1999-10-193914SENATE991101999-10-19The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice991199119911Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to Senator Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Can the minister explain to the Senate why Australia Post was blocked from formally expressing interest in providing the entire Rural Transaction Centre program? Isn't it the case that Australia Post had a firm proposal for a comprehensive rural transaction network in stark contrast to the ad hoc approach subsequently taken by the federal government? Wasn't the value of the RTC network being provided through Australia Post recognised by a unanimous report of the House of Representatives Economics Committee inquiry into banking? Didn't the Liberal chair of that committee say:The addition of business banking and the extension of the giroPost network are important and straightforward means of giving communities continued access to financial services. The RTC program should be a means of facilitating this.9911Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Mackay shows the difference between the Labor approach to assisting rural and regional Australia and the government approach. Our approach is going to the communities and asking them, `What are your problems? What do you need with a rural transaction centre? What transactions facilities are you missing? What don't you have?' We then say to the community, `You tell us how you would like to resolve that problem and we will pay to fix it. We are not going to sit in Canberra and say to you, "This is how you should do it; this is the best way to suit you."' We do not get a central agency like Australia Post to say, `We know what's better for Eugowra,' or, `We know what's better for Aramac and Eugowra than the people of Aramac or Eugowra.' We ask the people of Aramac, the people of Dirranbandi, the people of St Marys in your own state, Senator, and we say to them, `What are you lacking? What do you need? How would you like to resolve it? Would you like Australia Post to do it, or would you like the Trust Bank or a credit union to come in and do it, or would you like the Pioneer Building Society in Aramac to come in and provide the banking service? If that is what you want—or if you want Centrelink there, Medicare Ezyclaim, a fax machine put there—you tell us what you want and then we will provide it.'That is exactly what has happened. Sure, Australia Post have said, `Yes, we could do this.' We have written to Australia Post and said, `By all means, if the community wants you to do that, then please do it: please get the community to write in and suggest yourselves.' In Aramac, an RTC that I intend to open in the middle of November is at the licensed post office. Many of the places where the first rounds were set up are in licensed post offices because that is what the community wanted—not what Senator Mackay wanted, not what I wanted, not what Australia Post wanted but what the community itself wanted.That is our approach. It is an approach of consulting with the community, asking what they want, and not telling them from Canberra or any other central agency what is best for them.9911Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it that that was a yes, that Australia Post was blocked from providing a holistic approach. My supplementary question is: given that the value of Australia Post's proposal was recognised by the minister's coalition colleagues on the committee, why didn't the government proceed with it?9911Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Another minute to try to open Senator Mackay's ears. Australia Post was not blocked—n-o-t—not blocked. We asked the community, `Do you want Australia Post?' In any instances they said, `Yes, we do,' they would get it. But in some instances they said, `No, we want Trust Bank to do it,' or, `We want someone else to do it.' Senator Mackay, that is what I am trying to tell the Labor Party. You do not sit in Canberra and tell rural and regional Australia what is best for them; you go out and ask them what they want, what their solutions are. They are not as stupid as you seem to make out they are, Senator Mackay. They can make a decision. They do know what is best for them. They do know what is available and they do know how they can resolve their position. All they do not have is a little bit of money. Our proposal, Madam President, is to say to that community, `You tell us what you want. You tell us how you want to fix that and we will pay.' That is the way it should be.99129912Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. The Howard government recognises the importance of the automotive industry to the economic wellbeing of the Australian community. How are the government's policies working to encourage employment and investment in Australia's car industry?9912Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Ferguson for his question. Senator Ferguson, as a South Australian, of course, has a very keen interest in the car industry. Last week we had the opposition spreading gloom and doom about the industry, but I want to confirm for the Senate that the prospects for this industry both for the short term and the long term are very good. As I have often said in this place, last year—1998—was a record year for the car industry, with sales of 807,000 compared with 720,000-odd the year before, which was itself a record. So, under 3½ years of this government, the car industry has had its two best years ever in the history of the automotive industry in Australia.The reasons for this I think were very well set out by Mike Kable, the eminent and well-respected motoring writer, in last Thursday's Australian, where he said:Last year, . . . was a freak because of factors including public confidence in a strong economy, fierce price competition at the "cheap and cheerful" end of the market, new models in all segments and very favourable interest and lease rates. So we have the position that the economic policies of the government, with strong demand and low interest rates, have produced a very strong car industry and a record year for the industry. Mike Kable went on to write:After such a boom year, a slackening of demand was inevitable, irrespective of the GST.He refuted claims that there was some sort of buyers strike. In his article, which was headed `Car-makers overplay the GST slump card', he wrote:The good news is that the situation is not as bad as it sounds, despite the industry's best endeavours to pressure the Federal Government into giving it a tax break . . . The fact is that car sales, in 1999, are still very strong. Just last Friday, Peter Sturrock, the Chief Executive of the Chamber of Automotive Industries, repeated the chamber's forecast that 1999 will be the second-best year ever for Australian car sales. They are still anticipating 760,000 sales this year, the second-best ever in Australian history. Look at what happened under Labor. In their last year in office—1995—there were 640,000 car sales. We are being criticised by Labor, who are spreading gloom and doom, because this year we are having 120,000 more car sales than we had in the last year of the Labor Party's government.There was a report, noted by Labor, about car stocks building up, but in the Herald Sun a Ford executive clearly rejected that that could be blamed only on the GST. He said that the two important factors in Ford's case for a build-up in cars were that they were building cars at the same rate as they were in 1998, despite the inevitability, as Mike Kable pointed out, of a slackening this year and, of course, the slow acceptance of the AU Falcon.What about the long-term prospects for the industry? According to Peter Sturrock's speech last Friday at the Sydney Motor Show, the industry is forecasting a surge in car sales after the introduction of the GST, with vehicle sales, in 2003, forecast at 950,000 vehicles.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—We're going to vehicles now—not cars, vehicles.JX4Senator MINCHIN—That is 310,000 more cars sold than were sold in Labor's last year in office—a 50 per cent increase in the sales of cars. That is all attributed to the GST. There are very clear reasons for the optimism about the car industry. The first is that we have lower car prices because of our tax reform—FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—You've finally got it right.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Murphy, you have been persistently interjecting during this answer. I draw your attention to the standing orders and ask you to abide by them.JX4Senator MINCHIN—We have very good reasons for optimism. We have lower car prices because of our tax reforms; we have a strong economy because of our economic policies, which are producing low interest rates and making cars much more affordable; and as of last week we had the parliamentary passage, at last, of the government's $2 billion assistance scheme and tariff freeze which will be a significant boost to investment and R&D in this great Australian industry.9913Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Having informed the Senate on the health of the car industry, can the minister further inform the Senate how successful the car industry has been at exporting?9913Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—This is a great news story. Today I am releasing figures indicating that the car industry has enjoyed a record year not only domestically but on the export front as well. In 1998-99, the value of sales of cars and components overseas has increased by nine per cent—from $2½ billion to $2.8 billion. In the face of the meltdown in Asia, we have had exports going up nine per cent. This is a tremendous effort—a great effort—by our car exporters. Saudi Arabia is now our best export market for vehicles, exceeding New Zealand, with Toyota and Holden exporting their products into the Middle East in great numbers. Vehicle exports actually increased by 26 per cent in the last financial year to almost $1½ billion—nearly 50 per cent more than the wine industry which we extol for its tremendous performance in exports. We have component makers, such as Air International and Austrak, competing with the best in the world and winning export contracts into the United States, the home of the car industry. We are working very closely with the car industry to produce a great export outcome. (Time expired)99139913Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Herron as Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the government's new supply measure for MRI machines was in response to a report that found an oversupply of magnetic resonance imaging machines in Australia? Isn't it true that when that report was written, in October 1997, there were 57 MRI machines in operation? If there was an oversupply then, how can the government justify a policy that has seen the number of MRI machines eligible for Medicare payments almost double to 111 on 11 October 1999?9913Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Cook for the question. The matters that Senator Cook raised have already been extensively canvassed with the Minister for Health and Aged Care in the other place. The minister has provided detailed answers and has made a number of statements on the public record. I do not believe there is anything I can add to what has already been stated by the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I would suggest that Senator Cook read the Hansard records from the other place in relation to this matter.9913Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The reason we have another chamber is so that questions can be answered here too. Senator, rather than dodge the question, I would ask you to answer it and, when you are in the process of answering it, to answer this supplementary as well: does the minister stand by his comments that the new arrangements are an `enormous advance'? Was he referring to the interests of radiologists or the interests of the taxpayer when he described the government's policy in those glowing terms?9913Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I will certainly ask the minister whether he has anything further to add. I presume Senator Cook is referring to comments that I have made?