the Expert Group's recommendations. The responses we received indicated clear support for the work of the Expert Group.The Government then developed draft legislation to put the recommendations of the Expert Group into effect. The exposure draft of the bill was released for public comment in January 1999. Seventy-three submissions were received on the bill, thirty-five of which were from the private sector. All submissions supported the intention, structure and content of the bill. A range of policy and drafting issues were also raised which have been considered in finalising the bill.Australia was one of the first countries to publicly state its intention to implement the UNCITRAL Model Law. There is very little legislation internationally that is as comprehensive as this bill. While the Model Law is widely recognised internationally as an important document it is only now being considered for adoption in many countries. This Government was early in recognising the need for legislation like this bill and has moved swiftly to implement it.The bill is based on two fundamental principles. The first is `media neutrality', which means that paper-based commerce and electronic commerce should be treated equally by the law. Secondly, the principle of `technology neutrality' ensures that the law does not discriminate between different forms of technology.As current Australian law neither recognises nor denies the validity of electronic communications, the bill establishes the basic rule that a transaction is not invalid because it took place by means of an electronic communication.Following this general rule, the bill sets out specific provisions which state that a requirement or permission under a law of the Commonwealth for a person to provide information in writing, to sign or produce a document, or to retain information or a document can be satisfied in electronic form, subject to certain minimum criteria being satisfied.While some jurisdictions overseas have enacted technology specific legislation dealing with digital signatures, we have taken a flexible technology neutral approach that allows electronic signatures to meet existing requirements for hand written signatures, subject to certain minimum criteria.The bill also contains clauses that establish rules, which will apply in the absence of any contrary agreement, dealing with the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications and the attribution of electronic communications.The bill has a two-step implementation process. Prior to 1 July 2001, the bill will only apply to laws of the Commonwealth specified in regulations. After that date, the bill will apply to all laws of the Commonwealth unless they have been specifically excluded from the application of the bill.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (TAX ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 will implement remaining tax administration measures of the new taxation system.Firstly, when the new tax system commences on 1 July next, taxpayers with simple affairs will have more certainty that their annual tax return is finalised, because this bill reduces the time in which a review can be made from four years to two years.Secondly, taxpayers with simple affairs will also be able to get oral advice from the Commissioner of Taxation that is binding on the commissioner.Thirdly, our reforms do away with reporting systems, such as the reportable payments system, that are a significant compliance burden on business. The modern integrated design of the new tax system reduces the need for add-on reporting systems.However, the government recognises that there is a need to be able to respond quickly if systematic tax evasion is detected in an industry. One of the measures in this bill provides for an Australian business number, ABN, based reporting system. The system would only be activated after consultation with the affected industry, would only apply to certain transactions within the industry and would only operate for a specified period.Fourthly, the government's tax reform package also included a more transparent endorsement process for tax exempt and gift deductible bodies. In coming months, the Australian Business Registrar will commence the Australian business number registration process. Charities and deductible gift recipients will be required to obtain an Australian business number and be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation in order to obtain either income tax exemption or deductible gift recipient status.Finally, the bill will also make some minor amendments to support the introduction of pay as you go, PAYG, and the single activity statement for business.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of the summer sittings in 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills9467A message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following law:Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999.Bills9467r815Billsr814Billsr8189467Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Senator Heffernan:That these bills be now read a second time.upon which Senator Conroy had moved by way of amendment: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".16:31:009467Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I think I have completed all that I wish to say in relation to the second reading debate on this bill and I thank members who have contributed to the debate for their contributions.Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.9467ACIS ADMINISTRATION BILL 1999The bill.16:33:009467Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I move:Page 103 (after line 25), after clause 116, insert:Part 14—Independent inquiry117 Independent inquiry concerning automotive industry (1) Before 1 July 2003 the Minister must cause to be established an independent inquiry into the future of Australia's automotive industry. The inquiry must address, in particular, the most appropriate rates of customs duty to apply from 1 January 2005 on passenger motor vehicles and the categories of related componentry and products specified in this Act. (2) After the Minister receives the report of the inquiry established under subsection (1) the Minister may issue a written certificate stating that the Minister has received the report and is satisfied rates of customs should be amended from the inquiry certificate day as provided in this Act. (3) The Minister must arrange for a copy of a certificate issued under subsection (2) to be published in the Gazette. (4) Subject to subsection (5), the day on which a certificate issued under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette is the inquiry certificate day . (5) If the copy of the certificate issued under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette before 1 January 2005, the inquiry certificate day is taken to be 1 January 2005. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the inquiry established under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving the report.We are moving this amendment to address what we regard as a shortcoming in the ACIS bills—that is, that an inquiry into ACIS will not be held until 2005 when the automotive industry is already faced with a harsher, lower tariff environment. The 2005 review was made known by the government in a joint statement by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the then minister for industry. They stated, on 5 June 1997, that there will be a review in 2005. What we have been saying from the outset is that this is an inappropriate time to have the review. Commonsense dictates that the review must occur before the tariff cuts occur to ensure that the automotive industry is ready in one way or another to face the challenges of the new regime.When we raised this point in the House of Representatives, the government gave an entirely unsatisfactory response. They said that they did not need an amendment about an inquiry because the government might have an inquiry anyway. This is not good enough. The inquiry may be scheduled way too late in the process. Furthermore, nobody knows what sort of inquiry it will be. Nobody knows whether the parliament will receive the report from that inquiry. Nobody knows whether the public will get a chance to make submissions, whether the industry will get a chance to make submissions, whether the communities affected by this very important, regionally based industry will get a chance to make submissions, or whether the state governments—particularly of South Australia and Victoria—will get a chance to make submissions.That is why we think a proper inquiry needs to be legislated now—held before the tariff changes take place so that all those participants in the car industry can be certain that they will have the opportunity to put their views before an informed decision is made. If this does not happen, it is simply not possible to know what is going to follow these transitional arrangements—or if changes do occur, precisely how these transitional arrangements are going to continue beyond 2005. We do not want $2 billion worth of support to just fall straight off the edge of a cliff—after five years—to zero support. That is what this parliament is being asked to vote for at the moment. This is an unreasonable proposition. Our amendment is one that the government could and should accept. It is the `was not made here' syndrome. It should not hesitate simply because the opposition is proposing it. If there is a change of government, Labor will hold an inquiry. It will be public and will happen in 2003. What we want is for the parliament to ensure that, whether there is a change of government or not, that inquiry takes place.16:35:009468Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I rise to say that most of the comments and reasons for supporting the ALP amendments were outlined last night, and I do not wish to address them any further other than to indicate our support.16:36:009468Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—May I express the government's profound disappointment that the opposition, supported by the Democrats, are persisting with these amendments to this package of legislation, which they unsuccessfully moved in the House of Representatives. The amendments essentially seek to defer the proposed reduction in the tariff to 10 per cent—to take place in 2005—until there is another review of automotive policy settings. We have some problems with that proposition, which have been outlined in the House and by me publicly, but I think they need to be restated.Fundamentally, in a procedural sense, we are again putting this industry into limbo. As the opposition members have said, what this industry needs most of all is certainty and security. This package delivers that, and a fundamental part of the package is that we freeze the tariff at 15 per cent next year and then it drops to 10 per cent in 2005. They are fundamental pillars of this package, a package which the industry has supported solidly since it was announced nearly 2½ years ago. But here we have the opposition undermining confidence in this industry by seeking to remove one of the fundamental pillars of this integrated policy package. I want to emphasise that point.This is an integrated policy package which does provide $2 billion in support for this industry, on the very premise that the tariffs will drop to 10 per cent in the year 2005. That is the logic of the scheme: we are providing assistance, to the tune of $2 billion, to enable the industry to make this transition to a 10 per cent tariff. You remove the whole basis for that assistance package if you remove one of its pillars, and that is a 10 per cent rate; remembering that even at 10 per cent, in the year 2005—more than five years from now—this industry will still be receiving a higher level of tariff protection than virtually any other manufacturing industry in this country, after five years of very generous support from the government.We have had review after review of this industry. This policy package which we are bringing is the result of a very extensive Industry Commission inquiry which looked at policy settings through to 2005. As I have said, the industry strongly supports this package as is and wants it passed by this parliament forthwith so that it can get on and plan its investments—multibillion dollar investments—on the basis of a secure and certain policy framework.I am extremely disappointed that the opposition and the Democrats are undermining confidence in this industry and further delaying investment decisions by industry by putting up amendments which they know full well we cannot and will not accept. So this bill will have to go back to the House of Representatives, and there the government will reject these amendments. That is not going to do the industry any favours at all, and the basis on which these amendments are being put runs counter to the whole framework and integrity of this package. We do oppose the amendments and we oppose them for very good reasons. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Conroy's ) be agreed to.16:43:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)35Allison, 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. West, S. M.Woodley, J.30Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.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.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Crowley, R. A. Ferris, J.Hogg, J. Crane, W.McKiernan, J. P. Heffernan, W.Ray, R. F. Calvert, P. H.Stott Despoja, N. Abetz, E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.ACIS (UNEARNED CREDIT LIABILITY) BILL 1999The bill.Bill agreed to.CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (ACIS IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 1999The bill.Amendments (by Senator Conroy)—by leave—proposed:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 5), before item 1, insert:1A Subsection 3(1) Insert: inquiry certificate day has the meaning given by section 117 of the ACIS Administration Act 1999 .(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 9), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 14), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 5), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 4), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 9), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (after line 2), omit "31 December 2004", substitute "the day before the inquiry certificate day".(9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 10 (after line 1), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".16:47:009470Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I have really put down the arguments against these opposition amendments and expressed my great disappointment on behalf of the government that the opposition are moving these amendments and further delaying this very important assistance package to the automotive industry. But I do want to draw attention to the position as put by the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers, a key industry body in this area, which has written to both the shadow minister, Mr McMullan, and the Democrats spokesman on this matter, Senator Ridgeway, as follows:This agreement—that is, the ACIS legislation package—to which FAPM and all four car assemblers are party to, includes a freeze of the tariff of 15 per cent until 30 December 2004 whereafter the tariff will fall to 10 per cent, together with an appropriate scheme to replace export facilitation. In our view—that is, the view of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers—the legislation presently before the Senate will be important in driving investment and creating a more competitive automotive industry.We are concerned that any delay in the Senate's consideration of this matter will disrupt this industry's plans to invest.We therefore seek your support in ensuring the timely passage of this legislation through the Parliament.That is the position of a key industry player, representing the thousands of workers in this industry who are dependent on further investment by the major companies, asking the opposition and the Democrats not to do what they are doing but to get on with the business and support this legislative package so that companies can start investing, knowing what the environment will be over the next five years. But, of course, no, the opposition and, regrettably, the Democrats want to play politics with this and further delay and create uncertainty and confusion in this industry.We have told the parliament and the nation why it is important that this package should go through as is. We have industry support for it. I have already indicated that although this is a matter for a future government—and there are two elections due before this scheme expires—from my point of view I have no objection to the review of post-2005 arrangements commencing prior to 2005. I have no objection to that whatsoever and I put that matter on the record. But it is vital that we not send any mixed signals about what the tariff rate will be as of 1 January 2005. It will be a 10 per cent tariff rate but, obviously, we will want to review that to see exactly what should happen with respect to tariffs and any further assistance to this industry post 2005. As I say, that review, as far as I am concerned, could commence before 2005. We do not want to legislate to that effect and we do not want to send any signals that the tariff rate will not fall to 10 per cent. The industry needs to know what tariff regime it will operate under. We need this bill to go through now on that basis.16:50:009470Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—As a matter of response, I again make it clear that the Democrats are happy to support the amendments. The point I make is that I do not think that all the sides of politics disagree on the outcome; it is more a case of quibbling about dates. Essentially, in my view, it is a case of accountability in public policy making. Clearly, if it is a case of looking at competitiveness and innovation in the industry, let us not quibble about dates. If the minister and the government are serious about what they see as reform, there is still an opportunity for that to occur.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to. ACIS Administration Bill 1999 reported with an amendment; ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 reported without amendments; Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 reported with amendments; report adopted.9471Bills (on motion by Senator Minchin) read a third time.Bills9471r6709471Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)16:54:009471Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I am pleased that the government has got itself organised over that side of the chamber. Senator Ian Campbell, I am looking forward to your contribution on the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 , which I know you have followed very closely.The government has made a lot of claims about this bill, but it will not admit that it will weaken existing regulations on prudential and fiduciary responsibilities of those involved in the governance of corporations. The bill will undermine rules designed to promote transparency, accountability and equity. It compromises market integrity. The opposition have considered this bill with an open mind. In arriving at our position, we believe that we have asked the right questions, including: do the propositions encourage managers to be accountable to shareholders through consultation and disclosure in a timely manner, do the propositions help to define the role of the board of directors as active participants in the governance of the corporation, and do the propositions help to define shareholders' rights and treat all shareholders of the same class equally?No doubt there are positive elements to this bill, such as the fundraising proposals and the revamp of the takeover panel, but the negatives outweigh the positives. There are substantial shortcomings to this bill. The opposition are particularly concerned with the proposals on business judgment rule, the mandatory bid rule, compulsory acquisition and accounting standards. We will move amendments to the bill in an endeavour to correct these faults.The government asserts that current regulation and case law have created uncertainty in directors' responsibilities and liabilities, particularly in the area of directors' duty of care and diligence. It further claims that this uncertainty has constrained directors from fulfilling their duties to the best of their abilities. To address this alleged shortcoming, the government is proposing to establish the business judgment rule and other liability protection provisions, including the reliance on expert advice to give directors absolute defence from liability, but it is unclear from the evidence presented by the government whether the current regime has really constrained directors from fulfilling their duties to the best of their abilities or whether the proposals would lead to improved performance by the directors and their companies.The opposition strongly disagrees with the government's view that case law has been unclear in this subject area. Few could dispute the facts that the courts' judgments have been fair and consistent. The courts have, in the main, exercised restraint and have avoided second-guessing directors' decisions. I therefore expect that the government's attempt in this regard will not add value and it will not deliver clarity; rather, it will add complexity to the current arrangements. Moreover, the proposals on directors' duties would water down directors' standards of responsibility. The government's proposals encourage directors to be careless, reckless and deceitful, to the detriment of a company and its shareholders. These proposals are totally irresponsible and are designed purely to placate vested interests. The majority of Australian company directors would not benefit from these proposals. Those who would benefit are the directors who lack skill, who are irresponsible or who are dishonest. The government is sending the wrong message to the directors and to the market. Shareholders' interests and good corporate governance have been forgotten.Supposedly as a counterbalance to the business judgment rule, the government is proposing something called the statutory derivative action. Basically, the statutory derivative action is about allowing shareholders to take court proceedings on behalf of a company should the board of that company fail to take the initiative. How this initiative provides a balance to the free rein granted to directors is beyond me. Nevertheless, the opposition consider the statutory derivative action proposal to be a positive step and we are supportive of it. We would like to make a slight improvement to it by allowing ASIC to apply for leave from the court to take a statutory derivative action. We consider that the proposed rule would be too onerous for certain individual investors to proceed. It is doubtful whether many shareholders would be able to meet the onerous requirement of applying for leave from the court to take action. The ineligibility of ASIC to apply for leave from the court is difficult to fathom. As the government created consumer protector, ASIC should rightly have such power.Under the current takeover rule, a party seeking to launch a takeover must do so when the holdings in the target company are less than 20 per cent. There are a number of ways a bidder might undertake a takeover of a company. All are through transparent arrangements. The government, however, now seeks to allow takeover bidders the option of crossing the 20 per cent threshold in control and ownership of securities in a company before declaring its takeover intentions to the market. The government would require the bidder to announce to the market a mandatory unconditional takeover offer for the securities of the target company once it crosses the 20 per cent threshold and for the offer to be at an amount at least equivalent to the highest price paid by the bidder in cash or non-cash transactions in the previous four months.Despite these requirements, the mandatory bid rule would encourage bidders to lock up key blocks of shares before launching their takeover bid. Consequently, the bidder gets effective control of a target company before revealing its intentions, leaving competitive bidders and directors of target companies with limited opportunity to appropriately respond to the takeover bid. Discovery of fair prices would be restricted as there would no longer be an auction process. This would seriously disadvantage shareholders in target companies.Also disturbing is the obvious inconsistency of this proposal with the Eggleston principles, principles of good corporate governance. The Eggleston principles require:(i) (one) shareholders of a takeover target company know the identity of any person that proposes to acquire a substantial interest in the company;(ii) (two) the target shareholders and directors have sufficient time to consider the offer;(iii) (three) sufficient material is provided to them to make proper assessment of the offer; and(iv) (four) all shareholders have equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of the takeover offer.The mandatory bid rule breaks at least the first three principles, and maybe even the fourth. The government knows that the mandatory bid rule would go against these principles, principles on which the takeover panel would operate or base their deliberations. That is why the government has put forward, in its own amendment to the bill, that it would exempt the mandatory bid rule from being deemed an unacceptable circumstance by the takeover panel. This proposed exemption to unacceptable circumstance is reflected in the government's amendment to the bill, item 5, `panel provisions', section 602.The government partly justifies its mandatory bid rule proposal on the experience of the UK. But the government fails to take account of the fact that, while the practice is permitted in the UK, it is not often used over there. The mandatory bid rule is not a major contributor to the UK's high level of takeover activity. In any case, it is facile to expect that simply transplanting such a rule will have the same outcome or effect in Australia. The dynamics of the Australian stock market and takeovers are very different from those of the UK. Here every bidder will try to lock out its opponents at the first opportunity, to the detriment of other shareholders.The only real benefit from this proposal would accrue to the bidder in terms of a lower price for the takeover as compared to a bid where there was an auction process. Moreover, those who have argued that Australian takeover activity is significantly less than that in the US and UK tend to underplay the various influences involved and the cyclical nature of takeovers. There has been little change in the takeover regime since the 1980s, but we have seen different levels of takeover activity. Takeover activity achieved significant highs in the 1980s, and Australia is now experiencing record levels of takeover. In between these peaks was effectively a valley of takeover activity.These different levels of activity demonstrate that takeovers tend to be cyclical in nature and that the current rule