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Do the courtesy to this chamber and answer the question.VW4Senator HERRON—The courtesy that I will extend to the chamber is that I will refer the question to the minister.99149914Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I have a question for the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Macdonald. The question is: how will the government's tax reform package benefit Australia's local government authorities? How do these benefits add to the benefits that local councils have reaped from the Howard government's consistently responsible economic management?9914Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Eggleston, perceptively, has asked a question which has two elements. It is perceptive because Senator Eggleston was a very distinguished Mayor of Port Hedland in his former life. He joins Senator Heffernan, who was president of a shire, and Senator Calvert, who was warden of a council in Tasmania. We have a real interest in local government on this side of the House. The tax reform package is excellent for local government because local governments will pay GST on their operations but will get all the GST fully and immediately refunded; 95 per cent of the services which councils provide for their customers, the ratepayers, will be absolutely GST free; and local governments will save tremendously from removal of 7c a litre on all fuel for councils in rural and regional Australia, and heavier transport trucks will get reductions of some 23c a litre in fuel costs. In addition to that there will be the removal of embedded wholesale sales tax that the councils will no longer have to pay—a saving of about $70 million Australia wide.A number of studies have been done which show that councils will benefit very considerably. A Victorian government assessment by Arthur Andersen, the auditors and consultants, has shown that annual cost savings to councils will range from about $2 million per annum for an inner metropolitan council, to about $1.2 for an outer metropolitan council and about $400,000 for a regional council. The assessment shows that the cash flow effects will be zero, so there will be no problem to councils there, and it indicates that there will be a one-off implementation cost ranging from $45,000 to $200,000, and that is similar to the Queensland assessment—and we acknowledge that. But the government has provided money to councils.Yesterday, Senator Mackay raised with me the Western Australian Municipal Association, saying how unhappy they are. Unfortunately, yesterday I did not have this with me when Senator Mackay raised the matter, but I now quote from a letter dated 14 September in which Councillor Jamie Edwards, the President of WAMA, said:Your recognition of the need to provide direct assistance to Local Government to facilitate the sector's compliance with the GST and associated reform measures is timely and commendable . . .This funding signals the strength of what I already believe to be an excellent working relationship with the Federal Government.My relationship with WAMA is very good. He has said more praiseworthy things about me in that letter, but my natural modesty prevents me from tabling it.Senator Eggleston also raised with me how these benefits add to the other benefits that local councils have received from the Howard government's consistency in responsible economic management. One of the big things that councils have got from our government is a reduction in interest rates. Average debt across Australia is about $10 million per council. When I left my council just before coming to this place, we were paying something like 15 per cent per annum interest on the loans we had. The interest rate for councils today is six to seven per cent. That is an eight per cent saving in interest that councils are paying on loans because of the Howard government. That equates to a saving of $800,000 a year saving for councils. (Time expired)99149914Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Does the minister recall last week, in his response to a question on the circum stances surrounding the funding of MRI machines, saying:So they can go fishing on the other side as much as they like; everything was above board.When questioned further on this point, the minister responded:Of course it was above board.Given the extraordinary admission by the health minister in the House yesterday, does the minister stand by these comments:It would appear that a significant number of radiologists have behaved in a manner that can only be described as a scam.9915Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I do recall that, and the words used in the other place were `it would appear'. I agree that certainly it would appear. It is above board in the sense that the minister has put in place a mechanism for investigating the appearance of what has occurred; he has taken steps. As I said in answer to Senator Cook, the minister has made statements in the other place. This matter is being pursued—it was a few moments ago, anyway—in the other chamber. The minister has replied to those questions. If there is anything further to add, I will be happy to get back to Senator Evans.9915Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister's reticence to speak on the subject this week, compared with his enthusiasm last week. Does the minister now admit that the circumstances under the new arrangements for funding MRIs raise serious issues over the integrity of the 1998 budget announcement? Will he support the establishment of a royal commission into the issue?9915Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, I have said that this question is being canvassed in the other chamber and that the minister has made a statement. I will refer that question to the minister and see whether he has anything further to add to the statements he has already made on this matter.99159915Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Is the minister aware that on 13 October the Australian Democrats drew the Senate's attention to two misrepresentations that were made by the minister during a general business motion debate condemning the government's Internet censorship regime? Does the minister stand by his statements to the Senate about industry support for the legislation and, if so, how does he recognise the contradictory statements of two organisations—Yahoo and Lotus—that he has quoted as supporting the legislation? Does the minister admit that he has made a serious misrepresentation on two counts to the Senate?9915Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The short answer is no. The longer answer is this: while in the US, I had discussions with both Jeff Papows, who is the CEO of Lotus, and a vice-president of Yahoo. On the first occasion, I actually raised the issue of Internet censorship and content regulation. The answer that I got was that the industry was very much in favour of content regulation, that it saw it as a way of encouraging people to take up access to the Internet. Indeed, many parents were concerned that otherwise they did not know what their children might be watching and that therefore there was an important need for governments to address the issue. Similarly, in relation to Yahoo, the matter was raised by them, not by me, and the answer was pretty much the same.As I pointed out to the Senate recently, for all the fulminations that Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Lundy have gone on with, the fact is that this is a media driven issue. It is not an issue of overwhelming concern to the industry itself. It might be of interest to some civil libertarians who want to run an activist agenda, but responsible industry players all recognise that it is critically important that you do have—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—No such thing as irresponsible, to your mind.LD4Senator ALSTON—So there is no such thing as a responsible industry representative? It is good to have that on the record from Senator Bolkus. But the fact remains that it is very disappointing indeed that there were calls for the repeal of the legislation. It is very encouraging that we now find the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party withdrawing such calls, implicitly acknowledging therefore that there is a need for government regulation of the Internet—not simply to stand back and say, `Let's leave it to parents' or `Let's leave it to users.' Let us not have the laissez-faire libertarian approach that Senator Lundy has been arguing for loud and clear. I thought it was a very shrewd move to bring this on while Senator Lundy was overseas so that you could at least ensure that she did not spoil the party. But the end result was that both the Labor Party and the Democrats now acknowledge that this legislation is valid, that this legislation does need to go beyond simply leaving it—Senator Lundy interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Otherwise you would have maintained your call for its repeal. That is how you formulated the notice of motion. You subsequently amended it. In other words, you made it plain that you were resiling from your calls to repeal, and the only possible interpretation that can be placed on that is that you now acknowledge not only that there is very general public support but that it is proper for governments to impose obligations—not to simply stand back and hope that somehow consumers will get it right—and that the industry itself has an obligation consistent with the codes of practice that are now being developed to do its best to ensure that offensive or indeed illegal material is not made available where it infringes those classification regimes.9916Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his long answer, but I am more interested in the short answer. I understand from the minister's response that he denies misrepresenting the two organisations to the Senate. In that case, is the minister suggesting that these responsible industry players are actually contradicting themselves, or is the minister suggesting that these are somehow media driven denials, because these two organisations—which the minister quoted as endorsing the legislation—have come out suggesting and stating quite clearly that they do not endorse the legislation? So is the minister suggesting that they are the ones contradicting themselves, or will the minister admit to misrepresenting these companies in arguments to the Senate on at least two occasions?9916Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As I recall, in the statement that was made on behalf of Lotus, Mr Papows acknowledged the sovereignty of governments in this area. In other words, they did not say that they supported the legislation, nor did they say that they opposed it. Both of those organisations made it plain to me that they were aware of the controversy surrounding our proposals to introduce Internet content regulation. One would not expect them to have studied the detail of the legislation, but they accepted the proposition that there was a role for government. You have misstated the position of Lotus, in particular. I cannot remember what the spokesman for Yahoo had to say, but I think I have made very clear in my answer the position they adopted. It is very much at odds with the position that you have been arguing.99169916Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that the minister for health this morning repeated the claim that he was the one who initiated the current HIC investigation into the MRI scandal? Can the minister confirm that in a Community Affairs Senate estimates hearing on 4 May 1999 when Senator Herron was the minister at the table, Mr Watzlaff from the Health Insurance Commission stated that he initiated the investigation following an anonymous tip-off and that he did not seek any advice or authority from the minister to do so? Can Minister Herron explain this discrepancy? Can the minister now tell the Senate who is telling the truth: the minister for health, Dr Wooldridge, or Mr Watzlaff, who is the HIC General Manager of Professional Review?9916Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Faulkner for the question. As I have stated previously, the minister has made a series of statements, and this matter has been extensively canvassed in the other chamber. Again, this afternoon he has provided detailed answers to those matters.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: this question that I have asked Senator Herron goes directly to this minister's responsibilities at the table during a Senate estimates hearing when Senator Herron was present. He should not on any occasion duck away from answering a question on the basis that Dr Wooldridge, the minister for health, is in the other house. He represents Dr Wooldridge here. This question goes directly to Minister Herron's responsibilities, and I would ask you not to duck and sleaze away from answering this question but to provide the Senate with an answer to a question about this minister's responsibilities, what occurred in a Senate committee hearing and the total inconsistency between what was advised at the Senate estimates committee when Senator Herron was at the table and what Dr Wooldridge has been saying.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you have cast an imputation against the minister and I would ask you to withdraw that first before we go any further.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, what is the imputation?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The words you used in relation to the minister.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If I have cast an imputation, I will withdraw it. I do not believe I did so.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You did, and you also were not making a point of order; you were making a speech and debating the issue.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What was the imputation?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—With respect to the minister's behaviour.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I ask what was the imputation. I will only withdraw an imputation if I cast one, and I am asking you what the imputation was. If I have made one, I will withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am telling you you did cast an imputation against the minister's behaviour.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I am asking you what it was.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On the point of order, Madam President: Senator Faulkner was so worked up on this issue that he actually accused you of sleazing and sliding around.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, I didn't.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Yes, you did. He clearly meant to direct that at Senator Herron. He clearly does not know what he is saying and does not know what he is doing, and that is why he wants your direction that saying those sorts of things is casting aspersions on Senator Herron. He seems to be quite oblivious, because no doubt this is the sort of conduct that is par for the course behind the Sydney Town Hall; this is how they operate. It is not good enough here, Madam President. You ought to explain it to him clearly. He ought to be required to withdraw it unconditionally.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I at first did think that the remarks were being directed to me. I gave Senator Faulkner the benefit of the doubt that they were being directed to Senator Herron, in which case they should still be withdrawn.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order—Government senators—Withdraw! 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am not willing to withdraw—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, we are in the midst of a point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, if I have made an imputation, I will withdraw it. I am merely asking what the imputation was.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It has just been outlined by Senator Alston, and I require you to withdraw it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is not his job to outline it. Madam President, what is the imputation, please?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The words were just enunciated by Senator Alston in relation to that, and I believe—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You don't know what you are complaining about.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, that is a serious reflection on the chair and I require you to withdraw it.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I withdraw.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you can listen to the replay of the Hansard and I will as well. I require that to be withdrawn, and I do not regard your statement as a point of order. You were debating the issue and making a statement.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, as you indicate that you believe I have made an imputation, I will withdraw it. But, like you, I will check the tape. Let me say that I think it is reasonable, and I hope you would agree, when the President indicates that an imputation has been made, that that not only is withdrawn but also is identified. But in this case I will watch the tape, like you, Madam President, and I will withdraw any imputation if it has been made.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, do you have anything further you wish to add? You were interrupted in answering a question.VW4Senator HERRON—I was about 30 seconds into my answer when all this erupted. I was trying to provide an answer. I recall the question quite clearly. It was a question that Senator Faulkner asked about a Senate estimates committee when I was in the chair, and I was getting around to it, but Senator Faulkner, with his usual impetuous and arrogant behaviour, did not give me the opportunity to even answer the question after 30 seconds.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I draw your attention to the question.VW4Senator HERRON—From Senator Faulkner's point of view I will check the record because, like Senator Faulkner, I am a little reticent to accept any statements that are made by the other side. Senator Faulkner makes that proviso—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Look at your track record.VW4Senator HERRON—I have always told it straight. I tell it as it is. I will check the record. As I said previously, if the minister has anything further to say, it may well be, in answer to Senator Faulkner's question, that both were telling the truth. I would not impute any motives to either person in that regard. If there is an inconsistency, I will ask the minister and get back to Senator Faulkner.9918Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask whether the minister would agree that when there are very seriously differing statements made on the one hand by the Minister for Health and Aged Care and on the other by Mr Watzlaff from the Health Insurance Commission in relation to the initiation of the investigation into the MRI, whether the minister considers—Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, I cannot see you while Senator Faulkner is standing up but I can you hear you speaking while your leader is asking a supplementary question.5K4Senator FAULKNER—My question is whether the minister would agree that it is essential that with such a discrepancy the Senate be advised on whether it is Mr Watzlaff or Dr Wooldridge who is telling the truth on this matter. I would also ask whether the minister would agree that, because of this serious discrepancy between the minister and his official, the Senate should be advised as soon as possible, preferably after question time today, which of those two gentlemen, the minister or the official, is correct. (Time expired)9918Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I said I would refer the question to the minister, and I shall.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Respect for the chair is essential to the proper functioning of this place. You found that there was an imputation made against Senator Herron and asked that it be withdrawn. It was not withdrawn. What Senator Faulkner said was that he would look at the tape and if he then felt there was an imputation he would withdraw.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That's not right.BH4HILLSenator Hill—That is exactly what Senator Faulkner said. What he needs to do is to withdraw, and then he is certainly entitled to watch whatever tape he wishes or listen to whatever tape he wishes and take whatever further action he wishes in this place. But when he has been asked to withdraw, he must unreservedly withdraw, and then the matters can progress from there.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President: I would maintain and strongly submit to you that, when the chair calls on a senator to withdraw an imputation, it is reasonable that that imputation be identified. In this circumstance it was not. I have withdrawn any imputation that may have occurred. You understand my position on this. It is a spurious point of order by Senator Hill. Of course, he is wasting time trying to ensure that we do not spend the Senate's time as we ought to, properly scrutinising the actions of the executive.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It certainly was a matter that was to be withdrawn. I understood that Senator Faulkner had withdrawn it but was going to check the tape and I said that I would too. Senator Hill is absolutely right that if it is asked to be withdrawn it should and that the statement in question was identified.99199919Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and it refers to negotiations that have been conducted with the People's Republic of China on intercountry adoptions since 1992. Will the minister inform the Senate why such an agreement has not as yet been signed? Was it expected to be signed in September of this year? What is to prevent the immigration minister from signing that agreement during his forthcoming visit to the PRC?9919Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, as one who supports intercountry adoptions, I understand Senator Harradine's disappointment and frustration at the time it is taking to conclude this agreement with China. It is so, that the intercountry adoption agreement has not yet been completed. For the benefit of those senators who may not be as familiar with this matter as Senator Harradine, I remind the Senate that the agreement is being negotiated by the Victorian Department of Human Services in line with a resolution of the community services ministerial council and that negotiations with the Chinese government have been continuing for some time.Of course, a major obstacle to the agreement was that Australian law did not provide for automatic recognition of Chinese adoptions. That obstacle was overcome when, to facilitate the making of this agreement, the Family Law Act was amended in July 1998 to allow the automatic recognition of adoptions made under bilateral agreements with countries prescribed for that purpose. Pursuant to that, the Family Law Bilateral Arrangements Intercountry Adoptions Regulations of 1998, which prescribed China for that purpose, were made by the Executive Council on 31 July 1998 and commenced on 6 August 1998. Amendments to the migration regulations to allow for the permanent entry of children adopted under the proposed agreement with China commenced on 1 September 1998.An Australian delegation met with the PRC officials in September and, as Senator Harradine suggested, were optimistic of reaching an agreement with the PRC. It did not occur at a meeting between the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Australian embassy officials on 19 April this year. The ministry indicated that it was satisfied that Australian laws and regulations relating to adoptions were compatible with Chinese laws and regulations and that there was no significant impediment to the development of the agreement.The ministry suggested that this take the form of an exchange of notes rather than a memorandum of understanding. Then, at the invitation of the MCA, officers of the Victorian Department of Human Services and of the Commonwealth's Attorney-General's Department met with MCA officials on 15 September 1999 to discuss the text of the agreement. In-principle agreement was reached on the text and the note and the drafts were exchanged. The MCA indicated, however, that the note would need to be cleared through the state council, which would take at least another three weeks.Officers also met with officials of the China Centre for Adoption Affairs, which is under the umbrella of the MCA and