on ownership threshold has not impeded takeover activity from reaching new highs. The rule on ownership threshold is not a significant factor in takeover decisions. It is extremely doubtful that the change proposed would stimulate takeover activity to any worthwhile extent. Rather, it would encourage takeovers by stealth, affecting the transparency of the market.I acknowledge that there are valid economic efficiency arguments for increased takeover activities, but the mandatory bid proposal is not the solution to increasing takeover activity in Australia. More appropriately, changes to capital gains tax treatment of scrip for scrip takeovers would encourage greater takeover activity.Still on takeovers, the government is proposing to extend the compulsory acquisition provisions to allow a 90 per cent majority shareholder in a company to compulsorily acquire the remaining 10 per cent of shares at any time. All that would be required is a notice of acquisition accompanied by an independent expert's report qualifying the value of the remaining securities. I know that the government intends to make some amendments in this area, but the effect would ultimately be the same. The rights of minority shareholders would be subverted.The government claims that the proposition is designed to remove so-called `greenmailers', but this concern over greenmailers is dubious. Simply, this proposal is about scrapping the rights of minority shareholders. Some have even described it as allowing a legal means to expropriate another person's property. Since this government has been encouraging more and more mum and dad shareholders, it is surprising that it is not making the appropriate efforts to ensure that the rights of shareholders, particularly minority shareholders, are protected. This government wants to make Australia a country of shareholders, but if mum and dad investors get in the way of the interests of big business then the government wants mum and dad shareholders to move aside.In the Australian Financial Review on 30 September 1999, Dr Elizabeth Boros, at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation, confirms the unfairness of the proposed process. Dr Boros is an expert in this field, and an independent. She is not aligned with anybody; she is simply commenting on the proposition. Dr Boros said:It is one thing to bind a dissenting minority to accept a price for their securities which has been affirmatively accepted by substantial majority of departing shareholders. It is quite another to expropriate them at a price determined by an independent expert's valuation.I am extremely disappointed, as I am sure a lot of individual shareholders are, that the Democrats will not be supporting the opposition's move to oppose the relevant compulsory acquisition proposal. The Democrats have offered, as a concession, which the opposition will support, for the independent valuer to be truly independent by having it appointed by ASIC but paid for by the takeover bidder. I am hoping that the Democrats are still moving that amendment, and I am looking forward to Senator Murray's contribution. The CLERP bill also seeks to revamp the takeover panel, based on the UK model. While we are supportive of the principle that a body could act in arbitration to settle takeover disputes as an alternative to the courts, we have some doubts about our ability to emulate the success of the UK's panel. Australia has a somewhat different business culture from that of Britain. Based on evidence provided to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, British corporations are less adversarial and less inclined to pursue litigation compared to their Australian counterparts.It is because of these concerns that the opposition would support the government's amendments to their own bill on the takeover panel. We hope that these changes will boost the relevance and authority of the takeover panel in considering debates arising during a takeover process.The fundraising provisions are among the more positive aspects to this bill, which are primarily designed to reduce the costs involved with capital raising, especially by small and medium sized enterprises. To reduce the costs of capital raising, the government has targeted costs tied up with the preparation and lodging of prospectuses.The opposition is supportive of all but one of the proposals. We agree, for instance, with the proposal that a disclosure document would not be required if a person makes an unlimited number of personal offers of securities that result in securities being issued to 20 or fewer persons in a rolling one-year period with no more than $2 million being raised. However, it would be irresponsible for us to agree with the proposal which would allow licensed securities dealers to judge who would be defined as sophisticated investors—investors not requiring to have access to prospectus or disclosure documents—and allow such investors to invest less than $500,000.This provision is inconsistent with other criteria, which define a sophisticated investor as having the appropriate resources to undertake its own investigation of a venture. We are opposed to the authority to be granted to licensed securities dealers because it may be abused or brought on by commission pres sures. Should licensed securities dealers define mum and dad investors as sophisticated, they would give up their rights on receiving appropriate disclosure documents. Others argue that sanctions would exist to deter licensed securities dealers from misbehaving. But such measures tend to address events after the fact. Once mum and dad investors lose their money, they usually lose it for good. We will, therefore, oppose this particular provision.On accounting standards, Australia has attained a high-level benchmark relative to many other countries. However, we must ensure that future steps continue to be positive. The virtues of high accounting standards may seem obvious, but there are many that do not diligently follow them and, as evidenced by this bill, the government or the Democrats have little understanding of them either. What the government is saying with this bill is that it does not have confidence in the job that the Australian Accounting Standards Board has performed to date. So it proposes to establish a body that would oversee its activities, a body that would control its priorities and business plan. The government wants to establish the Financial Reporting Council.The government has asserted in its defence that the development of accounting standards has lacked appropriate business input. The opposition disputes this. What the government really means is that there is not enough business control over the development of accounting standards. It will now give them a mechanism to do this through the FRC. My concerns about the structure proposed by the government on accounting standard setting do not in any way disparage the quality, skill and objectivity of the first-round members of the FRC. But the government's proposition in regard to the FRC's relationship to the AASB is inappropriate and will be corrupted over time.The opposition will move an amendment that would preserve the independent role of the AASB in setting accounting standards. The AASB has proven to have the necessary expertise in developing accounting standards and has proven to be unaffected by vested interests. To date, the AASB has played a critical role in ensuring integrity in the information disclosed by companies. The government's proposal undermines the AASB's independence and puts at risk the reliability of the information provided by companies and businesses. A less than appropriate level of accounting standards will hamper efforts to promote disclosure and transparency.Under a weak accounting regime, there would be greater opportunity to overstate profit levels, understate losses or treat asset values to a desired tax outcome. The opposition is also concerned with the government's current drafting of the provisions on harmonisation of Australian accounting standards with international standards. Experts in the field of accounting standard setting consider that the wording effectively commits Australia to one international standard, which is that of the IASC—the International Accounting Standards Committee. For those less familiar with the world of accounting standard setting, the IASC standards have yet to be accepted by the financial centres of the world. Indeed, the IASC standards are only one among other so-called international standards, which include the US GAAP.Rushing head-on to take up one body of standards over another, while key economic partners consider this body less rigorous, is not entirely prudent. We will therefore put forward amendments that would clarify the intent or meaning of the international harmonisation of Australian accounting standards so that it would not mean the automatic take-up of standards developed by the IASC. Rather, we would prefer Australia to take up accounting standards which have undergone considerable debate and which have been accepted by key financial centres as accounting standards of appropriate credibility and integrity. It is important that, when Australia adopts new international standards, the standards are of the same, if not better, level of rigour to that currently operating, and that authorities take account of the needs of Australian companies raising capital in key financial centres across the globe.Finally, we are concerned with the proposal to introduce formal cost-benefit analyses by the AASB for every accounting standard proposed. There are difficulties involved with such a proposition for the standard setter in terms of the compliance costs as well as the technical aspects of determining indirect costs and benefits to the wider community or economy of a proposed standard. There is also a risk that this proposition would simply give business with purely short-term perspective some form of ammunition to discredit a standard when the longer-term benefits may be quite significant. The government has sold this bill to the public as the cure to the ills of the corporate sector. It brags that it is doing something to help out. But sometimes the medicine or cure may be worse than the problem, which the opposition believes to be the case with this bill or, in particular, certain proposals in it. We find it astounding that the government has been encouraging more and more mum and dad investors and shareholders but will do little to protect their rights.Perhaps more disturbing is that the Democrats mostly support the government's and big businesses' views on the issues that undermine good corporate governance practices and subvert shareholders' rights. Why are the Democrats so keen to impress the government and big business? Well, the public's guess would be as good as mine. What is certain is that mum and dad shareholders cannot rely on the Democrats to protect their interests. The government has constructed a bill which relaxes corporate law and regulation to stimulate further business activity, but it ignores the fact that it is likely to stimulate activity of questionable merit. It would be far more appropriate and prudent to maintain rigorous regulation to engender investor confidence and market integrity.17:14:009475Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—As Senator Conroy has just told the Senate, the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 is another step along the way of setting up the sorts of laws that will enable the corporate sector to do two things: firstly, to produce the goods and services that we want and Australia needs and to do that in a way that is consistent with the community we live in; and, secondly, to produce income for the shareholders who own the company. What we are dealing with, therefore, is legislation that impacts upon an institution, that institution being a corporation, which affects the community in a very big way—economically and socially. Because of that, this will by no means be the last piece of legislation to come into this area. There will be legislation after this; there has been lots of legislation before it.There have been many court decisions over the years which have attempted to flesh out that law which should properly guide corporations in their relationships with society and society in it relationships with corporations. It is interesting to see in the explanatory memorandum some abbreviations which are available for people reading the explanatory memorandum. I read out these abbreviations as a means of illustrating the sorts of things that the Corporations Law deals with and the sorts of things that people in the community will become used to more and more. They help explain why there can never be an end to this legislation. Corporations is the sort of field where there will always be legislation and decisions needed. In the end, we are dealing with a vibrant organic society and a vibrant organic instrument within that society, namely, the corporations world.Looking at these abbreviations, there is the AASB, the Australian Accounting Standards Board. Senator Conroy was talking about that shortly before he finished his speech. The ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, is there to help apply the law that the community says ought to apply to corporations and to ensure that the corporate world works well in terms of producing and also works well in terms of its moral standing. The ASX is the Australian Stock Exchange. People here would know what that is about. CLERP is the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program in respect of which legislation has been made and which legislation we are now discussing. The FRC is the Financial Reporting Council.The IASC is the International Accounting Standards Committee. Senator Conroy spoke at some length about the different standards of accounting and what would be appropriate for Australia. `Law' is the Corporations Law itself, a very thick piece of legislation in more than one volume, which indicates just how essential and important legislation in this field is. The OIS, is the Offer Information Statements.The `Panel' is the Corporations and Securities Panel. Under this proposed legislation, the Corporations and Securities Panel is going to take over much of the work that was formerly done by the courts. As Senator Conroy said, there are some problems with the panel—whether that institution, which works very well in England, will work as well in Australia and whether taking away the jurisdiction of the court in the sense of doing more of the work that the courts used to do and taking away from the courts the ability to advance law as it ought to be advanced—bit by bit—will be a good thing.The SMEs are the small and medium sized enterprises. What has to be remembered as we talk about this legislation is that we are talking about not only the international corporations, the big public corporations, but also the small and medium sized enterprises. They of course have different issues attached to them than do big international corporations. And the UIG is the Urgent Issues Group.As Senator Conroy has said, there are four main issues being dealt with in this legislation in respect of company law. The first is set out in the explanatory memorandum on page 11 as directors' duties and corporate governance. The next is takeovers, where one company proposes to take over another, either in a friendly fashion where everybody is more or less in agreement or in a hostile fashion where one company uses its resources to take over from a board of directors a company which does not want to be taken over at all.Fundraising is a very important issue, that is, the issue of how money is raised from people who might initially be outside the company to ensure that the company operates well. In this context, it talks about small business fundraising where the concern may not be as great as where public money is committed from outside in the way it is with public companies. So that is a big issue. And the last issue is accounting standards, which I have talked about a little already.The issue of companies is central, as I have said before, to this society. That is perhaps best borne out in a book that I have referred to on other occasions in this place—originally written well over 50 years ago. It is called The Modern Corporation and Private Property, and I am looking at the revised edition by Adolf A. Berle and Gardiner C. Means. The thrusting force behind the thinking here is Adolf A. Berle. The original publication was in 1932.The book traces the conceptual basis behind the development of the modern corporation. It starts off with a simple company in Adam Smith's day. For example, you and I and a couple of other people might set up a company. We would do the work, we would do the management, we would sell the product or the service and we would get the money. It was a fairly simple concept because we would be doing all the duties. But as time went by, and companies got bigger and shareholders became more plentiful, you got a division between the control of the company and the ownership of the company. You would have lots of shareholders with shares in the company, but the people running the company did not necessarily have to be shareholders. That immediacy between the managers and the workers and the company, which I spoke about before, was stripped away more and more. You then had people who were controlling companies and people who were shareholders. Senator Conroy was speaking about the mum and dad shareholders that we see today, who really do not have any control over a company like Telstra but nevertheless have shares in it.The problem became: what do you do in a situation where one group of people owns the company but other people control it? The people who control the company may also have shares in it, but the point is that the control is in the hands of very few, whereas the ownership is in the hands of very many. So then you had to get laws which made it fair for the shareholders and fair for the directors—the people who are running the company, the managers of the company—because they had to have the ability to make the company flourish, to make decisions so that things could go round. At the same time, they could not so conduct themselves that all the profit went to them and none to the shareholders. So you started to get the growth of company law, not only in terms of acts of parliament such as those we are looking at today but in terms of the decisions made by the courts.What happens when businesses grow to the point where they take up most of the economic life of the country? That, of course, is what has happened. If you look at the big corporations—I mentioned Telstra but there are other big companies like BHP—what happens to the community when they operate in a particular way? This involves not only the owners, the shareholders and the managers and directors but also the community in which the employees live. The question then becomes: should the company have responsibility beyond that to their shareholders? The courts have said for many years that they should have duties only to the shareholders. People talk about that issue in this place and legislation is passed. Indeed, in recent times we have considered legislation which says that the people who are managing companies ought to take into account environmental considerations when they go about their business—a concept that was quite revolutionary some time ago but is becoming more and more accepted as days go on.We have often heard the quote from Adam Smith that we are driven by self-interest—I do not think that he used quite those words but that is the concept. No doubt self-interest drives people when they are buying shares, but there are other things that drive them besides that, such as the need to be secure and to look after children. Self-interest is not always selfishness—I am not using it in that sense. Managers of the companies who have shares will have self-interest in seeing those shares grow in value so that they make money. At the same time, they have a secondary motive of self-interest in that they are controlling, at times, vast sums of money, and there is no doubt that there is temptation. Unfortunately, several people in the 1980s could not resist that temptation. So you had the collapses of the 1980s, which are still reverberating, where managers became so self-interested and selfish that they did not allow the sorts of resources that should have gone into making shares good shares but took the resources for their own use or just squandered them.So we have laws like the legislation that is before us today, where we talk about director's duties and corporate governance, where the law understands the separation of ownership and control and where the community understands that something has to be done about it. In fact, many things have been done about it already, and this is the next step in a long line of attempts to make the life of directors reasonable but, at the same time, put such rules and regulations around them as would be appropriate—in the parliament's mind, in any event—to keep them properly responsible to the shareholders and to the wider community. The explanatory memorandum to the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 says:2. The key features of the new regulatory arrangements proposed by the Bill are:. Introducing a business judgment rule , which would offer directors a safe harbour from personal liability for breaches of the duty of care and diligence in relation to honest, informed and rational business judgments.This idea of directors having to act with care and diligence has been in the law for some considerable time now. It is always a very awkward one. The directors are loaded up with the responsibility of making a company of which they are directors successful and at the same time the managers of that company are also loaded up with the responsibility of making that company successful. They have that responsibility on them. At the same time they have got to use the at times vast capital and resources which are under their control in a responsible way in the interests of the company, in the interests of the shareholders and in the interests of the community generally. How to get that balance is a problem. There have been many books written about it. There have been court cases about it. There has been legislation about it, and we are here today to talk again about trying to strike that balance. This legislation suggests a particular way. Senator Conroy, who has preceded me, has pointed out the opposition's position on that.Then there are a number of dot points including `Rewriting the existing duty to exercise care and diligence' and `Delegation'. Directors must delegate otherwise the thing will not work, but if they do not delegate properly then disaster could occur. They are the problems. I have not touched on all of them by any means. But I hope to have given a feeling about the issues that will be discussed more when we go into committee.In the book I referred to by Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, Berle in particular talks about the need for the community to keep positioning itself as far as companies are concerned because of the matters that I spoke about before—that is, because of the way that the corporate world has concentrated economic power. It has a big impact on our lives: when we go to work we are employed by companies, a lot of the services that we get are provided by companies and most of the goods that we get are made, delivered and sold by companies. So they are a very big issue.Berle and Means were talking about the idea of getting the law that affects companies or restrains them—I did not want to use the word `control' but perhaps that might be the right word—to exercise them in the right way so that they can be most productive for the community generally. In that context they spoke about how constitutional law had restrained the power of kings and how, when executive government as we know it today took over from kings, it was restrained by laws. The concept throughout that time was the attempt to balance the need for productive work against the need to protect those that that work might affect. They spoke about how the church in the Middle Ages had to be restrained in the way it was. The authors have brought in a very interesting concept here. I hope to have a few more words to say in the committee stage. For the reasons I have noted, this is a most essential bill.17:34:009478Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—As I said to Senator Conroy, this bill is a bit like a baby: we have known it has been coming, we have been expecting it to come and suddenly it has arrived with a rush. None of us expected it to come on this evening, but here we are. The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 was conceived by the coalition in March 1997 to comprehensively improve Australia's corporate law as part of its drive to promote business and economic development. I know that intention was fully supported by the Labor Party and the Democrats because, on a cross-party basis, all parties believed that the Corporations Law needed to be modernised, improved and made much more efficient and effective. We, the Democrats, also believed it needed to take into account social values as well as economic values, and in this whole process we have paid a lot of attention to accountability aspects and aspects of fairness as well as aspects of economics and efficiency.The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program process released discussion papers on six issues. Those were known as `Accounting standards', `Fundraising', `Directors' duties and corporate governance', `Takeovers', `Electronic commerce' and `Financial markets and investment products'. This Corporate Law Economic Reform Program is known as CLERP, which sounds pretty much like a troll. We are dealing here with trolls 1 to 4. Troll 5, `Electronic commerce', has disappeared somewhere. Troll 6, `Financial markets and investment products', is still to be dealt with.In a previous speech I had said that, of the first four—accounting standards, fundraising, directors' duties and corporate governance, and takeovers—two, which were fundraising and takeovers, were fundamentally economic issues, and two, which were accounting standards and director's duties and corporate governance, were more about governance and administration. But of course accounting standards and directors' duties and corporate governance have immense economic consequences as well, because the way in which a company is governed and managed and the way in which directors conduct themselves make a huge difference to the economic performance of a company. Accounting standards have a great deal of meaning in terms of how financial results are reported and what taxes are paid, so they have very considerable economic consequences as well.On 9 April 1998, the Treasurer released draft legislation on those issues 1 to 4 to implement the proposals for reform contained in the discussion papers. Interested parties had until 21 May 1998 to make comments on the draft legislation. The bill was then referred to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities and was re-referred at the commencement of this