responsible for day-to-day management of adoption matters. CCAA officials indicated that they had concerns about proposed medical clearance processes for adopted children. These pro cedural problems are not considered insurmountable by Australian officials but require consultation between Victoria, the states and territories before an agreed position can be reached in further discussion with the Chinese. Then I understand matters were further delayed because of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary in China and thus the matter is still not resolved. We believe there is a chance that it can be resolved by Minister Ruddock's visit in November, and he is hopeful that that is the case. (Time expired)99209920Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. I ask the minister whether she can confirm that she said in an interview on the ABC program PM on 12 October, in referring to the private security guards who were unarmed and without antiterrorist training and who were replacing the Protective Service officers at Melbourne airport, that the `private security guards were used at Melbourne airport at a time that airport was non-operational'—I stress `non-operational'. Can the minister confirm that such a statement was false and that in fact, during the period of time that she referred to when such guards were deployed, there were four international flight arrivals with some 1,300 passengers as well as two departures from Melbourne airport?9920Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I cannot confirm for Senator Bolkus dates and times of interviews in relation to this matter. I know I have done an interview in relation to this matter and I am aware that the advice provided at the time was that, when the industrial action was taking place, there was one time in Melbourne where the APS were not able to get what otherwise would have been regarded as appropriate replacements, namely police force ones.On that occasion private security guards were in fact engaged, which I am advised were not armed. The advice offered to me at the time was that the airport was not operational during that time. I have received advice today—and I will come back to why I sought that additional advice—that there was a point in time, during that occasion, when the airport was in fact operational. An airport is considered to be operational, as I am advised, when there are aircraft landing. There were three and possibly four—I do not have the further details with me—international flights, I think, that arrived in the early hours of the morning. I do not have advice as to whether they were scheduled flights or not.The Australian Protective Service advised me that they believed the action by the union potentially threatened the security of Melbourne airport. The APS contacted Victorian police, who simply could not provide the appropriate response from 12 midnight until 6 a.m. I am further advised that the Melbourne airport management therefore contacted the Victorian police independently and confirmed that that was the case. Given the situation, the Melbourne airport management then contacted the Department of Transport and Regional Services, which I am advised is responsible for the provision of security and they, in effect, contract APS to do that. As the APS, the Federal Police and the state police could not assist, the department of transport advised the Melbourne airport management that they could employ private security, not to do the work that would otherwise have been done by the APS but, at the very least, to minimise the risk.The advice that was received from local management at the Melbourne airport at the time the decision was made gave no indication of air movements, and it was assumed there would not be any at 1 a.m. The Protective Service management has been advised that further industrial action is being undertaken at Melbourne airport between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. today. Coverage during this period will be maintained by two station managers, an officer and possibly one further officer unconfirmed at this stage, bringing the total personnel to four, which is one fewer than that of a normal shift.The Protective Service management is also aware of industrial action planned for today at both Kirribilli and Exmouth. Planned industrial action for ANSTO has been cancelled. Senator Bolkus, I think that is the most information I can give you. I did say that I would come back to you as to why I sought further information. That was because the union sent me a letter alleging that the airport was operational at the time. I recognised that would be inconsistent with advice I had earlier received and so I asked for further advice.9921Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Today the minister first found out that the airport may have been operational. Minister, isn't it a fact that you were advised by the Community and Public Sector Union on 15 October that you were wrong to say the airport was non-operational at a time when unarmed security were placed at the airport in potential danger? Isn't this a second misleading by you of the public, the first one being your initial statement? Minister, when will you apologise to the Australian public?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, the question should be directed to the chair.XE4Senator BOLKUS—I ask the minister: when will she apologise to the Australian public and to the parliament and correct her statement in accordance with whatever may be left of the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct?9921Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Madam President, there are not many occasions on which I am grateful to Senate Bolkus, but this is one of them. By raising this as a question, he has saved me the necessity to find another opportunity to clarify this record. Senator Bolkus, I am genuinely grateful to you for this opportunity.Senator Bolkus may have misheard my answer. I will give him the credit and assume that is the case. I indicated to him that I had advice today that it was operational. In the same answer I indicated that the reason I sought that additional advice was that the union had written to me alleging that the airport was operational. So I take my answer, given to you in the first instance today, to be completely correct.99219921McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to the Minister for Communica tions, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate of the significance to the economy of the information technology and telecommunications sectors? What measures are being taken to support these important sectors? Is the minister aware of alternative approaches?9921Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We do indeed take the view that information technology and telecommunications are vital sectors for the Australian economy, in fact growing at about three times the rate of the national economy. Senator McGauran is acutely aware of the impact that telecoms and IT have not only across Australia but particularly in rural areas as a result of our recent policy initiatives. This has been recognised on both sides of the parliament. The Prime Minister said as long ago as September 1997 that the boom in the information economy, properly harnessed and encouraged, will deliver more jobs, more small businesses, more choice for families and higher economic growth for all Australians in urban and regional Australia alike.Even Mr Beazley only about 18 months later said of the information economy, `We have no choice but to engage. Our capacity to do so means the life or death of jobs in this country.' In fact, the Labor Party have gone so far as to develop a new technique—that is, that you throw around terms like `knowledge based economy' and you drop them into every speech that the leader makes, in the hope that people will somehow mistake a buzz word for a policy. It is the best they can do, but it will probably get them to a certain level.Around Australia, up until now, every mainland state government has had a frontbench responsibility for information technology, and that is entirely appropriate; in fact, in Victoria Alan Stockdale was constantly touted as the world's first multimedia minister.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I point out to Labor senators that constant shouting during an answer to a question is disorderly behaviour.LD4Senator ALSTON—It is very disappointing that we read today that a Labor government in Victoria will turn its back on a ministry exclusively for information technology and multimedia. An ALP source confirmed that no cabinet position would be made available but that a junior post, a parliamentary secretary, would be announced. So it has been sidelined. Of course, there have been howls of outrage from industry. The head of the Victorian branch of the Australian Computer Society was shocked. He said, `The only conclusion you can draw from this is they do not see IT as an essential industry to Australia. There should be a minister.' The Chief Executive of Open Software Associates said, `An IT minister has been part of the last two Victorian governments, but the Labor Party has not committed itself to that, unfortunately.' An Information Industry Association spokesman said that an IT minister was crucial to developing the nation's IT&T capabilities.About the only person who refused to comment on this decision was the spokesperson for the federal ALP's `technology champion'—that is the latest, presumably self-determined title—Senator Lundy. She refused to comment on the decision by Premier-elect Steve Bracks. Why? Simply because the Labor Party at the federal level does not have a shadow IT minister. This is devastating stuff, Madam President. The industry is crying out for leadership and the best they can get is a shadow minister for sport and youth affairs who is also shadow minister assisting the shadow minister for industry and technology on information technology—in other words, a shadow shadow. So all we get in Victoria now is a parliamentary secretary whose only significant comment to date was, `To boost the strength of Victoria's IT industry, we need leadership from government.' He is dead right. You are getting it from around Australia. You are not going to get it in Victoria any longer. You are getting it at the federal level but on one side only.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Why don't you do something for IT instead of just talking about it.LD4Senator ALSTON—All I can suggest, Senator Lundy, is that you should talk to Mr Beazley about a bit more of an extensive reshuffle during the break and see if you can actually get the tag, then you will not have to go around calling yourself a `champion'; you will be able to say that you are a real shadow minister.99229922Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that the terms of reference for the Reference Group on Welfare Reform, announced on 12 October, leave out the principle of maintaining the adequacy of pensions and benefits? Can the minister explain why the government is happy to stand by the principles of `equity, simplicity, transparency and sustainability', but not of adequacy? Don't these terms of reference leave it wide open for the group to recommend cuts to pensions and benefits under the guise of welfare reform?9922Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I made it absolutely crystal clear in my speech at the National Press Club that this was not about cutting benefits but about making sure that people were not consigned to the dustbin of welfare dependency, as had been the case over a number of years of Labor administration. The system we inherited is one that we have in fact enhanced by, for example, people on pensions having their pensions tied not only to the cost of living index but also to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. That is not the action of a government that is about cutting the rates of pensions. It is about doing something to help people to not need to get on to welfare in the first place, but if they do need the safety net, making sure that we help them with a whole lot of measures to not have to stay on for years and years. Anybody who is concerned about people on welfare payments would surely share that view.I was just looking up a transcript of a panel interview that I did with Mr Mark Latham and Mr Michael Raper on this very issue. You would be amazed, I am sure, Senator, to know what a concurrence of views there were about this issue of welfare dependency. Sadly, the spokesman for the opposition, Mr Wayne Swan, seems to be about pure opportunism and have no interest in policy. So that is the dilemma for the opposition: are they going down the good policy path or are they just playing games with the lives of Australians?9923Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the minister's answer that she has now ruled out unequivocally any future cuts to welfare pensions and benefits as a result of her inquiry.9923Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is perhaps a pity that Senator Murphy did not come to hear my speech. It is available on the Internet, and I would urge him to have a jolly good look.99239923Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. Given that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found in March this year that the Native Title Act as amended is in breach of Australia's international obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, isn't it both factually incorrect and misleading of the minister to post on his web site a fact sheet headed `Rebutting the myths', which states that Australia has a strong commitment to the principles contained in this convention?9923Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ridgeway for the question. Australia is proud of its record in honouring its international law obligations and is a signatory to a large number of human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Australia is fully honouring its obligation to indigenous people in international law. Indigenous people in Australia enjoy the full range of civil and political rights of all Australians. The government was deeply disappointed with the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and their decision, which we believe is wrong.The committee failed to come to grips with the legal complexities of native title and ignored the extensive consultations that took place about the Native Title Act amendments and the comprehensive parliamentary debate. It absolutely ignored them. The amendments actually solved problems of uncertainty created by the original act and subsequent judicial decisions and forged a workable balance between indigenous people, pastoralists and other interested parties. Nevertheless, the committee's decision in August to further examine Australia in the context of its normal consideration of Australia's periodic reports under the CERD convention is sensible and should contribute to more constructive dialogue. I note also that the committee is no longer planning a visit to Australia.The government is most concerned to address the socioeconomic disadvantages faced by indigenous people by implementing a large number of practical programs to improve the health, housing, education and employment opportunities of indigenous people in Australia. That is also on my web site. Also on my web site is the statement that the Commonwealth is spending on indigenous specific programs in 1999-2000 more funds than ever—$2.2 billion are going into this program. The government is doing an enormous amount. Senator Ridgeway asked me yesterday about self-determination in relation to indigenous people. I note that, four days ago, Elaine McKeon, an outstanding indigenous Australian, said from Cloncurry that the concept of self-determination to her meant:I think that real self-determination comes when you are able to initiate something yourself and get that support, especially when it's going to mean real benefits for your people.For a United Nations committee to make a determination in this regard is far removed from what people on the ground believe. The inappropriateness of the term `self-determination' in the domestic context is self-evident in any suggestion of sovereign self-government being relevant or applicable anywhere in Australia, whether it be in the Torres Strait, Cape York, the Kimberley, Arnhem Land, the Pitjantjatjara lands, or elsewhere.I have no doubt that, when the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination fully understands what an enormous amount we are doing for the indigenous people of this country, they will reconsider their position. At all times we have honoured our obligations to indigenous people in international law, and we will continue to do so. We do not resile from that. We have taken an active interest in what the CERD committee has determined, and we have tried to explain to them that their original decision was not based on fact. We will be happy to do that should they come back to us at a future date. The position with the CERD committee is that it is still in the determination stage and no final decision has been reached. We will have to await that outcome.9924Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am not sure whether the minister answered the question, but I thank him for his answer. To what extent has the government consulted with indigenous people and their representative organisations in relation to projects like Rebutting the Myths and its wider campaign to refute the findings of the United Nations CERD committee report?9924Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am very proud of the Rebutting the Myths booklet which I have produced. I would be happy to send copies to all senators and members, because there are a lot of myths in the community. We had an overwhelming demand for the first issue. This is the second issue, and I would be very happy to send it. I have already sent out 4,000 copies to constituents right across Australia as a result of campaigns. We can rebut many myths. There are many myths within this booklet that are exposed for what they are, and I think it is incumbent on everybody throughout Australia to read this booklet. As I said, we would be very happy to supply it to anybody who wishes to read it.One of the myths is that Australia is breaching human rights obligations, and the booklet responds to that. The booklet is referred to on my webpage. Other myths include: most indigenous Australians live in the bush, indigenous affairs is awash with money, indigenous Australians have alcohol problems, and so on. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Questions Without Notice9924992415:02:009924Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Yesterday at question time I undertook to get additional information for Senator Chris Evans on the Defence child-care centre at Swanbourne. I seek leave to incorporate that information.Leave granted.The document read as follows—The Sunny Centre at Swanbourne, a Department of Defence Child Care Centre, currently offers 47 child care places and operates at around 39 places. On average, only 23 places have been filled by Defence families' children.Having previously administered these services directly, which placed a substantial management burden on the local parent volunteers, Defence has recently awarded the external management contract to KU children's services.KU Children's Services is a community-based service with a long and successful history in managing child care services in Australia. They operate more than 130 different child care services, including preschool, long day care, mobile units, occasional care, before and after school care and work-based child care.The services provided by KU Children's Services under the contract are designed to meet the needs of Defence personnel, and the contract allows Defence to alter the number of places at the centres to meet the changing demand from Defence families.The centre intends to renew its licence at the level of 39 places from January 2000. This will allow for flexibility to extend usage by Defence families' children if demand increases from the current average.There will therefore be flexibility to respond if there are increased demands by Defence Service's families for respite or work related care generated by matters such as the East Timor deployment.992415:03:009924Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), to questions without notice asked by Senator Cook and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) today, relating to magnetic resonance imaging services.Senator Herron's unwillingness to engage in discussion about the MRI scam today was in stark contrast to his performance last week when he sought to denigrate the opposition for raising the issue and for querying what we saw as a scandal in relation to the increase in the number of magnetic resonance imaging machines in this country. The budget information that was given to radiologists prior the budget in 1998 has led to the doubling of MRI machines in a year.It is interesting that yesterday the Minister for Health and Aged Care, after denigrating the opposition in the House of Representatives for the last 18 months as we pursued this issue, finally agreed that this was a scam, that there had been massive drain on the Commonwealth as a result of quite unethical practices, and that we had been faced with a huge bill as taxpayers of Australia as a result of his mishandling of this situation. The only thing that was missing yesterday was the resignation of the minister. He should have resigned, given the bungling that has occurred over this matter. At the very least, he should have stood aside and called a royal commission, because the Australian community and this parliament can have no faith in the minister's ability to oversee an investigation into this matter with any impartiality, any fairness or any rigour.Senator Herron's answers today confirm that the government are refusing to take this issue seriously enough. They have spent months and months denigrating the opposition over its pursuit of the issue. They have spent months and months denying that there was anything wrong. And yesterday, after all that, the minister wanders in and says, `Well, I have just got this report from my department and it is a complete scam.' As if this were news! I do not know where he was during the Senate estimates process, and I do not know where Senator Herron was.For months I have been asking the government about this, for months we have had evidence from the department about their concerns, and for months we have been fobbed off with the answer that the minister's department were investigating it and we would be given the report. We were to be given the report in June, then August, then November, and now it seems we will not get it for some months yet because the minister has finally admitted that the whole thing is a complete scam, that the taxpayers have been ripped off to an enormous extent and that he now thinks that the Auditor-General ought to have a look at it. The only reason he thinks the Auditor-General ought to have a look at it is because he knows that a more thorough investigation—one with broader powers—would demand his resignation. We will demand a much wider inquiry than that proposed for the Auditor-General, because the issues are far more serious, far more widespread, and they go right to the heart of the minister's office. The Auditor-General does not have the capacity and powers to ensure that we get that proper investigation.The government have tried to deflect attention from this matter; they have tried to cover up the issues at stake in this matter for 18 months. We have been pursuing this and pursuing this. We have been denigrated and ridiculed for taking this issue seriously, and the minister finally has conceded that a very serious public policy issue is at stake here. But the minister continues to mislead about his involvement in this issue and he continues to mislead about the involvement of his ministerial office. Only today we had another example of why it is inappropriate for the minister to remain in his place and have control over an investigation of this matter. Minister Wooldridge went on ABC radio this morning and, in answer to a question about when the investigation took place, he said:I took action way before February. It was me that instigated the Health Insurance Commission inquiry in September last year.So he is out there saying, `It's all okay; I initiated an investigation.' Mr Watzlaff, the responsible officer from the Health Insurance Commission—the man in charge of investigating this; a very competent official—in May