parliament because the last election interrupted the process of review. The committee reported on 12 May 1999, having held hearings across Australia. It is important to note that the committee report had four reports within it, but it was not really a majority report and three minority reports; it was a majority and three supplementaries, because it was agreed by all those reporting on the bill that they thoroughly supported most of the intent of the bill but wished to look at ways and means of resolving issues which they felt were not resolved by the committee itself.I have recounted this history to demonstrate the consultative process through which the government have gone to arrive at the bill before us today. I am not acquainted with all the consultation they do on all the bills that come before us, but I do know that, in this process, they have been at pains to consult as widely as possible with the professional, legal, academic and business communities and with other concerned bodies—and indeed with the political parties concerned—on these issues. That process, in my view, forms an excellent model to be followed. I have noted the thoughtfulness and consideration the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Mr Hockey, has shown in responding to the corporations and securities committee's report and those supplementary reports attached to it and indeed to the representations made by my political party. I also commend the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer Senator Ian Campbell, who is responsible for the management of this bill through the Senate. I know that this was an area which he worked very hard in, had very strong feelings about and has a lot of commitment to.I now move to the substantive issues in the bill. The first point to be made is that this bill is not merely a simplification of the current provisions of the Corporations Law. Unlike the Labor government's Corporate Law Simplification Program, this bill does try to change the law and is an advancement on that process originated by Labor. It is a welcome advancement, and I say that after having had a number of discussions with Senator Conroy, the shadow minister responsible for this area. The approach of the Australian Democrats has been to assess each of the proposed policy changes on its merits, taking into account what we have heard during the committee inquiry process, the representations that have been made to us and our own understanding of the workings of corporations and capital markets. It has also been informed by our views on accountability, governance, standards, ethics, fairness and issues of advancing the boundaries of the Corporations Law.I noticed in passing that Senator Conroy could not help but give us a little clout on the way through. As I have said, we have had numerous discussions with Senator Conroy which have been very productive and informative but, inevitably, as you do with policy matters, we have disagreed on some things. Of course, Senator Conroy, being the very strong politician that he is, will not resist taking political advantage from our differences of opinion. Senator Conroy, I think that, if you were an AFL player, you would be permanently on report because you can never resist going past another player without giving them a nudge, a knock or a tweak in some manner which would bring you to the attention of the video umpire. I understand both your method and your character; nevertheless, I want to put on record that I have appreciated the very informed discussion we have had with you and your adviser.Having digressed a little, let me proceed. This bill contains a new provision in section 664A that will allow a person who owns 90 per cent or more of the shares in a company to compulsorily acquire the remaining shares in the company. The acquisition legislation says that the acquisition must occur at a fair price and that the minority shareholders have the right to object and have the matter determined by a court if they believe that the price does not represent a fair price. For many people this particular issue of compulsory acquisition is probably the most contentious issue in the bill and is one of the areas on which I think there will be a fairly vigorous debate when we get to the committee stage. The Corporations Law does generate a great deal of passion, primarily because people's pockets are involved, but also on account of the issues as to whether minorities are being dealt with fairly. In this respect, some of the additional amendments the government have proposed may assist matters. I look forward to the debate because I think this is an area which needs to be properly ventilated and considered in committee.The reason for the granting of the acquisitions power is that there are substantial benefits to wholly owning a company rather than merely owning 90 or 95 per cent of a company. With that in mind, it has been the case that minority shareholders have been able to extort unreasonably high prices from shareholders who wish to buy out the remaining shares in the company. However, I should make it clear in my remarks that that has not been a common practice; it has been an occasional practice. That occasional practice of demanding an unreasonably high price is referred to as `greenmailing'.The Australian Democrats regard the ability of one person to compulsorily acquire the property of another person to be a far-reaching power which should be granted only in the clearest of circumstances, and that principle should be regarded whatever the context of the granting of the power. However, compulsory acquisition is a feature of law in many areas and it is not unusual for it to be present where there are circumstances which justify its inclusion. We recognise and acknowledge that greenmailing is a problem, if an occasional problem, and we understand that there are at least a small number of people whose business it is to place themselves in the position where they can take advantage of being a minority shareholder by engaging in greenmailing.Once it is accepted that a shareholder who owns 90 per cent or more of a company should be able to compulsorily acquire the balance, the first priority becomes ensuring that minority shareholders receive a fair price for their shares. Under the current provisions in this bill, the 90 per cent holder must obtain an expert's report as to the value of the shares and that report must accompany the notice of compulsory acquisition. It is envisaged that the 90 per cent holder would determine the expert and appoint that person to conduct the investigation. The Australian Democrats have been concerned about that process and the possibility for the perception to arise that, because the expert is appointed and paid by the 90 per cent holder, there may be bias on the part of the expert towards the interests of the 90 per cent holder. For our part, we do not necessarily agree that there would be a bias. We believe that, as a profession, valuers are very respected and have a reputation to protect and an ability, for many, to make a completely independent judgment regardless of who appoints them. But that is not true for every single one of them and, as you know, laws are, generally speaking, designed to ensure that a minority cannot do things which are against the interests of the majority.To remove any concern, I foreshadow that we will be moving an amendment which will require the independent expert to be chosen by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. The 90 per cent holder will still be required to pay for the provision of the expert's report but the expert will be a person or organisation chosen by ASIC who has appropriate expertise and independence. Unless that amendment is passed, we will have some difficulties with the acquisition process on its own. If, after having taken this process, the minority shareholders still believe they are not being given a fair price for their shares, it only takes 10 per cent of that minority to object and the matter is referred to a court, where all reasonable court costs would be paid by the 90 per cent holder. The Australian Democrats believe that the passage of our amendment, combined with the exist ing objection procedure, will mean that minority shareholders will be paid a fair price for their shares.The second policy change which I wish to discuss is the mandatory bid rule. At present a person may not acquire more shares in a company if that acquisition would result in their owning more than 20 per cent of the company's shares, unless they make a full takeover bid for the company—that is, they must offer to buy all outstanding shares in the company. The mandatory bid rule would have allowed a person to make a single acquisition taking them over the 20 per cent limit before then being required to offer to buy all outstanding shares. The rationale for the proposed rule is to allow persons to know that they have control of the company with, say, 21 per cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the shares before they are required to offer to purchase the balance.There is the potential for the rule to make takeovers easier and to increase takeover activity, and it is a view that has been formed by the Labor Party and the Democrats that it is desirable in fact to improve and increase takeover activity in the interests of a more efficient and more vibrant economy. Under the present law, when a person who holds less than 20 per cent of the shares in the company announces that they are going to make a takeover offer, there is the potential for other substantial shareholders, or people who may not even be shareholders, to consider making a counteroffer so that the price of the shares is bid upward by two or more competing takeover predators. That is known as the auction process. However, the mandatory bid rule will allow one person or one company to obtain control of the company before the takeover bid is announced. On many occasions that may mean that other potential takeover bidders will not see any point in making a counteroffer because the initial purchaser already has control. The result is that the auction process under which bidders compete for control of the company does not occur and shareholders potentially receive less for their shares than otherwise would have been the case. Before I move on from there, we must also envisage the situation in which shareholders might not wish to accept the mandatory bid and can in fact reject it.The government's announcement in relation to capital gains tax rollover relief for scrip for scrip takeovers will remove a substantial impediment on takeover activity. I take the view that this will have a much greater impact on takeover activity than the introduction of a mandatory bid rule. The point I am making is that, if there are a large number of changes within the proposed bill which will in fact induce greater takeover activity, we might not need to go to this further step, certainly not at this stage. So at this stage the Australian Democrats will not support the introduction of the mandatory bid rule, but we may be prepared to revisit this issue at a future time if it becomes apparent that takeover activity is suffering as a result of the absence of the rule. I do see the government case. I do understand it, and I must say quite clearly on the record that I have had to weigh up the two and, on balance, I have gone for a cautious approach. But the government case is not without merit, and that should be clearly understood.There are a number of other significant changes that have already been mentioned by Senator Conroy. I think it would be appropriate for me to comment on these issues in the committee stage, given that I understand that the Labor Party will be moving amendments in relation to them. I would like to flag that I will be moving an amendment in relation to appointments to both the new Financial Reporting Council and the Takeovers Panel. Those who are watchers of Democrat activity in the chamber will know that this is a chestnut of ours, and I am sure that, given the strong remarks of Senator Conroy with regard to accountability and looking after mums and dads and so on, in the committee stage he will show strong interest in and support for these amendments. I take the view that appointment to these bodies and to government boards in general should be governed by a code so as to enhance the transparency of these appointments and the accountability of the people making the appointments. At present, decisions relating to appointments to government boards, committees or authorities are conducted behind closed doors and the parliament and the public are simply presented with a list of the names of appointees. Our amendment will require the establishment of a code which will need to be complied with when ministers are making appointments. I will discuss these issues further in detail when I come to move the amendment in the committee stage.In closing, I must say to the parliamentary secretary that the Democrats welcome this bill. We support the measures contained in this bill. I am sure there will be amendments on which we will disagree—with the Labor Party, with you or with alliances of each other—but, by and large, the consultative process between the government, the Labor Party and us has resulted in a minimal number of amendments on which there is likely to be contention, and I think that is a very constructive way to approach this process. I want to thank the minister, the parliamentary secretary and Senator Conroy for their cooperation in the discussions we have had to date.17:53:009482Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—Labor recognise the need for corporate reform. Labor have always been at the vanguard of positive and fair reform in the corporate sector. Our credentials are on the record. The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 or CLERP Bill—strange acronym though it might be—comes on the back of six reports on accounting standards, fundraising, directors' duties and corporate governance, takeovers, electronic commerce, and financial markets and investment products.Labor supports—and has demonstrated its ability to contribute positively to—appropriate reform of the Corporations Law to ensure the efficient and effective operation of financial markets. However, this does not mean that you have to embark on a process of financial deregulation without protecting the rights of people. There must be an appropriate regulatory regime to support a flexible market and improved flexibility for business as well. Government must not shrink from its responsibility. It must maintain a proper regulatory regime that keeps both international and domestic confidence in our market and par ticularly the integrity of our financial and capital markets.The CLERP Bill is some 500 pages long and has a body of government sponsored amendments with it. Labor firmly believes that many of the amendments are obviously necessary. However, it must be clearly stated that a balance must be maintained between all participants in the market. This bill does not provide that balance in toto. The CLERP Bill will not deliver a comprehensive, fair reform process. In truth, it will favour some quarters and their interests while leaving some out in the cold.There are four main areas that I wish to comment on this evening: takeovers, accounting standards, fundraising, and directors' duties and corporate governance. Firstly, I will turn briefly to the history of the Corporations Law. The reform process that Labor commenced has continued. Labor started the reform process between the early part of 1989 and 1991 and built upon that reform process. The Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 followed. It dealt with directors' duties, in relation to financial benefits to public company directors; statutory duty of care and diligence; insolvent trading provisions; corporate insolvency, with the introduction of the voluntary administration regime; and reform legislation dealing with liquidations.Labor followed that reform with the Corporate Law Reform Act 1994 and the first Corporation Law Simplification Act 1995. Amongst others, the aim was to bring small business under a regulatory regime. A small business guide was also introduced at that time. The Company Law Review Act 1998 followed. That act aimed to facilitate business and investment by improving the efficiency of corporate regulation and reducing the complexity, regulatory burdens and compliance costs imposed on business.We come to the CLERP Bill before the Senate. This program commenced in early 1997 approximately and reflected the transfer of responsibilities of the Corporations Law from the Attorney-General to the Treasurer. As a consequence, corporate law reform has been developed in a wider economic framework, but one also has to take cognisance of the need to ensure that social and welfare aspects are also taken into account in the proposed bill. It is disappointing to see that the objectives of the CLERP Bill do not include social, welfare and employment matters. Basically, they are to promote the operation of informed markets, encourage higher standards of corporate governance while encouraging directors to be more business focused, encourage the establishment of accounting standards, improve the market for corporate control and create incentives for greater corporate efficiency.Firstly, in respect of the issue of takeovers that I wish to comment on this evening, a number of reforms are proposed. Amongst those is equal opportunity. Clearly, this principle should be retained within the takeover area. Then there is the mandatory bid rule. This would allow changes in corporate control and could be facilitated by allowing acquisitions which would exceed the statutory threshold, provided that the acquisition was immediately followed by the announcement of a full takeover bid. These two deserve special consideration, because they can clash. The promotion of the second can harm the first significantly. The equal opportunity principle is one of the principles enunciated by the Eggleston report of 1969. The principle basically protects the minority shareholders by giving them reasonable and equal opportunity to be part of any change in corporate control. The downside may be that, if small investors do not believe that there is sufficient protection of their interests, they may not invest directly in the market.Secondly, one of the most difficult areas dealt with by the CLERP Bill is the mandatory bid rule. The primary objective of this rule is to facilitate takeover activity—a concept that will test severely the equal opportunity principle that I have mentioned earlier. There needs to be a balance struck between the two. This cannot be in the interests of the minority shareholder. The rule will provide an intending bidder with the opportunity to acquire a parcel of shares and exceed the threshold of 20 per cent of the voting power in the target before publicly announcing a takeover bid, provided certain condi tions are met. The mandatory bid rule will have an adverse impact on the interests of the minority shareholder.Clearly, the mandatory bid rule limits the opportunity for auctions for control, and thus reduces the competitive market for corporate control. It works something like this: the mandatory bid rule would permit control of the company passing before the making of a formal takeover bid. Rival bids and the opportunity for an auction would thus be eliminated. This government knows that an auction would facilitate price competition in the market if that is what it wants.In the absence of this, competition bidders may well acquire targets at lower premiums and shareholders may well receive less than the competitive market rate for their interests. The government may no doubt say that in such circumstances these small shareholders could reject the inadequate bid. Such analysis does not cover the position where the bid results in a transfer of control of the company to the bidder. Where this occurs, the option to reject the bid has been lost. He or she as a consequence may become a minority shareholder, and compulsory acquisition may get them sooner or later. This situation allows the shareholder to be caught by arrangements offered by a bidder with limited prior knowledge of the events. The use of the mandatory bid rule will also provide a situation where there is a concern for oppression or unfairness to the minority shareholder.Turning to corporate governance, two central issues fall under this heading that I wish to speak about this evening: the business judgment rule and the statutory derivative action. I will deal firstly with the business judgment rule. Page 9 of paper No. 3, Directors' duties and corporate governance: facilitating innovation and protecting investors, which I mentioned earlier, sets the scene for the introduction of the business judgment rule, and I quote:In light of more recent judicial decisions which appear to increase the responsibility of directors and create a degree of uncertainty regarding their potential liability, concerns have been expressed that directors' attentions are increasingly being focussed on compliance issues rather than on wealth creation for shareholders. In particular, concerns have been expressed that the Corporations Law contributes to risk-averse behaviour on the part of directors.A few things need to be gleaned from that. Firstly, what does it mean when it talks about `which appear'? `In the light of more recent judicial decisions which appear' seems to have come to an assumption quite of its own merit. It does not have a hard and fast statement. It is not black and white. What it talks about is only `appear'. It then says `to increase the responsibility of directors and create a degree'. It does not say the level of degree that may exist or the degree of uncertainty in truth that may or may not in fact occur. It then goes on to talk about the `potential liability'. In other words, they are all `soft' words. They talk about `potential liability', not whether there is, in fact, a liability.In the final area they say that it may turn them from `risk-averse behaviour on the part of directors' and, as a consequence, business confidence might be deflated or they may not, in fact, invest. There does not seem to be any hard evidence in respect of whether there is a deflation in business confidence. In respect of their attention being turned away, perhaps in certain incidences it should be turned away from greed—or should I say responsible profit maximising behaviour—to issues of compliance. If they did turn their minds to issues of compliance, it would not be such a bad idea.It is not a justification for a safe harbour. Actually I think it is a ploy by Senator Vanstone to bring Skase home. He may very well be able to return and claim a safe harbour visa. I would want assurance that this would not occur. Certainly we want Skase home but not under a safe harbour visa. There is very little case history and even fewer successful prosecutions in this area against irresponsible directors to warrant this rule in this fashion. What is needed is corporate education, a code of behaviour or conduct and managerial expertise. I think in many quarters this is viewed as needing improvement in any event. They do not need a rule to save them. The majority are doing the right thing. The law in Daniels v. Anderson has stampeded the business community, or at least some of the business community, into wanting a safe harbour and perhaps a safe harbour visa. I invite senators to have a look at the appalling behaviour of the so-called business people in that case. Clearly and appropriately the right result was obtained. There is no evidence to suggest that business is stifled and transfixed, certainly not contained within the paper Directors' duties and corporate governance, and certainly none that has been placed before this chamber.There are probably, and no doubt, some shady directors who may be quaking in their boots. I would say it is high time. It is about time that someone took issue with them, and brought in proper compliance and a regulatory regime that took care of them. What is needed is to adopt effective corporate government practices that promote transparency, accountability and, consequently, investor confidence. The rules should encourage risk management techniques, not simply provide relief for incompetent but honest directors. Laws should be made that encourage risk management instead. There is little need to enact this section of legislation in this form. It could be tried as a code, or further discussion made, to see if it fulfils its purpose. Directors who make decisions with due care and diligence and in good faith will continue to work hard and make profits. There is certainly no evidence of them being stifled in that endeavour—certainly not if you believe what the government say in question time about how well they are doing.I turn now to page 65 of the report on the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 . The Australian Labor Party members' report also comments on the matter by saying that the evidence offered to the joint committee on this matter remains unconvincing. So even at that level, where there was the ability to bring submissions to the committee, the evidence was not of a convincing nature. The provision in statutory derivative action allows shareholders to take court action. It replaces the rule in Foss v. Hardbottle. It permits specific persons to bring an action if certain criteria are met. However, in that instance, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission is not included. Turning to section 241 of the proposed bill, this power allows the court to appoint an independent person to investigate and report to the court on the financial affairs of the company, amongst other things. If it is going to take on that responsibility, it is clear that certain protections, or at least commercial-in-confidence provisions, should be put in place. It is unclear, looking at the explanatory memorandum at 6.63, whether that is in fact the case. It is unclear whether a person would be in contempt of court by refusing to cooperate with an investigation. The word `effectively' is put in at 6.63. It does not say yes or no, for that matter. It is difficult to tell whether they would be or they would not.In respect of fundraising, much of the direction of the bill in this regard is not opposed; however, caution should be exercised. If there is a true cost-benefit analysis placed on the bill in this area by the government, it will readily reveal that little real saving is made at the coalface. Measures are needed to ensure that there is an improvement to capital raising for small business and medium enterprises. That is obviously the case and it needs to be examined in detail. If there is new reform in that area then bring it in, but it is certainly not contained in that section.In respect of accounting standards, the bill establishes the Financial Reporting Council—the FRC for short. Caution should be exercised here. In promoting the IASC standards, Australia should be careful in adopting the international accounting standard, especially where the United States has not, especially if the aim is global harmonisation.In conclusion, this bill, although by and large an improvement and targeted at the areas of need, fails to address the critical concerns of small investors about security of shares and of small business about capital raising and reducing risks for mum and dad investors by ensuring good, workable corporate governance principles. It is skewed to big business—as unsurprising as that may be. This government should not embrace it, and the Democrats should likewise be a little more circumspect. In respect of other matters that may be drawn into it: if you are going to look more fully at corporate law reform, corporate law reform in the area of employee entitlements should also be embraced. If you are also going to look at duties of directors and corporate governance, there is perhaps a telling word from the people who previously held the corporate law economic reform area. The Australian Government Solicitor, in a legal briefing of 9 October 1997, came up with a view that supports the earlier submission that I made. The briefing states:In Australia, courts have rarely found directors in breach of their duty except in the most extreme cases of neglect of their responsibilities or in cases involving fraud. In assessing whether the director has been sufficiently diligent, a court might expect the following:. that the directors of a large company would ensure that among their number there should be one or more who are competent in the field of financial management. that the directors of a large company should read, be able to understand and seek any necessary clarification of the key financial information put before the board, such as a balance sheet and a profit and loss statementIt goes on to set out some of the requirements that are embodied in principles of good corporate management. Those are the words of the previous department that looked after the area. You can glean from that that they did not see any need for major reform in that area, other than perhaps significant encouragement by this government in this area.18:11:009486Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, and how appropriate that you should be in the chair at this time. At the outset I thank you, as Chairman of the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities, for the diligent work that you, your committee and the secretariat of that committee did in its detailed consideration of this legislative package. I also thank each of the honourable senators who have contributed to the debate today on what is without doubt the most significant reform to Australia's Corporations Law in the history of this great nation.As previous speakers have said, this government sought back in early 1997 to look at reforming the Corporations Law—and this is how it got its unusual acronym—for an economic purpose. Senator Ludwig referred to the motivations of the government as well as those of people who formerly visited the area of Corporations Law reform, and he referred to social and welfare outcomes of such a process.I think it is fair to say that those of us who have had the privilege to work in this area of public policy find a couple of things. Firstly, it is a relatively dry area of pursuit. It is not an area that will generally land on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, the Sun-Herald or any of the Sunday papers. It is not what my good friend and colleague Senator Vanstone calls a `trolley stopper'. People do not stop in the aisles of supermarkets and say, `The government is reforming Corporations Law. Isn't that good? Isn't that exciting? We'd better vote for them.' But it is an area that does have the potential to impact—and I think Senator Ludwig would understand this—greatly upon the living standards of individual Australians. If you have a Corporations Law that constrains and makes it very hard to establish a business in Australia, to raise funds for that business in Australia, to conduct mergers and acquisitions, to run your accounts and so forth, you will stifle entrepreneurship, you will stifle business development, and you will therefore reduce the employment opportunities of Australians.I think I should make it clear at the outset of this summing up that the government's proposals, in what have become known as CLERP papers 1 to 4 and now this package before the Senate, are to encourage economic activity for the benefit of all Australians. We know that if you do not have productive, successful, profitable, outward-looking growth in the private sector, the nation will not go forward and it will not provide the employment opportunities that people need and deserve—what should be seen as their birthright, but of course is nothing like that. It will only come from sensible actions of government and productive enterprise.The provisions in the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill are therefore not designed to help the big end of town or big business—quite the contrary. If you look closely at the provisions, all of the reforms are designed to assist people who risk their own capital, particularly small investors—I do not like the use of the words `mums and dads' that is creeping into the vernacular lately—such as families, direct investors who have increased in number massively over the last three years, to risk their capital in a well-regulated and transparent corporate environment. It is to assist those people. That is why, when we turn to issues like the mandatory bid rule, the follow-on rule and the takeover reforms, if you ask the Australian Shareholders Association—the peak organisation representing shareholders; a very dynamic and successful organisation on behalf of shareholders when you look at the sort of success they have had at BHP meetings and in the reforms of some of Australia's corporate giants—you will find that even they support the takeover reforms that this government proposes. In fact, they support all of the CLERP proposals, with the exception of the compulsory acquisition provisions.These proposals, which we designed during 1997 and 1998, are designed to assist small shareholders. This government recognises that, if you provide a sound regulatory environment, you will build businesses and you will build employment and shareholders will feel comfortable about investing their capital, their savings, in direct investment in Australian securities and other investments. So that is the driving philosophy behind the Corporations Law Economic Reform Program, which I am very proud to be a part of.Before I go into the process and the policy, I will just quickly rebut some of the arguments made during the second reading debate so that we can move to the committee stage. I will say here, because I can see that the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate has entered the chamber, that, because the Senate has moved to this piece of legislation more quickly than anticipated—that does happen in the Senate from time to time—we intend to adjourn the debate at the end of the second reading on this bill because some of the amendments are not available from some of the parties. We propose to resume the debate later tomorrow morning, when all the amendments will be before us.Having said that, I want to thank some of the people who have been involved in the process that sees this legislation before Australia's parliament at the moment. These names are not in particular order of merit, but I want to thank special people who have made a special contribution to this process, and I will outline the size of that process very briefly. I particularly want to thank people who have been on my staff in the previous couple of years: most importantly, Claire Dalla Costa, who now works for ASIC in Brisbane; Julie Abramson, from the Treasurer's office, who had responsibility for this portfolio and who was a driving force behind these important policy changes—Julie now works at ASIC; and Jenifer Wells, another one of my departmental liaison officers from the business law division, who is now working at IFSA. I also want to particularly thank Jim Murphy, who was the head of the Business Law Division of Treasury throughout this process. He is a phenomenal public servant, a great Australian, whose drive and enthusiasm for this policy reform really assisted me in what was an incredibly complex and challenging task. There were many other people in the Business Law Division. Many of them are in the advisers' box here today, so I will not name them as they will probably go bright red. But it was a great pleasure and honour to actually work with that very focused group of Australian public servants in the Business Law Division. I am not sure how many are members of the CPSU, but I am sure that does not matter. They are great Australians, regardless.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Are you suggesting that if they were, they wouldn't be?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am sure that many of them are and that many of them are great Australians in spite of that. I also thank some people from the private sector. There are probably thousands of people who were involved in the consultations on this legislation. It is a credit to their work that it looks as though, at this stage, the legislation will move through the Senate relatively unscathed. I have already thanked the Australian Shareholders Association, or at least mentioned them, for their support for the great majority of the measures in this bill. I want to thank personally Ted Rofe, the Executive Director of the Australian Shareholders Association, who has given up an enormous amount of his own time to be involved in this process; Lyn Ralph, from IFSA, an organisation that was formed out of three disparate groups of people with an interest in this area; and Richard Gilbert, of course, who has taken a close interest in this process of CLERP. I also want to thank another group which ended up, like the policy itself, with an unfortunate acronym—BRAG. The Business Regulatory Advisory Group was established by the Treasurer and me to form a private sector sounding board for the policy proposals. They worked day after day, reviewing the policy proposals and the legislative proposals, doing a lot of work in their own time, to provide the government with quality private sector real-life practical experience for these measures. I want to name them personally. Having named all these people, I am sure I have missed people so, to the people I have missed, I apologise at the outset. They are: Bob Nottle, Leigh Hall, Peter Barnett, John Murray, Jeoffrey Lucy, Cathy Walter, who is the chairman of BRAG, Les Taylor, Rohan Jeffs and Malcolm Starr—I thank all of you for the work that you put in, and I know you continue to put in, to this process.I will move quickly to the process. I am really not trying to delay this debate, because I think it is important that we move to the committee stage quickly. The process involved two years of significant policy development and consultation. We did three laps of Australia, going to all capital cities on at least three occasions, holding roundtables, seminars and one to one discussions with just about anyone who had any interest whatsoever in corporate law in Australia. That is why I think the body of this policy can be said to represent a consensus of opinion about how Australia's corporate law should be reviewed. You are never going to get unanimity in these matters, but we did seek to find some balan ces. That brings the legislation, finally, to the Senate after a significant consultation process. I think it was a very useful process. If it was not, it was certainly hard work. I think it has produced very good policy. I guess the test of the pudding will be in the eating and in the implementation of it.We have had some criticism from Labor about some of the policies. I find a bit of it not so much disturbing but surprising. Senator Conroy, who has been involved in this process not from day one but fairly soon after that, has generally been supportive of what we are doing. I have gone to great efforts to ensure that the relevant people in the opposition and the Democrats were involved, from the initial presentation of the policy discussion papers and the building of CLERP from the ground up. We have certainly had a very open and transparent consultative process. I tried to involve them because, as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, I thought that one day we would get here with a piece of legislation and it would be better if they were part of the process.I am certainly a little disappointed and a little shocked, because the rhetoric from the Labor Party has been that they support CLERP and the aspirations of it in virtually all of the key areas of reform. With accounting standards, they do not really want an FRC to have control. They are worried about moving to international standards, which we do not define. We made a very clear policy decision to not define what sort of standards we want to go to. They say that they want to support fund raising reform, yet they oppose the sensible reforms to the sophisticated investor test. In the area of takeovers, they oppose the mandatory bid rule and the compulsory acquisition rule. It is good to see that they at least support the panel reforms. Their stance on directors' duties is incredibly surprising after the government took the lead from an excellent report presented to this parliament in November 1989 by a committee chaired by Senator Cooney, who basically supported a business judgment rule back in 1989.The government relied on no less than four reports, two of them to this parliament. One was a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 1991. A CASAC report was commissioned by the then Labor government's Attorney-General. There were the reports of the Cooney committee and the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee. There were four reports—most of them to Labor Attorneys-General, and certainly from committees chaired by Labor politicians—which recommended a business judgment rule, not to lower the standard of directors' duties and responsibilities but to ensure that if the director made a decision in good faith, had informed himself or herself, and had done it at arm's length so that there was no illegality or lack of good faith, then they would have a safe harbour. One of the problems with directors, clearly identified by both shareholders and directors, is that they become incredibly risk averse because of court decisions and litigation that try to second guess directors' decisions years, and potentially decades or more, after those decisions have been taken. So it is very hard in many parts of Australia to find directors who will take on the responsibility of directors because of the significant litigation risk.This government looked at those reports and made a decision that we would proceed with a very cautious and conservative safe harbour proposal, based on many of the recommendations of Senator Cooney's excellent work, balanced with a new statutory power for shareholders to take action against the company and funded by the company. It is a classic demonstration of the balancing this government sought to bring into its deliberations. It was not something to please the big end of town; in fact, many of the things we are doing are not popular at the big end of town.That brings me to the mandatory bid rule. The mandatory bid rule, contrary to the rhetoric that has been flying around this place and outside, is not designed to encourage takeover activity. That is not the policy goal, although it may possibly be a benefit of it. I think Senator Conroy said in his speech that the opposition agrees that there may be economic benefit in increased takeover activi ty. It may be a pedantic point that I am about to make, but I will make it anyway. What we aim to do is to increase the market for corporate control. We want more competition and more pressure to be placed on directors, particularly at the big end of town. Senator Ludwig was looking for some evidence of why we are doing this. You need look only at international comparative tables of takeover activity. Compare the London market, the US market and the Canadian market with the Australian market and there is a massive difference between the level of takeover activity. Boards, or directors, are at much greater risk of takeover in those other jurisdictions because the takeover laws facilitate that.In the city of London, arguably one of the best regulated corporate affairs markets in the world, the mandatory bid rule and the follow-on rule have been in place for three decades. They still have auctions—the mandatory bid rule does not get rid of an auction. The mandatory bid rule ensures that all shareholders get the benefit of a takeover made under that rule. The auction system stays in place. The person who is offered money for their shares has the right to say, `I'll ring around and see if I can get a better offer.' There are dopes out there who may say, `I have a potentially controlling interest in a company and I'll take the first offer that comes up.' There is nothing that senators can do to stop the dope from selling their car, their house or their shares too cheaply, but if a sensible person was made an offer on their house that they thought may not be the best offer, they would probably ring up a real estate agent and ask them if they could get a better price. I have to say that most people who are offered a price for their shares will ring up a merchant bank or a stockbroker and say, `This bloke has just offered me 30 cents for my shares. What do you think?' That stockbroker will quickly try to find someone who can do better, because he will get a commission out of it, so the concept that you get rid of the auction—that you get rid of a market for shares—is absolute baloney.I believe that the mandatory bid, contrary to what its opponents have been saying, is in fact very much in the shareholders' interests, because, with the reforms to the panel, ensuring that litigation is reduced and that the panel quickly resolves disputes and lets the takeovers move on, combined with the reforms to the capital gains tax treatment of scrip for scrip takeovers, you will find, with the mandatory bid, that small shareholders will have the benefit of far more offers for their shares. That is what we are aiming for.That covers some of the areas. We will have to go into a lot more detail in the committee stage but I very sincerely thank all other senators for their contributions and commend this most excellent bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That consideration of this bill in the committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills9490r8859490Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Senator Patterson:That this bill be now read a second time.18:32:009490Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—by leave—I am obliged to the Senate for granting leave for me to speak on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 . The second reading speech, which was incorporated, I believe was in terms of 1998 figures. Of course, it should be now couched in 1999 final figures to match the explanatory memorandum which was tabled. The $36.3 million in relation to literacy and numeracy should now be $38.3 million. The $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy should now be $27.9 million. In relation to $10.1 million under the capital grants program, that should now be $10.3 million. And in relation to short-term emer gency assistance, the $1.9 million should now be $2 million. I hope that assists the Senate accordingly.18:33:009490Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:At the end of the motion, add:"but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) using the important issue of literacy in a cynical political fashion; and (b) failing to provide government schools with additional resources in line with its increased expenditure for the non-government sector".The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to give effect to a number of budget measures which, as has just been indicated by the minister, actually changed from the time at which the bill was introduced. I note that the government is chopping and changing with its legislative program. While the opposition seeks to assist the government in the processing of legislation, it would serve the parliament a great deal if the government could actually provide a little bit of notice so that speakers could prepare to come on in the chamber. Notwithstanding the fact that the government has clearly mismanaged its program so completely—again—I think it is important to point out that this is a bill that seeks to provide $38 million for the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan and for the literacy improvement strategies for the middle years of schooling, and $27.9 million for the year 2000 to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy.I think everyone now recognises that Dr Kemp's grand plan for self-promotion and self-aggrandisement via the literacy issue has run out of puff. He has been sidelined by the announcements in August this year by New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT that they were undertaking nationally comparable tests, with Queensland to participate next year. The fact that these states—and only one had a Labor government at the time—went out of their way to exclude the federal minister shows the contempt with which those who actually run schools view Dr Kemp's political grandstanding on such an important issue.The initiative shows the value of cooperation and bipartisanship over the bullying and headline grabbing strategies that Dr Kemp has been pursuing. Dr Kemp would have us believe that he invented concern about literacy, whereas basic skills testing has been happening in New South Wales since 1987 and in Victoria and South Australia since 1995, well before Dr Kemp actually became a minister. We never hear a single word from the federal minister about the Keating government's Early Literacy Program or the fact that it was Labor which set up the National Schools English Literacy Survey, whose results Dr Kemp manipulates so shamelessly.On 14 September 1997, after locking the states into silence on the issue of the survey results until Monday, 15 September, Dr Kemp appeared on the Sixty Minutes program to pre-empt the states and put his own spin on the survey results and his interpretation of them. The education ministers from Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania—and I repeat that at the time all had conservative governments—co-authored a media release which said:The ministers call on Dr Kemp to cease his cynical political stunts.The then Minister for Education in the Kennett government, Mr Phil Gude, called Dr Kemp a `spin doctor'. As recently as 9 August this year, Mr Gude said on a Four Corners program, and I hope the minister takes particular note of this advice:Well, I think what he was clearly trying to do was to gain a profile on an issue, and I thought it was not cricket, if you like . . . to use the kids, use the teachers, use the profession in that way.That is what Mr Gude said. He also said:I've found in my life that honesty has never got me into any trouble.What an extraordinary revelation. It is a pity Dr Kemp did not hear that message. I might say that it is a pity that a few others in the Victorian government did not hear that message before the election results in that state in recent weeks. The interviewer went on to say:You accused him at the time of deliberately and mischievously manipulating data to portray literacy at a perilous level.Mr Gude said:Yes, I did . . . because I believe that's what was done.The fact is that there is very little gloss left on this issue for the minister—or indeed on any other issue for this minister. He has been exposed on the literacy issue. His incompetent handling of the Job Network led to his demotion following the last election. He followed that with promises of a research green paper which was six months late and which turned out to be not worth waiting for. He has been prodded into action by the opposition on issues like the various vocational education and training rorts and, of course, on the various scandals which are being revealed in education for overseas students.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—One college.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Thirty colleges, Minister. I look forward to you providing the same level of attention to those other colleges that have been named in this chamber that you have in terms of the National College of Australia. I note that it took you the better part of three months to find out about it—an extraordinary level of negligence by this government. On top of that, the minister has saddled this government with his disastrous—9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Six weeks.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—That is not quite the case. The college collapsed in June. My concerns to the government were registered well before I asked a question in this chamber. The Prime Minister, on 23 September, was so restrained in his praise of the education minister and he found the words that he did only by scrabbling for something positive to say about various members of his frontbench. Quite clearly, what has happened is that Dr Kemp has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister, and I believe he has lost the confidence of most people.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—That's why he's still the minister for education.