this year at estimates in answer to my question, `Could you just explain to me who initiated the investigation and why?' said on the record:Last December the Health Insurance Commission received information from an anonymous source, which seemed to be well placed, that there were false statements in documents lodged with us in relation to the MRI applications. Upon receipt of that material I commenced the investigation.So the minister was directly misleading the public by claiming that he initiated the investigation when the departmental officers have said all along that it was done by the HIC in relation to complaints they received. Clearly, this minister is still trying to put his spin on it, is still trying to put in place damage control and is still misleading the public. (Time expired)15:08:009926Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Today we are talking about a claim by the opposition—yet again not substantiated—that somehow the Minister for Health and Aged Care has fiddled the books in terms of allowing people to order MRI scanners. It is just outrageous to think that the opposition can continually come into both chambers of this parliament and make unsubstantiated claims about ministerial involvement in something that is crooked.What the opposition have failed to spell out in categorical terms is that the claim that they are making is that somehow Minister Wooldridge was the source of the information given—and Senator Evans nods. Thank you very much, Senator Evans. That is exactly the point you are raising: that Dr Wooldridge was the person who advised the radiologists to order the machines. Why doesn't the opposition come clean? Why don't they spell it out? That is really what they are claiming.The previous Labor government failed the people of Australia miserably in creating accessibility to MRI technology. The Labor government made it so restrictive that it was not only hard to get if they wanted it but also prohibitive in terms of cost. People would have to wait months and months to get a scan or pay an enormous amount of money. And here we have the Labor opposition yet again poking at the government for taking the initiative to make sure that MRI scans are more readily available. But worse than that, they claim that the minister has done something illegal and improper. That is completely and utterly wrong. Such a claim is absolutely and utterly indefensible. The minister has acted with complete and utter propriety in this matter. He knows that there has been a question and he has sought to resolve the issue. That is the important thing.No doctors can complain if they fall into the net of the new regulations that Minister Wooldridge is putting into place because, let's face it, doctors with machines operating or on order that are affected by this regulation have no reason whatsoever to complain. They took their own counsel and claimed to order machines with irrevocable contracts without any knowledge that the government would agree to allow Medicare benefits for services for those machines. So no-one can complain about it. For the opposition to come in here and suggest that Minister Wooldridge personally has somehow done something illegal is just absolutely and utterly objectionable and indefensible.As I say, the fact of the matter remains that the decision was announced on 12 May 1998 as part of the 1998 budget. It was also announced at that time that eligibility for benefits was to be limited to machines that were in place or on order on that day. Subsequently, the government decided to require operators of machines to notify the Health Insurance Commission of any machines they considered to be eligible by no later than 11 October 1999.Last Friday the minister received a minute from the Managing Director of the HIC advising him that 111 MRI machines have now been notified to the commission. Of these, 59 were in place on 12 May 1998—the date of the 1998 budget—and 52 were claimed to be on order that day. No fewer than 13 of the machines claimed to be on order last May were advised to the HIC in the fortnight before the cut-off on 11 October this year—that is, in the last week or so, 13 radiologists remembered that they had spent $3 million on an MRI machine 18 months ago. That is pretty remarkable. No-one would disagree with that being a pretty remarkable thing. But the point of the matter is that the minister has sought to do something about it. For the opposition to come in here and claim that the minister has not done anything about it, is just simply and utterly wrong.The interim measure will ensure that an advantage does not accrue to any person who may have taken advantage of backdating of a contract, a non-binding contract or any form of inside knowledge as a result of the negotiation process to order a machine before 12 May. That regulation will take effect on 1 November to ensure that people who have scans booked over the next fortnight at machines that will no longer be eligible for benefit will not be disadvantaged. That also applies to people in the country. Therefore, what the minister is trying to do is to ensure—in the total distortion of this argument put by the opposition—that the people who seek to get the scans and who are being given the scans are not the ones disadvantaged as they were under Labor. (Time expired)15:13:009927Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I will pick up on the comments of the previous speaker, Senator Knowles, and add some further remarks. What Senator Knowles did in the last couple of minutes of her contribution was to actually point out in stark reality what this scam is. The scam of course is that in the 1998 budget the then minister, Dr Wooldridge—still the minister but I would predict not to be for terribly much longer—indicated that he would extend Medicare benefits to people who had to use the services of magnetic resonance imaging machinery. At that time, there were some 59 such machines in Australia. And one must remember that these are not cheap pieces of equipment—they cost $3 million each. The minister's announcement was that the benefits would be extended to patients using not only the machines that were in operation but also any machines that were on order at that date.But what do we find? We find that, somehow, there was a total of 111 machines—the 59 that were on order and another 52 that were claimed to be on order. An amazing increase! How did this come about? It is becoming clear that people had inside knowledge. They were able to order those machines because they had prior knowledge of an announcement that was to be made in the budget. They could therefore order the ma chines and cash in on the future benefits as a result of being funded through Medicare payments. In some other cases, it is alleged, they actually backdated the contracts.You will notice that the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care in this chamber, Senator Herron—who has so much to say about health issues, giving us the benefit of his knowledge because he is actually a practitioner of some note—is strangely silent today. He could not answer the question; he had to refer it all to his colleague in the other house. Yet only last week he was bragging about what a great achievement it was that the government had increased the number of these machines. This has now been exposed as a scam carried out by a bunch of radiologists and other people employed or engaged in the health industry—the wealthy end of the health industry, not the battlers that this government claims to represent. But Senator Herron is not even in the chamber to take part in this debate.Senator Knowles said, `The minister, Dr Wooldridge, is actually trying to fix this issue up.' This minister has been denying all year that there is a problem. When he was asked a question on 9 February—and he has been asked questions on at least 19 occasions in the House of Representatives—he said:The audit system we have put in place is completely robust.On 10 February he said:The fact is that this measure will not cost the Commonwealth budget anything, as far as I understand it.We know it is going to cost a heck of a lot now, because of the scam that has been uncovered. On 11 February he said:I do not know when the machines came in except to say that I asked the Health Insurance Commission last night whether there is any evidence that anyone had advance knowledge of the decision, and I was advised that their investigations to date have not provided any evidence whatsoever.The questions have continued all the way through the year. On each occasion, both in the House of Representatives and at estimates, the minister in the House and his representative in the Senate, Senator Herron, fobbed us off and tried to deny that there was a problem.Yesterday in the House, the minister acknowledged that there was a problem. At the very least, it has been incompetence on the part of the Minister for Health and Aged Care not only for allowing this to occur but also for continuing to deny there was a problem. There has clearly been negligence by the minister in the administration of his department, and he should resign. There should be a royal commission into this. This minister should resign and, frankly, his spokesperson in this chamber, Senator Herron, should be relieved of his duties as well because, as the minister responsible, he is obliged to respond to these questions in this chamber.We all know that this government is now running scared. They were bragging about the great increase in these machines—these scan machines. What that produced is a scam, not a scan, and this issue is ultimately going to bring about the downfall of the minister for health. (Time expired)15:18:009928Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—What a lot of nonsense all that was from Senator Forshaw and Senator Evans. They talked about scams, they called for the minister to resign, they described the minister as incompetent and they talked about the need for a royal commission. In fact, the minister has demonstrably acted in a very responsible manner. He has acted to ensure that the costs to the health system of this very highly developed technology are contained. Far from needing to be criticised, Michael Wooldridge should be praised. He is a very effective and responsible minister, he has dealt with a very difficult situation rapidly and in a timely fashion, and he has saved the government a lot of money in respect of the unnecessary use of very high cost technology.Let us get back to basics and onto the straight and narrow. This government has a very fine record of responsible management of our health system. This government has ensured that, at what is the lowest cost in the OECD, Australia has a very fine health service indeed.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Did have until 1996!4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—In fact the government, as I am sure Senator Forshaw is very well aware, has contained the increase in costs of the health system in Australia to less than seven per cent per annum, which is the lowest of any country in the OECD.