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Only just. We will wait and see just how long that lasts. I also suggest that the National Asian Languages and Stud ies in Australian Schools program—or NALSAS—is another policy area where Dr Kemp would have us believe that history began on the day he was sworn in as minister. He is fulsome in his praise for this program and its value in developing cultural understanding and skills for participation in the global economy, but he never mentions that it was established under the Keating government, with the strong support of the Goss government in Queensland.Other Labor initiatives which Dr Kemp has sought to claim credit for are the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation and the Jobs Pathway program. Regarding the latter, he actually said in parliament on 25 August that the Jobs Pathway program had been established by the coalition. Dr Kemp tries to take credit for good ideas. Given that he has so few of them himself, you can understand why he is so happy to steal those of others. His contribution to policy development has been zero. He is driven solely by an ideological obsession with privatisation, cost cutting and union bashing.I now turn to the issue of teacher professional development, for which the budget included an announcement of $77.7 million over four years. The minister said in parliament on 2 September that the money was provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 1). However, that was not the case. Appropriation bills are for only one year at a time. So $15 million of the $78 million has been legislated for. I ask why we are not able to see the funds in the States Grants Act, through which the vast bulk of school funding is channelled and which legislates funds for four years. It is important for us to see where this money is legislated. It is appropriate that the minister, in his concluding remarks, explains to us exactly where that money is legislated. Is it because no descriptions of individual programs are now included in the appropriation bills, and this initiative could disappear next year or the year after, with very little evidence and before the promised $78 million has been delivered? I challenge the minister to deliver on the rest of the promises, to legislate for the remaining $62 million and to do so in an open and accountable way. Final ly, I should point out that the funding of teacher professional development is yet another Labor initiative which the Howard government has now endorsed and adopted, having cut the program in previous budgets.This bill deals with initiatives in school funding announced in this year's budget. On the subject of school funding and the budget, I have some quite serious issues that I would like to pursue. I note that the officers are present. I think it has become an annual event to go through some of these questions. It is obvious that, at major expense, the Howard government has sent to all schools—government and non-government—boxes and boxes of glossy brochures full of self-promotions, accompanied by a covering letter to parents which has sought to request the principals to distribute government propaganda. The minister should be able to tell us how much of the taxpayers' money was used in this outrageous exercise. I am sure that at the committee stage of the bill we will be able to pursue this question. I also ask whether he can tell us how many of the principals advised that they were not distributing the material. I turn to the content of the letters and brochures. The brochure accompanying the letter to the government school parents claims that—and I quote:Direct Federal funding for government schools has risen between 1996 and 2000 by 25 per cent, or $382 million.The reality, however, is very different. The fact is that costs in schooling have risen by 12 per cent since 1996 and enrolments have increased. The minister clearly wants parents to believe that government schools have more Commonwealth money to spend on more things than they need.Let us see whether we can set the record straight. Once adjusted for cost increases, my calculations indicate that expenditure will increase by only one-hundredth of what Dr Kemp claims—that is, $3 million. That is about $1.50 for each student. The fact is that a dollar is only worth what it will buy. If someone had a dollar to cover the cost of a loaf of bread five years ago, they would now need $1.30 to buy the same item. When we give a person $1.30 that does not mean that they are provided with a 30 per cent funding increase. In real terms, there has been no increase. Looking at the dollars in real terms, Commonwealth funding increases by about $3 million between 1996 and 2000. But what happens when we adjust for enrolment increases? For this I used the funded enrolments used by DETYA for each of the years, in order to maintain consistency.My calculations indicate that, on a per student basis, direct Commonwealth funding has fallen from just over $606 in 1996 to less than $598 four years later. Let me repeat that: direct Commonwealth funding per government school student actually declines over the period 1996 to 2000. So much for this government's claims of increased funding.The government seeks to defend itself by claiming that the bulk of funding for government schools is provided by the states and territories. It then goes on to claim that the pool of money from which states and territories provide funding for schools is growing in real terms. The Prime Minister told parliament on 13 May this year:The major call on the budgets of most state governments—not the only call, of course, but one of the major calls—is government education. In the coming financial year, the financial assistance grants going to the Australian states will rise by something close to five per cent in real terms. It is therefore stark obvious that all of the governments of the Australian states will have more resources to fund government schools.The claim that in 1999-2000 Commonwealth financial assistance grants to the states and territories will rise by almost five per cent in real terms was also repeated in answer to Senate estimates question No. E2, which I asked on 8 June this year. I can only presume that the same level of bodgie advice that has been provided to the Prime Minister has been provided to the Senate estimates committee. In Dr Kemp's open letter to parents, which I referred to earlier, he stated:The 1999 Commonwealth Budget provided a 3 per cent real increase in Financial Assistance Grants to the States which they can use to further increase funding for governments schools.So, is the increase five per cent or three per cent? The answer is: none of the above. Budget Paper No. 3 states that financial assistance grants, or FAGs, have been maintained this year in real per capita terms; that is, they have been adjusted for price increases and population growth only. There is no additional, discretionary funding available for states to spend on schools or anything else. The same point has to be made again and again because it is quite clear that the departmental officials have not got the message. They keep repeating the same errors and the same advice to government. One can only presume that it is either the department providing bodgie advice to government or bodgie advice is being provided by government to the Australian people. We look forward to an explanation of which it is.The second point is that this is the same government which told us repeatedly that its $1.6 billion cut to FAGs in 1996 would have no impact on state spending on government schools. So an increase means more money but a cut means no less money—an extraordinary jump in logic. This is the nature of the propaganda that we have seen coming out of this government. It is very interesting mathematics but meaningless in many ways because the claim of an increase in FAGs simply is wrong. However, the government has a second string to its bow in seeking to defend itself against government school funding critics, and the second string is just as flimsy as the first. The open letter to parents says:The Government's New Tax System will also deliver to the States significant increases which can allow more funds to be directed to government schools.Official government estimates are that GST revenue will not even match the current level of FAGs for at least three years. So the Commonwealth has had to give a written assurance to the states and territories that it will provide additional funds as necessary to top up any shortfall, which may well be on an indefinite basis.There is no justification for the Commonwealth to reduce the proportion of its funding for government schools ahead of a demonstrable improvement in the position of the states and territories in terms of the available discretionary resources to make up such a shortfall. Of course, that is exactly what is happening. The answer to Senate estimates question E3, which I asked on 8 June this year, shows that the proportion of direct Commonwealth funding going to government schools will fall to 35.3 per cent in 2003, down from 41.5 per cent in 1996, and that is before one extra cent of GST revenue—over and above what they would have received under the old system—will have been received by the states.What we are seeing is a pattern of deceit being exercised by this government in so far as it makes claims of increasing moneys being made available to the states and claims about increased moneys being available for education in this country when, in fact, the opposite is the case. The government's defence on these issues has no substance. The people of Australia need to understand that the Howard government is actively working to undermine public education in this country.The ALP, in contrast, is happy to support additional resources going to needy non-government schools, but there must be extra resources given to the government schools in line with those additional resources going to private sector schools, and funding initiatives must be presented in a balanced way. Dr Kemp tries to tell us that the government does not favour one school sector over another, but the fact is, as shadow minister—Debate interrupted.Documents949410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! It being 6.50 p.m., the debate is interrupted and we move to consideration of government documents. There are 38 government documents listed for consideration on today's Order of Business , and there is a limit of half an hour for their consideration. To expedite the consideration of the documents, I propose, with the concurrence of honourable senators, to call the documents in groups of five. Documents not called on today will remain on the Notice Paper . 949418:50:009494Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.In speaking to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 1989-99 annual report, it is probably no coincidence that I find some of the areas outlined in it most interesting, particularly the Office of the Status of Women, given the announcement by that office in the last week or so in regard to funding. This report provides quite an insight into what the Office of the Status of Women was like in the previous year. A number of elements are worth drawing the Senate's attention to. No doubt, with keen interest, I will be seeking to continue my remarks on this later.In particular, the report mentions a total of 37 organisations applying for funding last year under the national women's non-government organisation funding programs and says that, of those 37 organisations, 13 applications were found to be ineligible. Obviously nine did not get any funding at all, but the interesting thing, in light of this week's decision and the debate which happened in the House of Representatives this afternoon, is that last year, of these remaining applicants, 13 organisations were considered to meet the criteria to a high degree and were funded to a total of $500,000. Of course, we know that, in light of this week's decision, those 13 organisations have now been reduced to only three and they will be sharing in $300,000.I also notice in this report that last year's women's roundtable meeting held in Parliament House over two days in August was attended by 50 women's non-government organisations. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women also held five regional roundtable meetings. People should be aware that next week the Office of the Status of Women's roundtable is happening again, but what is notable about next week is those who have not been invited. Only 20 women's non-government organisations have been invited, so what happened to the other 30? They got a letter saying, `You're not coming', or `Don't bother to come next week.' In light of this annual report, it will be very interesting to see what next year's annual report produces for us. It provides a great area for further explanation during the Senate estimates round coming up in a couple of weeks.This report also says, under the status of women, that responsibility for monitoring the implementation of Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women rests with the Office of the Status of Women. But it does not go on to say how they have done that; whether, in fact, they have done it; how comprehensively they have done it; or whether they have not done it all. It just states, as a matter of fact, that they have responsibility for it. We all know that, and I find that this annual report is fairly deficient in providing us with information about how they have gone about it.They also say they are responsible for representing the government at relevant international forums. One will await the next estimates in December to hear how well the Office of the Status of Women was represented quite recently at the ILO, where the Australian government suggested that women in this country should be subjected to pregnancy tests prior to being employed. I notice that there is no mention of that sort of policy or that thought from the government in this annual report. There are a number of statements in this report that are not backed up by either evidence or claims about exactly what the Office of the Status of Women is doing. This is not surprising for those of us who have been following the path of the OSW in recent years.In my remaining time, I think it is also worthy to note on page 41 a statement about the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway. In view of the limited time we have tonight, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.949518:57:009495Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The reason I would like the Senate to take note of this document tonight is that this is the Reserve Bank's Equal Employment Opportunity Annual Report , and we rarely get an opportunity to highlight some of the elements within the workplace that provide a plan for equal employment opportunity. We should take note of some of the initiatives and compliment the Reserve Bank of Australia not only for printing this but also on the content. In the brief time I have had today to look at this report, I felt that, while there can always be many improvements in terms of equal employment opportunity, this document is a good start. In their report they say that, as part of their EEO program, a new EEO plan was developed to cover the period from July 1997 to June 1999. This report seeks to outline the advances that they have made in this. As part of this program, the proportion of women at management levels within their organisation has continued to rise, although they make note that it is particularly women who are yet to take up the options of training and retraining, particularly in some of the lower paid classifications.One of the areas that are most worthy of highlighting is their intent to improve the rate of long-term retention of women following parental leave. In 1998-99, the return rate of women from parental leave was the lowest since 1989-90. Through their plan, the Reserve Bank have sought to improve that. The evidence in this report shows that they have had some success.They say in their report that the low rate of return was largely guaranteed due to restructuring over the past year, and that the bank has sought to improve return rates in the future with changes negotiated in its productivity bargaining agreement of 1999-2000. So, despite some of the evidence that the government would like us to believe, here we have a successful department working well with the union through a productivity agreement, not individual contracts, that has brought about positive changes in the workplace. These changes will limit parental leave absences to 12 months but with the provision of assured access to part-time work on return for a minimum period of six months.They have done an evaluation of the representation of women in courses of study during the year and they are honest enough to say that there is still some underrepresentation of women at the lower classification levels but that the gender gap has narrowed in most of the classification levels. They have set out a range of family friendly initiatives that they have sought to introduce, such as producing a booklet on managing people with disabilities. They have also looked at their staff selection and recruitment procedures. They have taken steps to enhance the integrity of the selection panel arrangements. They have revised their traineeship program. They have encouraged their supervisors to assess their employees' training and development needs through performance appraisal processes, and they have introduced self-paced learning which has provided staff with options for development which can be organised around work and home commitments.This report also details their initiatives in relation to salary sacrificing for child care, job sharing, part-time leave and a carer's leave trial. It is important that from time to time we note that there are sections of the government that are seeking to improve family friendly practices and implementing EEO plans for women in the work force. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.9496The following government document was considered:Telstra Corporation Limited—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Crossin. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Crossin in continuation.Adjournment9496UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.949619:02:009496Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I rise this evening to make a few brief remarks on matters pertaining to the continuing humanitarian efforts in particular in East Timor. Senators would know—as I suspect I have been telling them ad nauseam since my return—that I was a member of the Australian Observer Delegation for the Popular Consultation in East Timor. Because much of the post Popular Consultation preparation for humanitarian efforts was being carried out in Darwin in the Northern Territory, I undertook a visit to Darwin at the end of the last sitting week. There were large numbers of international aid workers based there at that stage doing an enormous amount of coordination and work on preparations for the full humanitarian effort in East Timor.I undertook the visit to Darwin as the President of the UNICEF Parliamentary Association. I thought it would be a very valuable opportunity to see what UNICEF was doing and, although one cannot always do a great deal, to offer at least moral support in this context. I want to place on record my sincere appreciation and grateful thanks to Ms Mirna Yacoub, a UNICEF program officer usually based in Sydney, who was my guide and highly informative adviser for the visit. She had made an exceptional effort to set up the UNICEF presence in Darwin from effectively a blank sheet. In doing that, she had to establish some effective office operations and assist a number of international UNICEF officers in their efforts in East Timor.She arranged a very valuable meeting for me with some of those people, including Mr Brian Clear, who is usually based in Pyongyang, Mr Buddy Tillet, usually based in New York, and Mr Mark Thomas, who I believe is usually based in Bangkok. We were able to discuss UNICEF's operations in this crisis context as it is playing out in East Timor. Mr Tillet had just spent 10 or 12 days in East Timor as part of the initial operations. He had seen the initial roll-out of aid. He described for me the fly-over of many of the western areas of East Timor. His particularly vivid descriptions of areas that our observer delegation had visited brought home to me in particular the extent of the destruction wrought in some areas.I also, over an extended period, visited the area known as the `tent city', which had housed so many of the East Timorese refugees flown into Darwin out of the very difficult circumstances in Dili just after the Popular Consultation. The commander of the tent city was a Northern Territory police officer, Mick Heythuysen, a very impressive person who had an excellent operation under way in the tent city. I was particularly impressed with the efforts of both government and non-government groups in that operation. At that stage, there were still more than 200 refugees there. There were many families with young children, and one can only imagine the trauma that that sort of experience causes. There was a significant number of Northern Territory government public servants supporting that process. There was a fantastic medical clinic very impressively set up within the tent city.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—A great bunch of things.M56Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNE—I am supporting that sincerely, Senator Crossin. The registration and tracking of the refugees was undertaken with an excellent custom designed computer program for which, I understand, another young officer from the Northern Territory Police was responsible. The tents of the tent city were set up by the Army. There was a very impressive kitchen, which had entailed some very valuable East Timorese expert supervision of the caterers to ensure that the food was appropriate for the refugees and their families.A very important component of this whole process was the operation of the local Catholic clergy in holding mass regularly and enabling the East Timorese to worship as they wished. The entertainment and amusements for the children were diverse and very valuable for them in terms of diverting their attention from a difficult circumstance and minimising, if at all possible, the trauma they had undergone. As part of that there was a very heavy involvement of the Northern Territory's East Timorese community, in ensuring that their country men and women and their families were well looked after. And of course there was involvement of Commonwealth agencies—in particular the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.One of the things that the commander in particular showed me in some detail was the map that they had placed in the registration area for the refugees, which very clearly showed them how close Darwin was to East Timor. The dislocation that one feels must be extraordinary, and to actually be able to visualise that distance, they said, was very important to the refugees and very valuable for them.Everybody to whom I spoke in Darwin, without exception, noted the extraordinary job, the extraordinary contribution, of both the Northern Territory government and the City of Darwin Council to this entire process. It was not just in relation to the tent city, but in relation to the whole effort of moving humanitarian aid into East Timor from Darwin. It was a ringing message. The internationals present in Darwin could not thank Australia enough—no matter where they came from, no matter what their involvement.UNICEF also took me to visit the two particular warehouses where stores were located before transportation to East Timor. A UNAMET worker who had previously been in East Timor for three or four months was coordinating that process. You can imagine trying to do that for a diversity of agencies, a diversity of governments and with a diversity of methods of transportation. It was an enormous challenge for him and for those involved to do that—by air or sea, whether it was UNICEF, CARITAS, Medecins Sans Frontieres or the World Food Program. We are talking about food and emergency rations, particularly for babies, about water containers and about the practical basics of office infrastructure, like bits and pieces of photocopiers and faxes, which begged the question about the use of power. Those warehouses were well set up and well coordinated to achieve all of that.I had the opportunity also to visit the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, again in space donated by the government of the Northern Territory, where there were dozens of people from all over the world and from every conceivable international agency operating in that area. I received a briefing from the World Food Program, and we have seen in recent days many of the pictures of the distribution of rice in East Timor. Its implementing partner, World Vision, was working on that. Just to give some perspective on that process, the World Food Program plans to feed over 600,000 people for six months. This is not two or three weeks—or two or three months, for that matter. The World Food Program and its partners are coordinating to provide food for work, seed protection, small-scale infrastructure rehabilitation projects and general supporting guidance in the promotion of food security for the East Timorese.At that level there was a very impressive level of coordination, of which I would like to make note. In the Senate references committee inquiry into East Timor, many witnesses were concerned about how and whether aid provision will be effectively coordinated. I left that particular day in Darwin with a very positive impression of the agencies working well together—both UN and non-UN. One imagines that there are always healthy tensions involved in this process when you bring together a group of people who have never worked together before, but it seemed to me that OCHA was doing a very good job at making sure people did work together. The day I was there, for example, I witnessed the establishment of a couple of meetings that were part of that whole process of making sure that—in colloquial terms—the left hand knew what the right hand was doing.It was a particularly useful visit at the time, and I was very grateful for the time of the UNICEF people in particular. We have spoken again with UNICEF this week to see how matters have progressed. In terms of East Timor itself, UNICEF has now established a formal office in Dili. They have seven individuals working out of that office and they have started the distribution of the most important components of their programs, which, in an emergency situation like this, are obviously in support of, particularly, mothers and children. The goods that I saw in the warehouses in Darwin have been effectively transported and distributed, more importantly, throughout East Timor.There are ongoing problems. In simple terms they are issues of security, which are affecting all operations in East Timor; issues of supplies—basic office supplies and the basic supplies of everyday life; and issues of accommodation—the more staff one has, the more difficult that becomes. Food is still being sent in for the UNICEF staff in East Timor. The electricity and water situations are best described as variable. Most importantly, the efforts of UNICEF and other international organisations are beginning to bear fruit. They are very productive efforts, and Australia has made in its efforts through its preparatory work in Darwin and in more general terms an enormous and effective contribution to that entire process. I place again on record my thanks to UNICEF in the Northern Territory for assisting with my visit.949819:12:009498Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Tonight I rise to speak on something that I feel quite strongly about, not only because of its effect on me personally but also because it has recently been recognised as an issue of national importance. I refer to the medical condition of asthma, being recognised during Australia's National Asthma Week.It is hard to ignore the significance of asthma as a health issue in Australia. Asthma affects one in four children, around one in seven adolescents and one in 10 adults. What is more, its prevalence is on the rise in Australia. With over two million asthma sufferers in this country, there would be few people who did not know someone who is an asthma sufferer. Asthma has had a major impact on our use of medical services in Australia. It is the most common reason for hospital admission among young children and one of the top 10 reasons that Australians visit their GP. It has been estimated that asthma costs the Australian community in excess of $700 million. But its importance is not limited to its impact on our health resources. Asthma is a very stressful condition. It causes major disruption to the lives of sufferers, their friends and loved