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Made a quid out of the taxpayers!4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Not at all. The government has acted to responsibly ensure that appropriate medical services are available throughout this country to the Australian population at appropriate cost.Let us look at what MRI is. MRI is magnetic resonance imaging. It is a technique whereby, instead of having just the old black-and-white pictures of an X-ray or the vague grey images of an ultrasound, you get a three-dimensional picture of something. To do this you need to have very highly sophisticated technology, and that is very expensive. The government has recognised that the Australian people are entitled to have a certain number of these machines available around Australia because they really do add to the ability of doctors to diagnose problems and work out what is wrong with people. The government has acted to ensure that there is not an oversupply. Labor, on the other hand, would have starved the Australian people of access to this technology.Let us look at the Labor Party record on MRI. We have heard today that there are, I think, 66 MRI machines available around Australia. There were 59 available on 12 May 1998 under the present government. When Labor was in power there were 18 MRI machines available in public hospitals around Australia. That was a clearly inadequate number. It underlines the total inadequacy of the Labor government's approach to providing sophisticated diagnostic technology to the Australian people. Over the 10 years from the time of the introduction of MRI under the Labor government, the private medical sector put in place some 40 machines. That was an inadequate number for the Australian people. It was not a particularly stunning success rate at all by the previous government.Our government has ensured that around Australia there are adequate numbers of MRI machines to provide reasonable service to the Australian community. Last week, it became apparent that from the time negotiations were begun with the College of Radiologists back in May 1998 a large number of extra MRI machines were ordered. These were clearly in excess of need and the minister acted responsibly to ensure—(Time expired)15:23:009929Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—In 1997, the Australian Health Technology Assessment Committee report recommended that there be some increase in the number of magnetic resonance imaging machines, known as MRIs—some increase—particularly to ensure appropriate access across Australia and particularly in rural and regional areas of Australia that were missing out on such access. It also pointed out that there was little additional need for machines in major cities.On 12 May 1998, at the time as the budget announcement, there were 59 machines in place. These machines cost $3 million each and can generate revenue of $1½ million a year. In the budget of 12 May 1998, there were two critical announcements. The first was that Medicare benefit funding would be made available for MRIs. In other words, the taxpayer would be footing a substantial part of the cost of the operation of these machines. Secondly, and critically, the funding by the taxpayer in respect of these machines was to be limited to machines that were in place or on order on that day.The Managing Director of the Health Insurance Commission has informed the minister that 52 operators have claimed to have had machines on order on that day. Of the 52, 48 were ordered between 10 February and budget day, 12 May 1998. Forty-eight—almost a doubling of these machines—occurred in the three months up to the policy announcement in the budget. It is interesting that between February and the budget announcement, negotiations were held between the minister himself, staff from his office and members of the department about this particular policy. At the same time as negotiations were occurring about the policy—surprise, surprise!—there was an explosive growth in the number of MRI machines on order, coincidentally at that time.The minister had these discussions with industry representatives. It has become apparent that industry representatives breached the confidentiality of a budget measure. They took advantage of their knowledge of a budget measure that was to be announced on 12 May to go out and place on order these particular MRI machines. The number of MRI machines almost doubled in the lead-up to the budget. This is at a cost to the taxpayer of apparently about $150 million.Senator Eggleston said that the government has acted to ensure that there is not an oversupply. What we have ended up with is almost a doubling of the number of MRI machines, and the machines have not ended up where they were supposed to go. The machines were not supposed to go into capital cities. A small number of additional machines was required in rural and regional areas. What has happened? Of the 48 additional machines, only three have ended up in rural and regional areas. Senator Eggleston claims that the government has acted to ensure that there is not an oversupply. What we have ended up with is a vast oversupply in areas where the machines were not needed and at a cost of $150 million to taxpayers just to buy them.It is apparent, whether directly, deliberately or inadvertently, that the minister or his office is responsible for this insider trading occurring. To make it worse, when my colleagues Ms Macklin, Senator West, Senator Denman, Senator Evans and other senators have raised this issue over months and months, the Minister for Health and Aged Care has denied there has been a problem and his representative Senator Herron has just fobbed it off and laughed about it in this place. There is a very serious problem which the minister has finally admitted there has to be an inquiry into. Yet he has been denying it for the last nine months. This needs not just an auditor's inquiry; it needs a royal commission to find out exactly why this has cost the taxpayers $150 million. (Time expired)15:28:009929Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—When I was listening to Senator Forshaw earlier, the only thing that made an impres sion on me was his complaint that neither Minister Herron nor Senator Knowles, who spoke earlier, had remained in the chamber to listen to his speech. I would like point out that neither Senator Evans, who moved that the Senate take note of the answer given by Minister Herron, nor Senator Forshaw are now in the chamber. That demonstrates how much importance they attach to their own speeches.This particular motion by Senator Evans to take note of an answer refers to an apparent substantial increase in the number of magnetic resonance imaging machines in Australia. There were a number of issues raised by Labor senators. Firstly, they claimed the facts demonstrate that there is something wrong. Secondly, they claimed that the marked increase in the number of MRI machines has been caused by the minister's incompetence or his failure to take earlier action. Also, in earlier questions, Senator Faulkner implied that the minister in fact sought to mislead parliament by stating that he ordered an investigation into this increase in the number of MRI machines.I will go through each of them. Firstly, let us have a look at the facts about MRI machines. The magnetic imaging resonance machine is an important piece of medical equipment because it is a non-intrusive investigating machine. Every other type of equipment which looks inside a body causes some sort of intrusion into the physical being, so it is a very important medical advancement. However, it is not absolutely new technology; it has been around for 10 or 15 years.The reality is that Labor, when they were in government, completely failed to supply the Australian public with this piece of high technology. During the 13 years of Labor government they managed to provide MRIs in about 18 public hospitals around Australia—not just in one city but around Australia. Over 10 years of their government, the private sector managed to provide an additional 40 machines.Because the machines cost private practitioners about $3 million each to install, it was reasonable to expect that practitioners would try to recover the money. Consequently, before this government took office and before the last budget, if a patient required an MRI scan they had two choices: they could either pay many hundreds of dollars out of their own pocket or they could wait up to six months or sometimes longer to have a scan at a public hospital with one of those 18 machines that are available in public hospitals.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—There are 59, Senator.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—Forty of them are in private hands, Senator. The government has made MRI available to the general public by putting it into the Medical Benefits Scheme. That was the intention. I noted earlier that Senator Sherry was reading from the minister's statement to the House yesterday, and I am indebted to him for that. The reality is that the minister has put the provision in place but there is no guarantee that it will work. There is a burden of proof there. Until you see something has actually gone wrong you cannot act. This is fundamental justice. You don't have to see that anything is wrong; you do something anyway. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices9930993015:34:009930Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, on behalf of Senator Coonan and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 3 and 5 standing in her name for five sitting days after today.9930Senator Crane to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon be extended to 7 December 1999.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the failure of the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty sends a strong negative signal to the global community regarding progress toward nuclear weapons disarmament and international security, and (ii) Agenda Item 76(R) of the First Committee of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly calls on nuclear weapons states to discharge their Article 6 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations without delay, and calls on all nations that have not done so to sign and ratify the Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and (b) calls on the Australian Government to strongly support Agenda Item 76(R) presented by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden, particularly in light of the above.(2) That the text of this resolution be conveyed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), to the Australian Ambassador to the UN and to other UN delegations.Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table, no later than 3 pm on 21 October 1999, by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Senator Ellison):(a) the agenda and minutes of all meetings of the department's Higher Education Reform Group in 1999;(b) all papers produced by the department's Higher Education Reform Project in 1999;(c) all documents containing any assessment of the New Zealand Higher Education funding system undertaken in 1998 or 1999;(d) all sector-wide assessments undertaken in 1998 or 1999 of the financial position of higher education institutions in Australia; and(e) a copy of the final report, and any other papers produced during the inquiry, of the consultancy undertaken by Mr Raoul Mortley of Delacroix Press examining industrial relations issues in Australian higher education institutions.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) two initiatives being developed by Melbourne's City of Darebin, in conjunction with local aid agencies, (ii) that the first project would facilitate direct involvement of Australian local government personnel in East Timor's reconstruction and the second project would provide training and mentoring in local government settings to East Timorese living in Australia who have indicated a desire to return to East Timor, (iii) the unique pool of skills and human resources available in local government to assist with the reconstruction of East Timor, including accountants, engineers, social workers, project managers, logisticians and mechanics, and (iv) that several other councils such as the Cities of Yarra, Casey, Port Phillip and Moreland have expressed interest in the projects;(b) congratulates the City of Darebin for these initiatives, which aim at empowering East Timorese with the skills and knowledge necessary to rebuild their society and physical environment; and(c) urges the Government to encourage and assist local government to participate in the healing and reconstruction of East Timor's physical environment and civil society.Senator Brown to move, on 23 November 1999:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 19 November 1999 was the 30th anniversary of the United Nations (UN) Resolution to remove West Papua from its list of non-self-governing territories of the UN Decolonisation Commission, (ii) documents released in 1999 show that Australian and United States intelligence surmised that 95 per cent of West Papuans wanted independence in 1969, and (iii) the recent protests against Indonesian rule, involving 1 500 youths and other civilians in Jayapura, condemned the government's move to split the province; and(b) resolves that the 1969 `vote' in West Papua was neither free nor democratic and the UN should now act to provide West Papuans with a genuine act of self-determination.15:37:009931Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Coonan