ones. This is particularly the case for parents of asthmatic children. Asthma is a major cause of school and work absenteeism and can seriously affect the quality of the lives of its sufferers.I read recently that evidence is also emerging that asthmatic children suffer more sleep disturbance, which can affect memory and concentration. As someone with a passionate interest and belief in the importance of education to children's futures, I find this evidence worrying. I believe that it strengthens the case for making the management of asthma a priority. Last but not least, asthma remains an important cause of premature deaths in Australia. Over 700 people died from asthma in Australia in 1997. With an estimated 60 per cent of these deaths being preventable, improving the management of asthma in our community is a goal few could argue with.In June of this year, the Minister for Health was asked about the government's intentions in relation to the health problem of asthma. In responding to this question, the minister outlined the government's commitment to a national campaign aimed at improving the management of asthma, gathering information about its causes and increasing asthma awareness in the community. At this time, the minister unveiled his plan to make asthma Australia's sixth national health priority, also referring to the fact that not all state and territory governments supported the move.Following this announcement, I wrote to the Northern Territory's Minister for Health, Steve Dunham, to seek his position on the proposal. In his response the minister did not commit himself to whether or not he would support the proposal to make asthma the sixth national health priority at the next health ministers' meeting. However, he did raise a number of issues which suggest that he was not entirely enthusiastic about it. He had three major reservations about asthma being made a national health priority. His first reservation was about focusing on a single disease rather than seeking to address chronic diseases more generally, for example chronic respiratory diseases. His argument was based on the fact that many preventable chronic diseases have common risk factors. The Northern Territory has recently adopted a chronic preventable disease strategy for this reason, and I support such a move, but I want to return later to the Territory government's lack of commitment to dealing with an important risk factor in asthma and other preventable chronic diseases, if I have the time.The second point that the Northern Territory health minister raised against making asthma a national health priority was related to the asthma management. The minister stated in his letter that general practitioners carried the main responsibility for asthma management. This ignores the significant role that the public health system does and should play in the management of asthma, as does the well-known and well-publicised Asthma Foundation. For example, for the 1998-99 year, 20 per cent of all paediatric presentations to casualty in Territory hospitals for respiratory problems were related to asthma. Of adults attending a casualty department, 26 per cent of those seeking emergency help with a respiratory problem had asthma or suspected asthma. So it is important to remember that state and territory governments have a significant responsibility for emergency care for asthma patients.The health minister also argued that asthma is not a particularly serious health problem in the Territory's indigenous community. He stated that rates of asthma among both Aboriginal adults and children are lower than rates of asthma for non-Aboriginal Territorians. Last month a national asthma conference was held in Darwin, with keynote addresses from Northern Territory experts addressing this very issue. It would seem that these people are less certain than the minister that asthma rates are lower in the indigenous community, particularly in the case of adults. In any event, the relationship between asthma and other chronic respiratory diseases which cause premature death is a long way from being fully understood. But refining our understanding and management of all respiratory disease is surely vital, particularly given the fact that Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory are around 60 times more likely to die from chronic obstructive lung disease than non-Aboriginal women in the Territory.As I stated earlier, the chronic disease strategy adopted by the Northern Territory government has undoubted merit because it addresses a number of the common contributing factors to health problems such as cardiovascular disease and chronic respiratory disease. But, as I have already said in this place some weeks ago in an adjournment debate, the Northern Territory government has thus far failed to take sufficient responsibility in addressing one of the major contributors to this problem and a major problem for asthma sufferers. That is cigarette smoking. During National Heart Week this year, the Territory government's unsatisfactory performance on addressing juvenile smoking received considerable attention. It is pleasing to see that the Territory government is now addressing the issue of the sale of tobacco to minors a bit more vigorously, though. Another development since I spoke in this place last on the subject is the Northern Territory government's release of a draft tobacco strategy for 1999-2001. This document contains many existing methods to reduce the rate of smoking and its harmful effects. There are also new strategies to reduce smoking among Aboriginal people and young Territorians. These new strategies involve education, health promotion and creating greater awareness of the Territory's existing law under which the sale of tobacco to minors is an offence.But we know that education strategies are not enough to reduce smoking and its harmful effects in the community. We know that governments need to go further than merely encouraging people to stop smoking or trying to convince them not to start in the first place. Unfortunately, in the area of tobacco legislation the Northern Territory government is seriously lagging. For example, so far the Northern Territory government has refused to legislate on smoking in public places, preferring to encourage such practices. Yet three other states already have passed legislation banning smoking in public places, and others are moving in this direction. At the very least, workers deserve to be protected from occupational exposure to the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, and legislation is the only way of guaranteeing this. In this regard, the Territory government's draft tobacco strategy includes the development of best practice model legislation, but it makes no commitment to enacting such legislation in a given time frame.The promotion of tobacco products is another area that the Territory government has so far refused to act on. This means that tobacco companies are unrestricted in promoting their products through promotional give-aways and free samples. I understand that some of these activities extend to Aboriginal communities in the Territory. This lack of regulation is of great concern, especially given the much higher incidence of premature death from respiratory disease among Aborigines and the role that smoking plays in these diseases. Territory Health Services' own draft strategy notes that in the Top End of the Northern Territory over 80 per cent of Aboriginal men and more than 70 per cent of Aboriginal women smoke. Point of sale advertising is also currently unrestricted and, while the strategy talks about the necessity of eliminating these means of promoting tobacco products, the only commitment is to have completed a review of the legislation by the year 2001. While the NT dithers over a review, two states and the ACT have already enacted legislation.In conclusion, it is time for the Northern Territory government to make a commitment to introduce legislation to reduce smoking and its harmful effects. It has already expressed its view that the mounting cost of public hospital care is unsustainable. With one in five deaths and one in 33 hospital admissions in the Northern Territory being smoke related, it is time for the NT government to do something more proactive and to use its own legislative capacity to reduce the burden that smoking places on the community. (Time expired)950019:22:009500McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—As the Senate would be aware, after a long and seemingly intractable fight Australia's waterfront is now operating efficiently to the benefit of our exporters, no less our primary industries. Given the history of the waterfront, what has happened is nothing short of a revolution. Likewise, an industry that took on all the characteristics of our old waterfront has also of late undergone an industrial revolution. The meat processing industry—or abattoirs—have finally been given a chance to operate efficiently to the benefit not just of the abattoir owners but of farmers and exporters.Two events prompt me to make this claim. Firstly, one of Australia's biggest meat exporters—G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd, based at Pakenham, Victoria—following a year-long dispute and shutdown of its plant, has returned to work under improved employee productivity conditions. Secondly, it has been recently announced by a full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that the tally system will be removed from meat industry awards as part of award simplification in that industry.The significance of these two events needs to be put in the context of the state of the industry. Like the waterfront, the processing industry had been subjected to report after report, ranging from the 1993 Booz, Allen and Hamilton report through to this government's 1998 Productivity Commission report—all highlighting work practice inefficiencies, rorts, extortion and damaging strikes. Yet the industry is Australia's seventh-largest exporter, exporting approximately $3 billion a year, or approximately half its produce. The meat processing industry employs around 27,000 people and there are 75,000 Australian farms and properties producing livestock for slaughter.The root of the problem is the abattoir costs. Figures taken from the Booz, Allen and Hamilton report show that, on a per kilo finished weight basis, the costs of our meat processing is uncompetitive. Australia can produce meat on a per kilo finished weight basis for 113c. In Argentina it is 105c, in New Zealand it is 72c and in the USA 41c. That therefore leads to the much quoted saga of the former restaurant chain, Sizzler, which decided to import US beef as it was cheaper than buying the Australian product. Even with the American beef being 60 per cent more expensive than our beef down at the saleyards, it was cheaper for Sizzler to purchase it in America, put it through their abattoirs, move it through their wharves, ship it across the Pacific, then across our wharves, past our meat inspectors and distribute it in their restaurants here in Australia.For further evidence of the non-viability of our meat processing sector, we can use the export of live cattle to Asia as an example. Selling cattle live to Asia is more profitable. It is a poor indictment of our meat processing sector if processing cattle in Australia does not add value but subtracts it.At the heart of the inefficiencies was the so-called tally system, a relic of the unions at the cost of employment and industry viability. In Victoria over the past 20 years, due to these practices, we saw abattoir after abattoir shut down permanently. The tally system, as I will explain, is enshrined in all the industry's awards, and it has ensured that penalty rates are paid after a prescribed number of cattle are processed. As the quota has not kept in line with the developments in the technology, maximum tally can now often be achieved after only four hours work: you meet your quota within four hours of starting work. Employers therefore are left with the choice of paying penalty rates for most of the working day or shutting the plant prematurely, in some cases after 30 hours per week. The tally system has often been described as the greatest obstacle to productive change in the industry. Therefore the commission's decision is a significant step towards improving workplace relations arrangements in the meat industry. It will encourage a productive and efficient workplace and provide focused wages and conditions for this very sensitive export sector of the economy.As mentioned, the other significant breakthrough has been the return to work at O'Connor's in Pakenham. This has been a protracted dispute, which led to a lock-out of 350 employees in March this year. The dispute rested on the uncompetitiveness of the Victorian industry compared to New South Wales and Queensland, Australia's two biggest cattle producing states. It was estimated that the labour costs were $30 a carcass higher in Victoria than in its major competitors interstate. The absurd situation had been reached where it was commercially viable for interstate processors to buy cattle in Victoria and transport them to their plants elsewhere, thereby threatening Victoria's export capacity and ultimately the exodus of processing to other states.However, a significant step in changing the culture of meatworks has been achieved through O'Connor's victory. This will have a cascading effect on all other meatworks in Victoria. It is worthy to note that throughout this dispute the Federal Court and the Industrial Relations Commission supported each step that O'Connor's took along the way. This was regardless of the rhetoric from the likes of Senator Carr, given on behalf of the union, when he addressed the Senate in about April this year saying that the lock-out was:an attempt to put private profit before the livelihood of workers and welfare of many families in Victoria. If he—he was referring to Mr O'Connor—is successful, this will have broader implications for workers right across Australia.Classic Senator Carr rhetoric. But the opposite is true. It is obvious that a viable meat processing industry supports the workers and the welfare of their families.It is worthy to note that Australia faces very stiff competition from other meat exporting nations such as the United States, Canada and Argentina. Therefore, Australia needs to be continually improving itself so as to stay in the marketplace and, at the very least, it must rid itself of old practices and old union ways. The Productivity Commission report, Work arrangements in the Australian meat processing industry, which was released in October 1998, noted that Australia's share of the international red meat market has declined since 1996. Despite the world trade in beef and veal increasing by 30 per cent, over this period Australian beef and veal exports grew by only 15 per cent. Over the same period, beef and veal exports from the US, Canada and Argentina increased by 207 per cent, 201 per cent and 60 per cent respectively.The Asian currency crisis is also depressing Australian meat exports to the region—such is the international competition. Under this competitive pressure, there is no doubt that the industry has started to make strides towards efficiency gains. For the farmer, the two great industrial relations reforms initiated by this government—namely, the waterfront reform and the meat processing reform—will facilitate a more efficient flow into export markets. It really does seem that this government's first wave industrial relations laws have truly brought a great and much- needed reform to this country, to the benefit of our standard of living.950219:31:009502Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I wish to take a few moments of the Senate to discuss what I believe to be a defective republican model—a model that people will be asked to vote upon on 6 November. Madam President, I pose the question to you, to honourable senators and to others listening to this parliamentary broadcast: would you knowingly buy a defective car? Other things being equal, of course you would not. Why, then, would anybody who values a stable democracy vote yes to a flawed republican model?The ideal constitution shows pathways to resolve conflict. It must not be a means of accentuating potential conflict—and this is what the model does. While the dismissal powers may be used, say, less than once in a century—or even more—we still need a constitutional model that is robust and will assist us in a time of crisis. The model on which Australians will be casting their vote is defective, and, in the event of a crisis, there will be a race as to whether the Prime Minister or the President can press the dismissal button first.Does it really matter in the overall history of our democracy that we should wait, perhaps, another five years, rather than cast judgment on emotional issues or on issues such as that of a foreign Queen—whose powers, I remind honourable senators and people listening to this broadcast, were effectively removed by both the Australia Act and the Statute of Westminster in the 1980s? I remind the Senate that Australia is fortunate to be one of a small group of democracies that have survived this 20th century. I urge everybody to think very carefully before casting their vote in the referendum on 6 November. I therefore urge you to vote no to that flawed republican model.Senate adjourned at 7.34 p.m.Documents95039503The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginals Benefit Reserve—Report for 1998-99.Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Australia-Korea Foundation—Report for 1997-98.Australian Communications Authority—Report for 1998-99.Australian Prudential Regulation Authority—Report for 1998-99.Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office—Report for 1998-99.Centrelink—Social security compliance activity in Centrelink—Report 1998-99.Crimes Act—Report on controlled operations for 1998-99.Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Report for 1998-99.Equal employment opportunity program—Reserve Bank of Australia—Report for 1998-99.Medibank Private—Statement of corporate intent 1999/2000-2001/02.National Australia Day Council— Financial statements— 1997-98. 1998-99. Statement of reasons for non-tabling of NADC 1997-98 annual financial statements.National Gallery of Australia—Report for 1998-99.National Museum of Australia—Report for 1998-99.Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund—Report for 1998-99.Superannuation Complaints Tribunal—Report for 1998-99.Telstra Corporation Limited—Report for 1998-99.Torres Strait Regional Authority—Report for 1998-99.Treaties—Bilateral —Text, together with national interest analysis— Agreement between Australia and the Slovak Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, done at Canberra on 24 August 1999. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand concerning the Transfer of Uranium, done at Canberra on 14 September 1999. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Argentine Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Protocol, done at Buenos Aires on 27 August 1999. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on Cultural Cooperation, done at Dresden on 7 November 1997. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China concerning the Continuation of the Consular Functions by Australia in the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, done at Canberra on 8 September 1999. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Singapore concerning the Use of Shoalwater Bay Training Area and the Associated Use of Storage Facilities in Australia, done at Singapore on 15 September 1999. Agreement on Consular Relations between Australia and the People's Republic of China, done at Canberra on 8 September 1999. Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Multinational Force and Observers concerning Australia's participation in the Multinational Force and Observers. Exchange of Notes, done at Canberra on 10 September 1999, constituting an Agreement to further amend the Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan establishing an Implementing Arrangement pursuant to the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy of 5 March 1982. Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of His Serene Highness the Prince of Monaco on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, done at Paris on 13 September 1999. Treaty on Development Co-operation between the Government of Australia and the Government of Papua New Guinea, done at Port Moresby on 7 October 1999. Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Australia and the Republic of Korea, done at Canberra on 17 September 1999.Multilateral— Text, together with national interest analysis— Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, done at New York on 4 December 1995. Amendments, done at Minneapolis in October to November 1998, to the Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunications Union (Geneva 1992) as amended by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto, 1994). International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of 2 December 1961, as revised at Geneva on 10 November 1972, on 23 October 1978, and on 19 March 1991. Text, together with national interest analysis and regulation impact statement— Amendments, done at London on 24 April 1998, to the Convention and Operating Agreement on the International Mobile Satellite Organization of 3 September 1976. Partial Revision of the Radio Regulations of 5 December 1979, and Final Protocol as incorporated in the International Telecommunication Union Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-97), done at Geneva on 21 November 1997.United Nations—Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—Australia's second and third reports, September 1991 to June 1997.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 11 of 1999.Health Insurance Act—Health Insurance (Pathology—Licensed Collection Centres) Principles 1999.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section— 15—Determination No. T14 of 1999. 19—Determination No. T13 of 1999.Radiocommunications Act—Spectrum Re-allocation Declaration 1999 (No. 1).9504The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed list of departmental and agency files for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999—Statement of compliance—National Archives of Australia, National Science and Technology Centre and National Library of Australia.Answers to Questions on Notice9505The following answers to questions were circulated:9505(Question No. 1225)12259505O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 August 1999:(1) What level of funding has been allocated to the Maritime Division of the Department for the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) Can a breakdown be provided of the funding for the Maritime Division.9505Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) There is no longer a Maritime Division in the Department. As a result of a Department reorganisation, effective 1 July 1999, the logistics and maritime functions of the Department have been linked to form the Cross-Modal and Maritime Transport Division (XMT). This Division will improve the Department's transport focus across transport modes and foster the development of our trade facilitation and logistics approach.The Cross-Modal and Maritime Transport Division of the Department has received an initial departmental cash funding allocation of $5.839m for 1999-2000. This is comparable with the 1998-99 level on the activities now undertaken in that Division. Activities and emerging issues will be assessed throughout the year to assess whether any Divisions of the Department require an adjustment to resources.(2) The departmental funds are allocated to enable the Division to effectively contribute to the Department's delivering its relevant outputs to assist Senator Macdonald and me in pursuing our desired outcome for the community, Linking Australia through transport and regional services.Cross-Modal and Maritime Transport Division contributes to the following output groups of the Department:. Output Group 1 + Policy Advice and Ministerial Services,. Output Group 2 + Regulatory, Investigative and Safety Services, . Output Group 3 + Services to Communities. Output Group 4 + Services for Industry and Government,. Output Group 5 + Revenue AdministrationThe Cross-Modal and Maritime Transport Division also has primary responsibility within the Department for funds for administering the following maritime-related matters in 1999-2000 on behalf of its Ministers:. Administered Item Group 1 + Services to Communities Administered on behalf of the Commonwealth- Protection of the Sea (Air Pollution Compensation Fund) Act 1993 ($3m). Administered Item Group 2 + Services to Industry Administered on behalf of the Commonwealth- Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998 ($24.980m)- Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme ($56.4m)- Bass Freight Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme ($11.204m)- Contribution to International Maritime Organisation ($0.270m)The amounts shown in parentheses are current budgeted figures for those matters.9505(Question No. 1241)12419505Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin7Y6NTALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) How many childcare centres have applied for funding under the Capital and Replace Upgrade Program.(2) How many childcare centres nationally have received funding under the program.(3) (a) Under which component was each grant approved; and (b) for what centre.(4) What are the names and addresses of those childcare centres.(5) In which state or territory is each of those childcare centres. (6) How much funding: (a) has each of those childcare centres received; and (b) did each centre request.(7) What has the funding been used for.(8) Which of those childcare centres that received funding are: (a) community based; and (b) privately based.(9) Which of those centres are (a) long day care; (b) multifunctional; or (c) disadvantaged.9506Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question:(1) As at 1 September 1999, 73 child care centres have applied for funding under the Capital Replacement and Upgrade Program.(2) As at 1 September 1999, 33 child care centres nationally have been approved for funding under the program.(3) to (7) The answers to (3) to (7) are incorporated in the tables below. All child care centres, with the exception of two, received the amount of funding requested. The project components rejected for these services were outside the scope of the program.(8) All centres are community based as the program specifically targets community based long day child care centres established by the Commonwealth and in which the Commonwealth has equity.(9) All the centres are long day care centres. None of these services receives Disadvantaged Area Subsidies.Capital Replacement and Upgrade ProgramList of all grants approved under Initiative (i)+ Assistance to Small Services (29 or fewer places) to become more viable through renovation, relocation or amalgamation with other servicesStateOrganisation Name and AddressFunds approved ($s)NSWBlue Gum Cottage Child Care Centre, 49 Mawson Parade, CHIFLEY NSW 2036108,000Maroubra Neighbourhood Children's Centre, 49 Bond Street, MAROUBRA NSW 2035100,000Newtown Day Nursery, 3 Linthorpe Street, NEWTOWN NSW 2042286,000Concord Neighbourhood Children's Centre, 16 Park Avenue, CONCORD NSW 2137600,000 (with approx 300,000 to be returned to Commonwealth from sale of old centre).Hamilton Child Care Centre, 207 Denison Street, HAMILTON NSW 230342,750VICBrunswick Community Child Care Centre, 98 Mitchell Street, BRUNSWICK VIC 305634,000Ormond Children's Centre, 2 Oakleigh Road, ORMOND VIC 3204Murrumbeena Children's Centre, 23 Oakdene Cres, MURRUMBEENA VIC 3163600,000 (with approx 300,000 to be returned to Commonwealth from sale of old centres).RMIT Community Child Care Co-operative Ltd, McKimmies Road, BUNDOORA VIC 3083444,401North Road Child Care Centre, 1314 North Road, HUNTINGDALE VIC 3166Brine Street Child Care Centre, 33 Brine Street, OAKLEIGH VIC 3166395,362 (with approx 200,000 to be returned to Commonwealth from sale of old centre). QLDRaceview Child Care Centre, 130 Thornton Street, RACEVIEW QLD 4305452,000 (with approx 90,000 to be returned to Commonwealth from sale of old centre).ACTNarrabundah Children's Cottage, 6 Yamba Place, NARRABUNDAH ACT 2604117,950Spence Children's Cottage, 19 Dalgleish Close, SPENCE ACT 261537,355TOTALS$3,217,818Capital Replacement and Upgrade ProgramList of all grants approved under Initiative (ii)+ Assistance to Older Services (over 15 years old) to become more viable through renovation, relocation or amalgamation with other servicesStateOrganisation Name and AddressFunds approved ($s)NSWLady Gowrie Child Centre, Elliott Avenue, ERSKINEVILLE NSW 2043361,489Western Suburbs Child Care Centre, Corner of Central Road and Maynes, Parade, UNANDERRA NSW 2526799,000 (With approx 460,000 to be returned to the Commonwealth from proceeds of sale of old centre).Murawina Community Child Care, Centre, Everleigh Street, REDFERN NSW 2147625,000Lalor Park Child Care Centre, 5 Parkside Drive, LALOR PARK NSW 2147121,000VICWodonga Child Care Centre, 59 Mitchell Street, WODONGA VIC 3690365,420 (65,793 was returned from sale of old centre)Leongatha Children's Centre, 18 Bruce Street, LEONGATHA VIC 3953297,214Lancaster and Hartley House Child, Care Centre, 698-700 Malvern Road, PRAHRAN VIC 3181228,200St Dominic Savio Child Care Centre, 19 Donald Street, CLAYTON VIC 316854,510QLDBrassall Child Care Centre, 4 Clem Street, BRASSALL QLD 4305310,000Bayside Community & Child Care Centre Inc, 40 Bay Terrace, WYNNUM QLD 417840,741Toowong Childcare Centre, 78 Sherwood Road, TOOWONG QLD 406638,155SAKate Cocks Child Care Centre, 33 Hulbert Street, HOVE SA 5048250,000The Neighbourhood Centre Inc, 58 Pick Avenue, MOUNT GAMBIER SA 529074,800Lady Gowrie Child Centre Inc, 39a Dew Street, THEBARTON SA 5031116,160TASLady Gowrie Child Care Centre, 17 Runnymede Street, BATTERY POINT TAS 7000285,000St David's Child Care Centre Inc, 309 Murray Street, HOBART TAS 7004315,785NTAlice Springs Child Care Centre, 53 Bath Street, ALICE SPRINGS NT 0871250,500Wanguri Family Centre, Tracy Village Complex, Tambling Terrace, WANGURI NT 0810570,000Mitchell Street Child Care Centre, 127 Mitchell Street, DARWIN NT 0800249,700Marrara Family Centre Inc, Cnr McMillians Road and Marrara, Drive, MOIL NT 0812170,000ACTKirinari Early Childhood Centre, University of Canberra, Campus, BRUCE ACT 2617140,000TOTALS$5,662,6749508(Question No. 1361)13619508Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:With reference to educational institutions that operate under the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991 and the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS):(1) Can a list be provided of non-exempt, CRICOS-listed providers under the Act which are owned, operated or managed by providers who are or have been registered migration agents.(2) Is it the case that under the Act, the department is required to conduct annual audits of tuition assurance scheme operator trust accounts by the end of each financial year.(3) In regard to the recently completed departmental audits: (a) which non-exempt, CRICOS-listed colleges were not audited: (b) as at 25 August 1999: (i) how many of these do not have satisfactory annual audits, and (ii) what was the nature of the irregularities; and (c) as at 25 August 1999 what action has been taken in regard to providers who did not have satisfactory audits.(4) How many students were enrolled in each college as at (a) 30 June 1998; and (b) 30 June 1999.(5) (a) What are the names of all non-exempt, CRICOS-listed providers who have been suspended in the past 12 months; and (b) what was the reason for each suspension.(6) How many previously suspended non-exempt providers are now seeking re-registration.9508Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) DETYA does not hold details of the "owners", "operators" or "managers" of providers. The Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) lists a provider's "Principal Executive Officer" (PEO).Only one PEO is listed on the Register of Migration Agents maintained by the Migration Agents Registration Authority + Mr Kofi Ameyaw Osei of Caprock International Pty Ltd, trading as Lloyds International College, CRICOS provider number 01942A.(2) The ESOS Act does not require Tuition Assurance Scheme (TAS) operators to maintain trust accounts, nor does it require DETYA to audit a TAS operator's account, trust or otherwise.The ESOS Act does not require DETYA to audit a provider's notified trust account (NTA). The Act does require a provider to lodge with DETYA, a statement of NTA funds held on behalf of overseas students which must be accompanied by a report from a registered company auditor. The majority of providers are required to lodge their statement by 28 July each year.(3) (a) The 128 providers listed in the schedule at Attachment 1 did not have their NTA audited by a registered company auditor because there were no overseas students enrolled during the reporting period or, if students were enrolled, they were in receipt of scholarships or paid their fees in arrears and course money was not required to be deposited into the NTA.(b) (i) The following 26 providers submitted statements of NTA funds accompanied by a qualified report from their auditor or were otherwise identified as having failed to comply with one or more aspects of the financial and/or reporting requirements of the ESOS Act during the reporting period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999:Australian International College of Business Pty Ltd, 01749BBlack Ace & Reliable Enterprises Pty Ltd, 01896BCanterbury Business College Pty Ltd, 01899KCentre of Academic Excellence Pty Ltd, 00161EClarendon Business College Ltd, 01953JThe Educationists Pty Ltd, 01778GExcel Education Pty Ltd, 00063G Excel Education Pty Ltd, 00176JExcel Education Pty Ltd, 01872KGriffith Adult Learning Association Pty Ltd, 01826AInternational College of Spinology, 01886DKardinia International College, 01502CLashkar Pty Ltd, 00666BMarrickville Commercial College,, 00170DMelbourne College of Hairdressing and Beauty, 00786GPhotography Holdings Pty Ltd, 00257GQumlash Pty Ltd, 01683DSkywell Computer Consulting and Education, 01559GSt George Enterprises Pty Ltd, 01876FSupreme College Pty Ltd, 00180BSydney International College of Business Pty Ltd, 01475ASydney International College of Computing Pty Ltd, 01727GSydney International College of English Pty Ltd, 01554BTolset Pty Ltd, 00786EUniworld Business College, 01657FVictoria College, 00077A(ii) The identified instances of non-compliance were:. failure to notify the Secretary of DETYA of NTA details + subsection 6A(6);. failure to deposit course money into an NTA as soon as practicable + subsection 6A(1);. failure to comply with the regulations governing withdrawals and payments from the NTA resulting in shortfalls to the amounts standing to the credit of students + subsection 6A(2) and regulations 4, 4A and 5;. failure to comply with the refund provisions where a student defaults + section 6C;. deposit of money other than overseas students' pre-paid course money into the NTA in contravention to the laws of trust + section 6A;. incorrect particulars on the statement of NTA funds + subsection 8(1)(c).(c) In accordance with subsection 8(2) of the ESOS Act, each of the above providers has been written to and asked to provide information in relation to the failure to comply with the requirements of subsection 8(1), and/or section 6A, and/or section 6C as the case may be. Each provider has been asked to provide evidence that the instance of non-compliance has been rectified and to demonstrate that there are arrangements in place to preclude similar instances of non-compliance in the future.In the interests of natural justice, providers are afforded 14 days to submit their response.As at 25 August 1999, only 3 responses have been received (none of the others is overdue). Evidence that instances of non-compliance have been rectified has been provided and, where required, providers have demonstrated that they have arrangements in place to enable compliance with the financial and reporting requirements of the ESOS Act in the future.(4) (a) Refer to the schedule at Attachment 2.(b) Refer to the schedule at Attachment 2.(5) (a)CodeProvider NameDate of SuspensionSuspension RemovedDate of Cancellation01703EAustralian Premier College Pty Ltd30/10/1998N/AN/A01736GBusiness Institute of Victoria Pty Ltd18/05/1999N/A13/07/199900167KHurstville Bankstown Business & Computer College Ltd1/07/1999N/AN/A00275FMissionary Aviation Fellowship23/06/1999N/AN/A01503BNational Colleges of Australia Pty Ltd21/06/1999N/A12/07/199901706BNew South Wales International College Pty Ltd2/03/1999N/AN/A01746CNorthern Rivers Conservatorium Arts Centre Inc25/08/199815/10/1998N/A01541GProgressive Industries Pty Ltd8/09/1998N/A31/12/199801465CSuzie Craddock International College of Beauty Therapy8/09/1998N/A17/12/1998(b)CodeProvider NameReason for Suspension01703EAustralian Premier College Pty LtdFailure to lodge NTA statement 01736GBusiness Institute of Victoria Pty LtdSuspended by the State00167KHurstville Bankstown Business & Computer College LtdFailure to comply NTA requirements00275FMissionary Aviation FellowshipSuspended by the State 01503BNational Colleges of Australia Pty LtdFailure to comply NTA requirements01706BNew South Wales International College Pty LtdFailure to comply TAS requirements01746CNorthern Rivers Conservatorium Arts Centre IncFailure to comply NTA requirements01541GProgressive Industries Pty LtdFailure to lodge TAS exemption report01465CSuzie Craddock International College of Beauty TherapyFailure to lodge TAS exemption report(6) There are four providers whose registration is currently suspended from CRICOS.Two providers are seeking removal of their suspension.SCHEDULE OF PROVIDERS NOT AUDITED FOR THE PERIOD 1/7/98—30/6/99CodeProvider Name01544DACTORS COLLEGE OF THEATRE AND TELEVISON PTY LTD01247BAMITY AVIATION PTY LTD01925BAPO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD01772CASCR PTY LTD01027CASSEMBLY OF GOD PARADISE INC01752GAUSTRALIAN BUSINESS ACADEMY PTY LTD01867GAUSTRALIAN EDUCATION GROUP PTY LTD01597BAUSTRALIAN IKEBANA CENTRE01703EAUSTRALIAN PREMIER COLLEGE PTY LTD01859GAUSTRALIAN VOCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ACADEMY PTY LTD01791MAVIATION ACADEMY OF QUEENSLAND PTY LTD00268EBANKSTOWN HELICOPTERS PTY LTD01589BBAPTIST BUSINESS COLLEGE LTD01052BBAPTIST UNION OF WA INC01742JBECKER HELICOPTER SERVICES PTY LTD01513MBELLEVUE BEAUTY CLINIC TRAINING ACADEMY00691ABIBLE COLLEGE OF VICTORIA00598JBREWAL PTY LTD00283FBROCKWAY HOLDINGS PTY LTD01729FBUSINESS TRAINING CONSULTANTS PTY LTD01709KCAPA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD01692CCARERS TRAINING CENTRE PTY LTD00680DCATHOLIC INSTITUTE OF SYDNEY01521MCENTRAL COLLEGE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD00799MCHOL CORP NO.7 PTY LTD00681CCHURCHES OF CHRIST IN NSW THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE01815GCOLLEGE OF SOMATIC STUDIES PTY LTD (THE)01927MCOLLEGE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE01932CCONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE ALBURY—WODONGA INC00686JCORNERSTONE COMMUNITY INCORPORATED01474BCOSMETIC EQUIPMENT CO PTY LTD (MELBOURNE) (NSW CAMPUS-ARTARMON)01827DCRANE AIR PTY LTD00189DDANDENONG BUSINESS COLLEGE LIMITED01864KDARLING DOWNS AERO CLUB LIMITED01854ADENTOS PTY LTD01910JELECTROLYSIS BEAUTY AND HAIR TRAINING SCHOOL & SERVICES PTY LTD01788FFIRST CHOICE TRAINING GROUP PTY LTD 01730BFORMHAZE PTY LTD01719GG JAMES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD01852CGIL LAYT'S FLYING SCHOOL PTY LTD01853BGIRAFFE WORLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD01840GGODLEMAN TELLING PTY LTD01431BGOL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD01302MGOLD COAST AVIATION CENTRE PTY LTD01936KGOLD COAST SPORTS PROMOTIONS01930EGOSPEL SERVICE MINISTRIES INC01894DHEATHERTON CHRISTIAN COLLEGE01279EHEMPELS AVIATION PTY LTD01600AHITALE P/L ATF THE EVERSEN FAMILY TRUST01904GILLAWARRA AREA CHILD CARE LTD (IACC)01604GINCS SCHOOL OF COMPUTING PTY LTD01913FINSTITUTE OF WORKING FUTURES PTY LTD 01886DINTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF SPINOLOGY PTY LTD (THE)01898MINTERNATIONAL JOCKEY SCHOOL01937JINTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES PTY LTD01716MINTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CENTRES00190MISLEFIELD PTY LTD01915DJAMM CORPORATION PTY LTD01130DJANDAKOT HELICOPTERS01819DJON LE COURT PTY LTD01650BJOSEPH BANKS COLLEGE INCORPORATED00771AKENVALE COLLEGE01036BKINGSLEY COLLEGE01059FKOLLEL BETH HATALMUD-YEHUDA FISHMAN INSTITUTE01629KKVB SERVICES PTY LTD01519ELIBERTY MINISTRY COLLEGE01924CLIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE00707JLUTHER SEMINARY01388MMACQUARIE RESEARCH LIMITED00699DMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF DIVINITY00693KMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF DIVINITY00768GMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF HAIRDRESSING AND BEAUTY CULTURE PTY LIMITED00222GMETROPOLITAN BUSINESS COLLEGE LTD 01842EMILMAA PTY LTD01757BMIRANIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD00275FMISSIONARY AVIATION FELLOWSHIP01844CMOLONEY AVIATION PTY LTD00682BMOORE THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE01895CNEW DAY MINISTRIES INC01928KNEWABON PTY LTD01764CNORTHERN RIVERS CONSERVATORIUM ARTS CENTRE INC01929JPALLADIUM INVESTIGATIONS PTY LTD01314GPEARSON AVIATION PTY LTD00986GPERTH BIBLE COLLEGE (INC)00700EPERTH THEOLOGICAL HALL01934APETER BINI ADVANCED FLIGHT TRAINING PTY LTD 01659DPOLYTECHNIC OF MELBOURNE PTY LTD00692MPRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE00802KPROFESSIONAL HELICOPTER SERVICES PTY LTD01154GQUEENSLAND AEROSPACE COLLEGE00703BQUEENSLAND BAPTIST COLLEGE OF MINISTRIES00704AQUEENSLAND BIBLE INSTITUTE01834EQUEENSLAND OPEN LEARNING NETWORK01794GQUEST GROUP PTY LIMITED01073GREFORMED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE01846ARHEMA BIBLE TRAINING CENTRE ASSOCIATION INC00297MROYAL QUEENSLAND AERO CLUB00277DROYAL VICTORIAN AERO CLUB01661KSABDREAM PTY LTD01901KSABRINA FAIR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD00985JSALVATION ARMY (NSW) PROPERTY TRUST (THE)01074GSALVATION ARMY OFFICER TRAINING COLLEGE01712DSCHOOL OF FILM ART AND TECHNIQUES (THE)01587DSCOMA PTY LTD01383ESHIPWRIGHT'S POINT SCHOOL OF WOODEN BOATBUILDING01882GSKIN AESTHETICS PTY LTD01811ASMALL BUSINESS INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED00886AST ANDREW'S GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE01890GST LUKES PRIMARY SCHOOL01283JSTEPHANIE ROBERTS' INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY TRAINING COLLEGE00230GSTONES AND MUIRDEN BUSINESS COLLEGE LTD01235FSUNCOAST FLYING SERVICES PTY LTD01926ASUNLAND AVIATION SERVICE01622FSYDNEY COLLEGE OF HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE01153GTANDARRA TANNING PTY LTD01599MTELDRAW PTY LTD01453GTOOWOOMBA COACHING & BUSINESS COLLEGE01851DTOP OFFICE PERSONNEL PTY LTD01933BTRISTAR AVIATION COMPANY PTY LTD01410GTRUSTEES OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY01675DUNE PARTNERSHIPS PTY LTD00077AVICTORIA COLLEGE LIMITED01907DVOLUNTEERING NSW01906EWARWICK INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE PTY LTD01654JWESTERN COLLEGE PTY LTD01801CYARRAMALONG HOLDINGS PTY LTD01319BYESHIVA GEDOLA RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF SYDNEY01835DYUNIQUE CORPORATION PTY LTDSCHEDULE OF STUDENTS ENROLLED AT 30/6/98 and 30/6/99CodeProvider NameStudents at 30/6/98Students at 30/6/9901813KA C AIRWAYS PTY LTD1101530KA G MATE ACADEMY PTY LTD212901540GABC EARLY CHILDHOOD TRAINING COLLEGE PTY LTD101001803AABION PTY LTD32001337MABOUT FACE & HAIR PTY LTDNIL101304JACADEMY OF THE DARLING DOWNS PTY LTD (THE)1901126MACSA PTY LTDNIL101544DACTORS COLLEGE OF THEATRE AND TELEVISON PTY LTDNILNIL01858GADELAIDE COLLEGE OF DIVINITY INCN/A100955DAEROSPACE AVIATION PTY LTD795200284EAIR AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTDN/A600295BAIR TRAINING CENTRE2200057EALEXANDER LANGUAGE SCHOOL PTY LTD10113400723JALLIED EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PTY LTD11301247BAMITY AVIATION PTY LTDNILNIL01129GANUTECH PTY LTD18810501897AAPM TRAINING INSTITUTE PTY LTDN/A101925BAPO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTDN/ANIL01669BAPPLIED SCHOLASTICS TRAINING CENTRES PTY LTD25800967MAQUILA COLLEGE OF MINISTRIES LTD16200751EART AND TECHNOLOGY OF MAKEUP COLLEGE7501772CASCR PTY LTD3NIL01774AASHT PTY LTD42401888BASIAN PACIFIC INSTITUTEN/A301456DASSEMBLIES OF GOD WA CONFERENCE INC4301027CASSEMBLY OF GOD PARADISE INCNILNIL01902JATAE PTY LTDN/A301662JAUSTRALASIAN ACADEMY OF NATURAL MEDICINE PTY LTD2100220KAUSTRALASIAN COLLEGE OF NATURAL THERAPIES35631601752GAUSTRALIAN BUSINESS ACADEMY PTY LTD3NIL01191BAUSTRALIAN BUSINESS COLLEGES PTY LTD113500031DAUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR LANGUAGES PTY LTD (THE)32829501328AAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY PTY LTD51501010AAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF BEAUTY THERAPY PTY LTD2700289MAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF ENGLISH PTY LTD23415201826EAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF HAIR DESIGN AND BEAUTY (THE)NIL400315CAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF HAIR DESIGN AND BEAUTY PTY LTD THE2400571JAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF LANGUAGE (THE)18127701534FAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF NATURAL MEDICINE PTY LTD82200231GAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF NATURAL MEDICINE PTY LTD113200184JAUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY (THE)18127701867GAUSTRALIAN EDUCATION GROUP PTY LTDN/ANIL01460GAUSTRALIAN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION1539601640DAUSTRALIAN ENGLISH & BUSINESS COLLEGE PTY LTDN/A101327BAUSTRALIAN FLYERS PTY LTD1NIL01597BAUSTRALIAN IKEBANA CENTRE1NIL01332EAUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENCESNIL801762EAUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF HOLISTIC MEDICINE PTY LTDNIL200665CAUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MUSIC LTD527201749BAUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS PTY LTD17071201427JAUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS PTY LTD6401272AAUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF LANGUAGE PTY LTD523301717KAUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF TOURISM AND COMMERCE PTY LTD3801731AAUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE PTY LTD523701108BAUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATORIUM OF MUSIC131901883GAUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE PTY LTDN/A73 01551EAUSTRALIAN NATIONAL MEMORIAL THEATRE LTD1201703EAUSTRALIAN PREMIER COLLEGE PTY LTDNILNIL01761FAUSTRALIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH11227501859GAUSTRALIAN VOCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ACADEMY PTY LTDN/ANIL01791MAVIATION ACADEMY OF QUEENSLAND PTY LTDNILNIL01579DB T HOTEL LIMITED168200268EBANKSTOWN HELICOPTERS PTY LTD2NIL01589BBAPTIST BUSINESS COLLEGE LTD2NIL01052BBAPTIST UNION OF WA INCNILNIL01552DBASAIR AUSTRALIA PTY LTDNIL100235CBEAUTY COSMETICS PTY LIMITED7501742JBECKER HELICOPTER SERVICES PTY LTD2NIL01513MBELLEVUE BEAUTY CLINIC TRAINING ACADEMYNILNIL01911GBETHANY INSTITUTE OF CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES INCN/A400706KBIBLE COLLEGE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA INC2200691ABIBLE COLLEGE OF VICTORIANILNIL01440ABILLY BLUE ENGLISH SCHOOL PTY LTD557000246MBILLY BLUE SCHOOLS PTY LTD22031500726FBILLY BLUE SCHOOLS PTY LTD22031500849FBILTONG PTY LTD415101896BBLACK ACE PTY LTD & RELIABLE ENTERPRISES PTY LTDN/A800911EBLUE MOUNTAINS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT SCHOOL (THE)12618700017BBOND UNIVERSITY LIMITED69975101515JBORDER EDUCATION PTY LTD252100598JBREWAL PTY LTDNILNIL01107CBRIDGE BUSINESS COLLEGE PTY LTD73453801273MBRISBANE COMMERCIAL COLLEGE PTY LTD5401805KBRISBANE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS INSTITUTE PTY LTDNIL701831GBRITISH AEROPSPACE FLIGHT TRAINING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD31701596CBRITISH AEROSPACE FLIGHT TRAINING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD3101726JBRITISH INSTITUTE OF HOMOEOPATHY (THE)NIL100283FBROCKWAY HOLDINGS PTY LTDNILNIL01687MBUCKINGHAM COLLEGE OF ENGLISH3501729FBUSINESS TRAINING CONSULTANTS PTY LTD1NIL01362KC.A.P PTY LTD164800202ACAIRNS BUSINESS COLLEGE LTD12700078MCAIRNS LANGUAGE CENTRE PTY LTD181501796FCAMBRIDGE ACADEMY OF ENGLISH PTY LTD21301718JCAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE (VIC) PTY LTD2536401459ACAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE (WA) PTY LTD10511101899KCANTERBURY BUSINESS COLLEGE PTY LTDN/A13301709KCAPA INVESTMENTS PTY LTDNILNIL01832GCAPER PTY LTDNIL201861BCAREER TRAINING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTDN/A201692CCARERS TRAINING CENTRE PTY LTDNILNIL00956CCASS TRAINING PTY LTD1201830JCATCH THE WORLD PTY LTDNIL1100680DCATHOLIC INSTITUTE OF SYDNEYNILNIL01125ACATONA PTY LTD58672201521MCENTRAL COLLEGE AUSTRALIA PTY LTDNILNIL00161ECENTRE OF ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE PTY LTD49831601038MCHABAD INSTITUTIONS OF AUSTRALIA INC231800799MCHOL CORP NO.7 PTY LTDNILNIL01016FCHRISTIAN HERITAGE COLLEGE12900681CCHURCHES OF CHRIST IN NSW THEOLOGICAL COLLEGENILNIL01545CCITY COLLEGE PTY LTD1799101495GCIVIL AVIATION ACADEMY PTY LTD1100163CCLARENDON BUSINESS COLLEGE LTD36968701040FCLEMENTS SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT PTY LTD1101050DCOLGUNG PTY LTD152001793JCOLLEGE OF LAW PTY LTD71101815GCOLLEGE OF SOMATIC STUDIES PTY LTD (THE)NILNIL 01927MCOLLEGE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINEN/ANIL00429DCOMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION CENTRE PTY LTD42246501932CCONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE ALBURY—WODONGA INCN/ANIL00304FCOOPS PTY LTD3200686JCORNERSTONE COMMUNITY INCORPORATEDNILNIL01474BCOSMETIC EQUIPMENT CO PTY LTD (MELBOURNE) (NSW CAMPUS-ARTARMON)NILNIL01827DCRANE AIR PTY LTDNILNIL00048FCYNEAST PTY LTD846301884FDANCE FACTORY PTY LTDN/A300189DDANDENONG BUSINESS COLLEGE LIMITEDNILNIL01864KDARLING DOWNS AERO CLUB LIMITEDN/ANIL01854ADENTOS PTY LTDN/ANIL00988FDSK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION PTY LTD747001753FDUNAMIS SCHOOL OF MINISTRIES2200711BEAST COAST COLLEGE OF ENGLISH (BRISBANE) PTY LTD729601806JEATS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTDNIL201469KEDUCATION UNLIMITED Pty ltd31000561MEDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD15619300171CEDUCATIONAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD29732601778GEDUCATIONISTS PTY LTD (THE)NIL500811JEDWARDS COLLEGE PTY LTD43835400662FEHLE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD26217401910JELECTROLYSIS BEAUTY AND HAIR TRAINING SCHOOL & SERVICES PTY LTDN/ANIL00687GEMMAUS BIBLE SCHOOL (AUSTRALIA) LTD5601872KEXCEL EDUCATION PTY LTD (NB: 118 students enrolled at 30/6/99 are for 3 providers)N/A11800176JEXCEL EDUCATION PTY LTD116*00063GEXCEL EDUCATION PTY LTD11*01783MEXCELSIOR COLLEGE PTY LTD175101788FFIRST CHOICE TRAINING GROUP PTY LTDNILNIL00262MFLI PTY LIMITED121301497FFOCAL HOLDINGS PTY LTDNIL100910FFOGARTY'S AVIATION ACADEMY4501172EFORLEIGH HOLDINGS PTY LTD22401730BFORMHAZE PTY LTDNILNIL01509GFUSS BEAUTY COLLEGE PTY LTDNIL601719GG JAMES AUSTRALIA PTY LTDNILNIL01361MG P TRADERS PTY LTD4401887CGARSWOOD HOLDINGS AUSTRALIA PTY LTDN/A101208JGEMAIR PTY LTD4700809CGENERAL FLYING SERVICES PTY LTD241901412EGEOS CAIRNS PTY LTD 2201825FGEOS GOLD COAST PTY LTDNIL5001698GGEOS MELBOURNE PTY LIMITED132700045JGEOS NATIONAL ENGLISH ACADEMY PTY LTD706101620GGEOS PERTH PTY LTD25823001523JGIBARAN ACTION RESEARCH MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE PTY LTDNIL201852CGIL LAYT'S FLYING SCHOOL PTY LTDN/ANIL01853BGIRAFFE WORLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTDN/ANIL00957BGLENGAIR PTY LTDNIL401840GGODLEMAN TELLING PTY LTDN/ANIL01431BGOL INVESTMENTS PTY LTDNILNIL01302MGOLD COAST AVIATION CENTRE PTY LTDNILNIL01363JGOLD COAST COLLEGE OF CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES LTD4101936KGOLD COAST SPORTS PROMOTIONSN/ANIL01262CGOLD COAST TRAINING ACADEMYNIL101930EGOSPEL SERVICE MINISTRIES INCN/ANIL01733KGREGORY JOHN ALLISON & PAULINE CAROL GALDES2401862AGRIFFITH ADULT LEARNING ASSOCIATION INCN/A3101035CHARVEST BIBLE COLLEGE INC203701894DHEATHERTON CHRISTIAN COLLEGEN/ANIL01279EHEMPELS AVIATION PTY LTDNILNIL01820MHHH LANGUAGE CENTRE PTY LTDNIL9 00879MHILTON INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE PTY LTD12901600AHITALE P/L ATF THE EVERSEN FAMILY TRUSTNILNIL00067CHOLMES COMMERCIAL COLLEGES (MELBOURNE) LTD989201648GHOLMES COMMERCIAL COLLEGES (MELBOURNE) LTD (NB: 353 students enrolled at 30/6/98 and 493 enrolled at 30/6/99 are for 4 providers)35349301646JHOLMES COMMERCIAL COLLEGES (MELBOURNE) LTD**01313GHOLMES COMMERCIAL COLLEGES (MELBOURNE) LTD (NSW CAMPUS)**00898GHOLMES COMMERCIAL COLLEGES MELBOURNE LIMITED**01679MHOPE OF THE GOLD COAST LTDNIL101780CHOSPITALITY TRAINING ASSOCIATION INC6200167KHURSTVILLE—BANKSTOWN BUSINESS & COMPUTER COLLEGE LTD 15311501466BICET PTY LTD294501904GILLAWARRA AREA CHILD CARE LTD (IACC)N/ANIL01604GINCS SCHOOL OF COMPUTING PTY LTDNILNIL01809FINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING INSTITUTE PTY LTDNIL2001917BINFOTECH PROFESSIONALS PTY LTDN/A300859DINSEARCH LIMITED 929139800039GINSEARCH LTD AND APEC PTY LTD24951401808GINSTITUTE FOR DESIGN ENTERTAINMENT AND THE ARTS LIMITED3901913FINSTITUTE OF WORKING FUTURES PTY LTD N/ANIL00188E INTERIM TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PTY LTD 141301351BINTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF QUEENSLAND AUSTRALIA33701886DINTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF SPINOLOGY PTY LTD (THE)N/ANIL01484MINTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF TOURISM AND HOTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD26143901697JINTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICES LTD213300080FINTERNATIONAL HOUSE QLD ENGLISH LANGUAGE COLLEGE517201898MINTERNATIONAL JOCKEY SCHOOLN/ANIL01784KINTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE ACADEMIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD304201937JINTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES PTY LTDN/ANIL01716MINTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CENTRESNILNIL01481CIRENE CORONIS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SCIENTIFIC BEAUTYNIL100190MISLEFIELD PTY LTDNILNIL01839MJABULANI (WA) PTY LTDN/A501915DJAMM CORPORATION PTY LTDN/ANIL01130DJANDAKOT HELICOPTERS1NIL01569FJANLIN PTY LTD51600989EJAPANESE COLLEGE OF ADELAIDE PTY LTD371601843DJENNING COLLEGE OF HAIR & BEAUTYN/ANIL01322GJENTAW PTY LTD2NIL01504AJK & CV FITZPATRICK11901259JJMC PTY LTD837001819DJON LE COURT PTY LTDNILNIL01493KJOONDALUP BUSINESS COLLEGE PTY LTD2301650BJOSEPH BANKS COLLEGE INCORPORATEDNILNIL01058GJUBILEE INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE3201159BJULIENNE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD865801921FK COSTIS PTY LTDN/A101502CKARDINIA INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE (GEELONG) LTD231700206GKELLY BUSINESS COLLEGE PTY LTD8600771AKENVALE COLLEGENILNIL01034DKESTREL AVIATION COLLEGE PTY LTD121500274GKESTREL AVIATION COLLEGE PTY LTD121500066DKEYSEQ PTY LTD13413701740MKING'S INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE13201036BKINGSLEY COLLEGENILNIL01059FKOLLEL BETH HATALMUD-YEHUDA FISHMAN INSTITUTENILNIL01629KKVB SERVICES PTY LTDNILNIL00250DKVB VISUAL CONCEPTS PTY LTD289190 00181ALAN-GROVE OFFICE TRAINING CENTRE PTY LTD (NB: 37 students enrolled at 30/6/98 and 146 enrolled at 30/6/99 are for 2 providers)3714601498ELAN-GROVE OFFICE TRAINING CENTRE PTY LTD**01678ALANGUAGE STUDIES INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD612400666BLASHKAR PTY LTD1148101918ALAW SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (THE)N/A101818ELE CORDON BLEU AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED NIL600042ALEMAIRE ENGLISH COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (THE)13711401519ELIBERTY MINISTRY COLLEGENILNIL01924CLIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN COLLEGEN/ANIL00707JLUTHER SEMINARYNIL100899GMACLEAY COLLEGE PTY LTD361301388MMACQUARIE RESEARCH LIMITEDNILNIL01558JMAEWILL PTY LTD111701463EMAHARISHI VEDIC COLLEGE2201483AMAKE-UP GLAMOUR TECHNICIANS PTY LTD (THE)9800170DMARRICKVILLE COMMERCIAL COLLEGE LTD999201848KMAYSAND PTY LIMITED241200256JMELBA MEMORIAL CONSERVATORIUM OF MUSIC6301037AMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF DIVINITY243600699DMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF DIVINITYNILNIL00697FMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF DIVINITYNIL1400694JMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF DIVINITY5400693KMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF DIVINITYNILNIL00768GMELBOURNE COLLEGE OF HAIRDRESSING AND BEAUTY CULTURE PTY LIMITEDNILNIL01878DMELBOURNE EDUCATION INSTITUTE PTY LTDN/A2001590JMELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD19227000071GMELBOURNE LANGUAGE CENTRE PTY LTD21515401812MMELBOURNE RUDOLF STEINER SEMINAR LIMITED2200172BMERCURY COLLEGE11318601694AMERRIMU HOLDINGS PTY LTD211600222GMETROPOLITAN BUSINESS COLLEGE LTD NILNIL01525GMHM AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD1NIL01842EMILMAA PTY LTDN/ANIL00061JMILNER INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF ENGLISH (WA) PTY LTD567001757BMIRANIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD1NIL00275FMISSIONARY AVIATION FELLOWSHIPNILNIL01738EMODUS COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD373401844CMOLONEY AVIATION PTY LTDN/ANIL01857JMONASH INTERNATIONAL PTY LTDN/A16300682BMOORE THEOLOGICAL COLLEGENILNIL00683AMORLING COLLEGE5101644MNAPOLEON PTY LTD4201920GNATIONWIDE AIR CHARTER PTY LTDN/A100644GNAVAIR INTERNATIONAL FLYING COLLEGE PTY LTD171701895CNEW DAY MINISTRIES INCN/ANIL01706BNEW SOUTH WALES INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE PTY LTD261500998DNEW TRIBES MISSION AUSTRALIA LTD81201928KNEWABON PTY LTDN/ANIL00296ANIMVALE PTY LTD111701764CNORTHERN RIVERS CONSERVATORIUM ARTS CENTRE INCNIL101891GNUDGEE COLLEGE EDUCATION ACTIVITIES LIMITEDN/A14201905FOCEANIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION P/LN/A100592DONYX DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD1100084BPACIFIC SCHOOL OF ENGLISH PTY LTD241601499DPADAN HOLDINGS PTY LTD1101929JPALLADIUM INVESTIGATIONS PTY LTDN/ANIL00731JPARSIFAL COLLEGE LIMITED4501300BPASTRIL PTY LTD472801314GPEARSON AVIATION PTY LTDNILNIL00986GPERTH BIBLE COLLEGE (INC)NILNIL01303KPERTH HOSPITALITY PROFESSIONALS PTY LTD85110 01312JPERTH INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY54549200700EPERTH THEOLOGICAL HALLNILNIL01934APETER BINI ADVANCED FLIGHT TRAINING PTY LTDN/ANIL00962EPHOENIX (QLD) PTY LTDNIL200257GPHOTOGRAPHY HOLDINGS PTY LTD71101659DPOLYTECHNIC OF MELBOURNE PTY LTDNILNIL01270CPREMIER COLLEGE PTY LTD364700684MPRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL CENTRE6400692MPRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL COLLEGENILNIL00228BPRIDE'S BUSINESS COLLEGE LIMITED15800802KPROFESSIONAL HELICOPTER SERVICES PTY LTD2201154GQUEENSLAND AEROSPACE COLLEGENILNIL00703BQUEENSLAND BAPTIST COLLEGE OF MINISTRIESNILNIL00704AQUEENSLAND BIBLE INSTITUTENILNIL01737FQUEENSLAND INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD8319701834EQUEENSLAND OPEN LEARNING NETWORKNILNIL00663EQUEENSLAND SCHOOL OF BEAUTY THERAPY PTY LTDNIL501794GQUEST GROUP PTY LIMITEDNILNIL01683DQUMLASH PTY LTD5335201031GRABBINICAL COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND71001073GREFORMED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGENILNIL01846ARHEMA BIBLE TRAINING CENTRE ASSOCIATION INCN/ANIL01539ARHEMA COLLEGE OF CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES LTD2201366FRIDGE BEND PTY LTD7500696GRIDLEY COLLEGE—UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE5900288AROYAL AERO CLUB OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC)5600297MROYAL QUEENSLAND AERO CLUBNILNIL00277DROYAL VICTORIAN AERO CLUBNILNIL00794ESA CORPORATION OF BOTANIC MEDICINE PTY LTDNIL101661KSABDREAM PTY LTDNILNIL01901KSABRINA FAIR AUSTRALIA PTY LTDN/ANIL00312FSAE TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE PTY LTD10010700985JSALVATION ARMY (NSW) PROPERTY TRUST (THE)NILNIL01074GSALVATION ARMY OFFICER TRAINING COLLEGENILNIL01712DSCHOOL OF FILM ART AND TECHNIQUES (THE)2NIL01871MSCHUTT FLYING ACADEMY (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTDN/A301587DSCOMA PTY LTD1NIL01169MSECRETARIAL TRAINING PTY LTD74685700051MSELC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD16616901542FSHAFSTON HOUSE COLLEGE LTD10219401383ESHIPWRIGHT'S POINT SCHOOL OF WOODEN BOATBUILDINGNILNIL00302GSIU SING PTY LTD15115501882GSKIN AESTHETICS PTY LTDN/ANIL01811ASMALL BUSINESS INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITEDNILNIL00090DSOUTH PACIFIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE TOURS PTY LTD746700958ASOUTHERN CROSS COLLEGE OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IN AUSTRALIA LTD527101636MSSTC PTY LTD265501307FST ALOYSIUS ADELAIDE LANGUAGE CENTRE LTD313900886AST ANDREW'S GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL COLLEGENILNIL01876FST GEORGE ENTERPRISES PTY LTDN/A5001890GST LUKES PRIMARY SCHOOLN/ANIL00379JST PAUL'S INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE4710101735GST PAULS SCHOOL (BALD HILLS) FOUNDATION LTD151501283JSTEPHANIE ROBERTS' INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY TRAINING COLLEGENILNIL01701GSTERLING BUSINESS COLLEGE PTY LTD84800230GSTONES AND MUIRDEN BUSINESS COLLEGE LTD2NIL00197DSTOTT'S COLLEGES LTDNIL301567GSTRAND COLLEGE OF BEAUTY THERAPY (QLD) PTY LTD (THE)1100239KSTRAND COLLEGE OF BEAUTY THERAPY PTY LTD51001340ESTRIKEFORCE MINISTRY TRAINING INSTITUTE3701755DSTUDY GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (NB: 887 students enrolled at 30/6/98 and 1378 enrolled at 30/6/99 are for 2 providers)8871378 01682ESTUDY GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD**01239BSUMMER INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS AUSTRALIA4101235FSUNCOAST FLYING SERVICES PTY LTDNILNIL01926ASUNLAND AVIATION SERVICEN/ANIL01632DSUNSHINE COAST ENGLISH COLLEGE111300180BSUPREME COLLEGE PTY LTD18618201685BSWAN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PTY LTD12900050ASYDNEY COLLEGE OF ENGLISH PTY LTD13012101622FSYDNEY COLLEGE OF HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE1NIL01768KSYDNEY COLLEGE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE INC (THE)1201105ESYDNEY GRAPHICS COLLEGE PTY LTD (THE)182601576GSYDNEY INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD41855701475ASYDNEY INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS PTY LTD13911501727GSYDNEY INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF COMPUTING PTY LTD8611701554BSYDNEY INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF ENGLISH PTY LTD675900550CSYDNEY MISSIONARY AND BIBLE COLLEGE173401507JSYDNEY TRAVEL TRAINING COLLEGE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTDNIL401777JT & A SKILLS CARE SERVICE PTY LTDNIL601039KTABOR COLLEGE (VIC) INC3101153GTANDARRA TANNING PTY LTDNILNIL01758ATASMANIAN COLLEGE OF ENGLISH (THE)NIL201781BTAYLORS INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES LTD14131601160JTAYLORS INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES LTD17853601165DTECHNOS LANGUAGE AND COMMERCE COLLEGE PTY LTD6919301599MTELDRAW PTY LTDNILNIL01527ETELEVISION TYPING CENTRE PTY LTD2300209ETELEVISION TYPING CENTRE PTY LTD526200607B'THE OFFICE' BUSINESS ACADEMY PTY LTD37944801623ETIVOLI PTY LTDNIL301573KTLA EDUCATION GROUP PTY LTD607001696KTND PTY LTD71800786ETOLSET PTY LTD616401453GTOOWOOMBA COACHING & BUSINESS COLLEGENILNIL01851DTOP OFFICE PERSONNEL PTY LTDN/ANIL01524GTOURISM COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD2300709GTRINITY COLLEGE71453701933BTRISTAR AVIATION COMPANY PTY LTDN/ANIL01410GTRUSTEES OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEYNILNIL00216FTYPING CENTRE OF PERTH PTY LTD152201675DUNE PARTNERSHIPS PTY LTDNILNIL00685KUNITING CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA (NEW SOUTHWALES) PROPERTY TRUST21000858EUNITING CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA PROPERTY TRUST (NSW) FOR WESLEY MISSSION204100053JUNIVERSAL EDUCATION CENTRE PTY LTD25527001032FUNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME AUSTRALIA (THE)6511001657FUNIWORLD BUSINESS COLLEGE PTY LTD454102401668CUNIWORLD ENGLISH COLLEGE PTY LTD13220400077AVICTORIA COLLEGE LIMITED95NIL01821KVICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER TRAINING PTY LTD171801907DVOLUNTEERING NSWN/ANIL00052KWARATAH EDUCATION CENTRE PTY LTD9812101906EWARWICK INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE PTY LTDN/ANIL00159KWATERFALL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD231100033BWATERFALL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD22101496GWELMERE PTY LTD2101637KWEST COAST INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD312601776KWESTERN BUSINESS COLLEGE PTY LIMITEDNIL501654JWESTERN COLLEGE PTY LTDNILNIL01183BWHITEHOUSE SCHOOL PTY LTD (THE)16400182MWILLIAMS BUSINESS COLLEGE LIMITED6981 01856KWINDSOR INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE PTY LTDN/A43501770EWORLD ENGLISH PTY LTD214601801CYARRAMALONG HOLDINGS PTY LTDNILNIL01319BYESHIVA GEDOLA RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF SYDNEYNILNIL01331FYOUNG RABBIT PTY LTD6711701835DYUNIQUE CORPORATION PTY LTDNILNIL01745FZAURIL PTY LTD2220577269519520(Question No. 1365)13659520O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) Has the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) communicated with the operator of the website domain, Homestead Technologies Inc. of Menlo Park, California, United States of America; if so, when and on how many occasions, did AMSA contact Homestead Technologies.(2) Was the reason for AMSA contacting the above company to request that a website relating to the circumstances surrounding the loss of a fishing boat, the Red Baron, off the West Coast of Tasmania be removed.(3) Prior to contacting Homestead Technologies, did AMSA seek legal advice on the contents of the above website.(4) (a) Who provided that legal advice; and (b) what was the nature of the legal advice received by AMSA in relation to the above website.(5) (a) When did Homestead Technologies respond to the AMSA communication; and (b) what was the nature of the response.9520Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) AMSA has not communicated with Homestead Technologies.(2) See answer to (1).(3) Although AMSA management did not contact Homestead Technologies, it did seek legal advice on the contents of the website.(4) (a) Clayton Utz.(b) Publication of defamatory material.(5) (a) and (b) See answer to (1). 9520(Question No. 1411)14119520Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:(1) What preparations have been undertaken to date in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(2) (a) What has been the total cost of those actions already undertaken; and (b) how much of these costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(3) Was the cost of undertaking this work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(4) What future preparations are planned or expected to be required in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(5) (a) What is the total cost of the actions planned, or the estimated cost of expected actions; and (b) how much of the costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(6) Was the estimated cost of undertaking this future work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(7) Is there expected to be any change in the ongoing running costs of the department/agency after the commencement of the GST; if so, what is the extent of the difference in costs.(8) Are there any other GST-associated costs which the portfolio agencies will incur prior to the commencement of the GST; if so, what are those costs.9520Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) A contract was let with PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC) to scope the potential impact of GST on Defence and to develop an implementation strategy. The scoping study, was completed on 7 September 1999 and included assessed impact on contractual, systems, policy, procedural and educational aspects and provided an indicative implementation costing schedule. The implementation strategy and project brief were presented to the Defence Executive on 6 September 1999. A Project team, tasked with ensuring Defence was GST ready by 30 June 2000, was subsequently established. The GST Project will utilise existing arrangements established for managing Defence's Y2K activities to enable synergies gained from the successful implementation of Y2K are carried forward into the GST implementation.(2) (a) The cost to date of the scoping study is $260,000.(b) The total sum relates to consultancies.(3) The cost of undertaking the scoping study was not included in Defence's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; it was funded from Defence overheads. Defence will be seeking supplementation for GST implementation costs in the context of the 1999-2000 Additional Estimates. A detailed and robust estimated cost of GST implementation will not be known until all issues including system issues are resolved.(4) The initial scoping study provided Defence with a broad understanding of a range of issues requiring consideration to ensure Defence is GST ready by 30 June 2000. The establishment of a Project team will enable the early overall definition of the scope of work required to enable a cost effective GST implementation.(5) Whilst Defence has received an indicative implementation costs from the recently completed scoping study, a robust breakdown of these costs is not available at this time.(6) See (3) above.(7) Defence is unable, at this time, to determine the impact, if any, on overall running costs. It will take some time to complete a thorough and robust analysis. Defence's current priorities are associated with ensuring our major systems applications are GST compliant.(8) See (5) above.9521(Question No. 1416)14169521Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:With reference to the effect of the goods and services tax (GST) on the internal operations of the Minister's portfolio (that is, not relating to the services provided to the public), and in relation to each of the agencies within the portfolio:(1) What preparations have been undertaken to date in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(2) (a) What has been the total cost of those actions already undertaken; and (b) how much of these costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(3) Was the cost of undertaking this work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(4) What future preparations are planned or expected to be required in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(5) (a) What is the total cost of the actions planned, or the estimated cost of the expected actions; and (b) how much of these costs relate to (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(6) Was the estimated cost of undertaking this future work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(7) Is there expected to be any change in the ongoing running costs of the department/agency after the commencement of the GST; if so, what is the extent of the difference in costs.(8) Are there any other GST-associated costs which the portfolio agencies will incur prior to the commencement of the GST; if so, what are those costs.9521Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The following answers cover the three agencies in the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio: the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT).(1) Work undertaken to implement the GST in the portfolio to date includes: . Establishing a high level Taskforce to guide, direct and coordinate implementation of the GST in DIMA, the RRT and the MRT;. Evaluating existing revenues and expenses to assess the portfolio's exposure to GST, and specifically:- which transactions constitute taxable supply;- which transactions are GST-free, and which are input taxed; and- which revenues could qualify for exemption in the Treasurer's determination under Division 81 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999;Examining existing contracts that are expected to remain current at 1 July 2000, and therefore will be subject to transitional provisions.. Evaluating existing financial and business systems to determine what changes are required to make them GST compliant.- Begin developing a strategy for education, communication and staff training on GST issues and operations.(2) (a) The cost of actions undertaken to date have been minimal + possibly less than $10,000 in aggregate. The work has been undertaken within the existing structures of the agencies concerned. Accordingly, the actual costs are not easily identifiable relative to other work undertaken by the agencies.(b) (i) Nil(ii) Nil(iii) Nil(iv) Minimal(v) Nil(vi) Nil(3) Costs to date have been funded from the 1999-2000 Budget appropriation for departmental outputs for DIMA, the RRT and the MRT. These costs are small and have been accommodated within the existing funding provision for strategic planning, systems administration and resource management. No additional funding was provided in the 1999-2000 Budget to implement the GST in the portfolio.(4) It is not possible to give a full list of tasks required to complete preparation for the GST within the portfolio until the actions reported in the answer to (1) above have been completed. Some tasks that have been identified to date include:. enhancement to financial management and business systems;. development and delivery of staff training programs;. review of contracts to ensure GST compliance; . revising cash forecasts and internal budgeting requirements.(5) (a)-(b) It is too early at this time to report on planned actions to implement GST, and it is therefore not possible to estimate the likely cost. Many of the tasks that have been identified to date can be accommodated within existing funding by reallocating priorities.(6) No additional funding was provided in the 1999-2000 Budget to implement the GST in the portfolio. All costs are planned to be met out of the existing departmental outputs appropriation.(7) Under A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 the Finance Minister is to issue directions on the application of the GST within Commonwealth agencies. It is not possible to determine the impact of the GST on the portfolio until these directions are known, however there is not expected to be any significant net change in departmental operating expenses following introduction of the GST.(8) There are no known additional GST costs at this time.9522(Question No. 1424)14249522O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 September 1999:(1) When was the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, or its legal advisers, first made aware of the existence of a website relating to the circumstances surrounding the loss of a fishing boat, the Red Baron, off the coast of Tasmania.(2) When was the Minister, or his office, first made aware of the website.(3)(a) When was the Minister, or any former minister, responsible for maritime policy, first made aware of the allegations about the circumstances surrounding the loss of the Red Baron and the resulting search and rescue effort contained in the website; (b) how were they made aware; and (c) what action did they take in response to that information.9522Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 24 June 1999.(2) 24 June 1999(3) (a) The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) first provided detailed advice to the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development concerning the Red Baron issues on 29 May 1996.(b) The Minister was advised of issues relating to the Red Baron by way of a letter from the acting Chief Executive of AMSA.(c) The Minister and former Ministers noted advice on this issue.9523(Question No. 1429)14299523Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 15 September 1999:In each of the past 10 years: (a) how many immigrants from Tibet have arrived in Australia; and (b) how many Tibetan refugees has Australia accepted.9523Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Consistent with the standard classification of countries by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, people from Tibet are classified as Chinese nationals. The Department's movements and visa databases do not record ethnic or language data that would identify these people. It is therefore not possible to determine from the Department's systems (a) how many immigrants from Tibet have arrived in Australia; or (b) how many Tibetan refugees Australia has accepted.9523(Question No. 1430)14309523Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 September 1999:(1) (a) Is the Federal Government aware of comments in the preface to the British American Security Information Council research report, The Bug in the Bomb, by the United States of America (US) Ambassador Mr Paul Warnke that, "if the affected software involves nuclear weapons control systems, however, the consequences could be calamitous"; and (b) what is the Government's response to continuing concerns as to the Y2K readiness of the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia.(2) Does the Government disagree with the many prominent military advisers and academics, including Mr Bruce Blair, former launch control officer and now Bookings Institute senior research fellow and Mr John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists and the British American Security Information Council, warning of a "catastrophe", apocalypse" and "accidental nuclear war" because of inadequate Y2K preparation.(3) What is the Federal Government's response to recommendations by the Canberra Commission that Australia request the US and Russia to take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.(4) How many missiles do the US and Russia have on hair-trigger.(5) How long does it take to after the insertion of launch codes for launch to take place on US Minuteman missiles and Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles.9523Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The Government is aware of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) research report "The Bug in the Bomb".(b) The safety of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces during the period of Y2K concern is a matter the Australian Government takes seriously, and we have sought advice from the U.S. and Russia about measures being taken to address this issue. The Nuclear Weapon States clearly have the greatest vested interest in ensuring that any potential problems are eliminated.Two concerns commonly are raised about the possible impact of the Y2K bug on strategic nuclear forces. The first is the possibility of an accidental missile launch, and the second is that early-warning systems—a key component providing confidence and stability between the nuclear powers—might be affected.On the first issue, the assessment of the United States is that there is "no risk of accidental launch" of its nuclear weapons. The U.S. is similarly confident that possible Y2K problems will not cause the accidental launch of Russian nuclear weapons. Procedures for launching nuclear weapons involve multiple levels of safeguards to verify and authenticate an order from, in the case of the United Sates and Russia, the President of the country. Computers by themselves cannot launch nuclear weapons.On the second issue, the Government welcomes the announcement on 13 September by the United States and Russia on the establishment of a Y2K Centre for Strategic Stability in Colorado to eliminate any risk that a Y2K problem might arise in early warning systems. This centre will allow personnel from both countries to monitor early warning data on missile and space launches and also report on other potentially destabilising events which might be caused by Y2K computer failures, such as communications problems. (2) The Government does not agree that preparations by the United States have been inadequate. The United States has spent some USD3.7 billion to ensure Y2K readiness across its entire defence operations, including its nuclear forces. There is less information publicly available on Russian preparations for the period of Y2K concern. However, for the reason's outlined above, the Government's assessment is that accidental nuclear launches caused by Y2K glitches are highly improbable.(3) If Russia and the United States were to reach an agreement on the standing down of nuclear forces then Australia would, of course, welcome that. However, in order to maintain strategic stability, any such agreement would need to be verifiable and enjoy the total confidence of both Russia and the U.S. For this reason, it is for the U.S. and Russia to address the merits of any stand down agreement.(4) The U.S. and Russian Governments do not reveal the number of nuclear weapons on alert at any one time. Current aggregate numbers of strategic offensive arms held by Russia and the U.S. under the provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty can be found at the State Department's Arms Control and International Security website—www.acda.gov/factsheet/wmd/ nuclear/start1/startag. Not all of U.S. and Russian strategic offensive arms are on alert at all times.(5) The U.S. and Russian Governments do not comment on this matter.