and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, Senator Coonan shall move:That the Superannuation (PSS) Membership Exclusion Declaration 1999 (No. 1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 168 and made under the Superannuation Act 1990 , be disallowed.I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Superannuation (PSS) Membership Exclusion Declaration 1999 (No.1) Statutory Rules 1999 No.168The Regulations exclude from the Scheme persons who have transferred to the Australian Government Solicitor.Although, by virtue of regulation 2, these Statutory Rules commence on Gazettal, the terms of item 2 in the Schedule apparently indicate that the amendments made by them apply from 1 August 1998. The Explanatory Statement, however, does not provide any indication of the correct commencement date for this item, whether the amendments apply retrospectively and, if so, whether any person other than the Commonwealth will be affected adversely.9932Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 340 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, proposing an order for the production of Commonwealth-State agreements, postponed till 22 November 1999.General business notice of motion no. 291 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for 20 October 1999, relating to compensation for the stolen generation, postponed till 24 November 1999.Business99329932Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999.Miscellaneous9932Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) put:That the Senate—(a) notes that, in the interests of an open and informed public debate on social welfare reform, the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman) should provide all documents relating to the proposed social welfare changes outlined in the discussion paper that she was to have released during her speech on 29 September 1999; and(b) requires that the Minister lay on the table, no later than 3 pm on 20 October 1999, all documents prepared by the Department of Family and Community Services relating to the social welfare changes outlined in the discussion paper or the paper itself, including: (i) any assessment of the impact of the proposed social welfare changes on each federal electorate, (ii) any assessment of the impact of the proposed social welfare changes on various socio-economic groups, and (iii) any costings or modelling done on the proposed social welfare changes.15:43:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)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. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.30Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Faulkner, J. P.Macdonald, I.Hogg, J.Tambling, G. E. J.Hutchins, S. P. Troeth, J.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Ray, R. F. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous9933Motion (by Senator Bartlett) put:(1) That the Senate: (a) notes the failure by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman) to comply with the orders of the Senate of 30 September 1999 and 13 October 1999 to table the welfare reform discussion paper originally prepared for her Press Club speech on 29 September 1999; and (b) resolves that, until such time as the Minister purges the contempt in which she has held the Senate by tabling the document, question time on each day is to continue until 8 opposition and 3 Democrats questions, not including supplementary questions, have been asked. (2) This resolution is to remain in force until either the document is tabled or until the last sitting day of 1999, whichever is earlier.15:48:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harris, L. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Faulkner, J. P. Macdonald, I.Hogg, J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hutchins, S. P. Troeth, J.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Ray, R. F. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Committees993499349934Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Cooney) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on search and entry provisions in Commonwealth legislation be extended to 8 December 1999.99349934Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Ferris) agreed to:That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 20 October 1999, from 3.30 p.m., to take evidence for the committee's inquiry under section 206(d) of the Native Title Act.99349934Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 20 October 1999, from 3.30 p.m., to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office.99349934Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles) agreed to:That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 21 October 1999, from 3 p.m. till 7 p.m., to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999.Miscellaneous9934Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Tambling) agreed to:That the Senate— (a) notes that 19 October 1999 is the 25th anniversary of the election of the first fully-elected Parliament of the Northern Territory;(b) commends the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for its continuous advocacy and responsibility in parliamentary matters of debate and constitutional achievement;(c) recognises the contribution to the Northern Territory made by the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party, the majority party since 1974, the Northern Territory Australian Labor Party, the opposition party since 1977, and various minor party and independent members of the Legislative Assembly;(d) appreciates the ongoing need for close partnership between the Federal and Northern Territory parliaments and governments to achieve further economic advancements and social development for the Northern Territory community; and(e) congratulates the people of the Northern Territory on the significant progress that has been made since 1974, both economically and socially, but recognises the ongoing disadvantage of some sectors of the community, particularly Aboriginal people.Miscellaneous993415:52:009934Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I seek leave to make a three-minute statement before asking that general business notice of motion No. 329 be taken as formal.Leave granted.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I wish to make some brief comments about the notice of motion that was given by three senators—myself, Senator Bourne and Senator Payne. All three of us are members of the all-party parliamentary group on population and development. It seemed appropriate to move a motion to note that 12 October 1999 marked the day the population of this world was judged to have reached six billion people. We also thought that, as well as recognising the fact that we now have six billion people in this world, it is important to recognise the sorts of pressures on, and consequences of, a world of six billion people.First of all, I think we should celebrate it. It is an extremely amazing achievement that this world can now claim six billion people. That means that over this century there has been an amazing increase in the number of people who have survived and survived through to adulthood and enjoyed good health in their lifetimes. We also acknowledge though that, with that kind of population, we do need to look at the impact of uncontrollable population expansion. I am not arguing that it is uncontrollable at this time, but we need to recognise that uncontrollable population expansion will lead to increasing pressure on the world, particularly serious environmental and social problems.Our notice of motion recognises the need of respect for cultural sensibilities, calls for a realistic approach to family planning, including access to information on family planning, and emphasises that the issues of population and development are interconnected. It has taken many years for women to argue that the capacity to have children—which is the particular responsibility of women—needs to be associated with the significant questions of economic development and environmental development in this world. That is why the Cairo achievements of 1994 were so important: at last concerns about population, which were up until then very much seen as women's concerns and of a minor nature, were finally seen as critical for this world's sustainable development.In particular, I think the most important thing about a population of this size is the unfair distribution of this world's resources. Many of those six billion people do not have access to clean water, adequate food or reasonable housing, health or education. It is not just a matter of the size of the population in this world; it is a matter of the equity of the distribution of resources, so that everyone of those six billion people can expect to live a decent human life. At the moment, millions and billions of people in the developing world do not have the same claim on the world's resources as do people in the Western world. I believe it is a very important notice of motion. I thank the Senate for this opportunity to address it today. I ask that notice of motion No. 329 be taken as formal.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to notice of motion No. 329 being taken as formal?15:56:009935Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I seek leave to make a three-minute statement.Leave granted.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The policy issues relating to this matter deserve extensive and informed debate, not a truncated debate. If this notice of motion goes through, our successors in this Senate in 50 years time will look back on us as being demographic curiosities because it is based on a false assumption. The false assumption is that, as the notice of motion states, there is uncontrollable population growth, whereas, in fact, we are now well and truly in the demographic transition from—as people call it—population explosion to population implosion. Even the United Nations population division now indicates—and the figures have been revised again; the UN is continually resizing them down—that in the middle of next century there will be, in the low variant, 7.3 billion, and then, in actual numbers, population will decline. Professor Jack Caldwell, I notice, says it will decline to about four billion people.Unless we get this right, one of the problems is that we are going to put fear where fear is not appropriate. People are acting illogically because fear is surrounding this particular debate. They say that population increases the problem. Their fatal diagnosis is that people growth in developing countries is the problem and that population control is the solution. That diagnosis is deceptive, simplistic and distracts attention from the real problems and their solutions. The fertility of poor women in developing countries has been made the scapegoat for a range of problems from environmental damage to famine. The primary cause of these problems of course is war, political instability and man's inhumanity to man—injustice.An unhealthy fixation on population control is economically and socially naive and dangerous. It diverts the attention and efforts of governments in both the developed and developing world away from the real and pressing measures required. I am happy and really desirous of a genuinely informed debate on that subject. I am afraid the debate in the House of Representatives was far from informed.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to notice of motion No. 329 being declared formal? There is an objection.Leave not granted.Miscellaneous993616:00:009936Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 334, standing in my name for today and relating to the world's population reaching six billion, be taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.993616:00:009936Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of business of the Senate, namely, a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion no. 334.I will read that motion to the Senate. It is:That the Senate:(a) notes that the Earth's population—By the way, can I note for Hansard here that, as far as I am concerned, the earth is spelt with a capital e and not a small e. In the English language, every other planet gets a capital letter, and so should the one we live on. Let me continue:(a) notes that the Earth's population will reach six billion during October 1999;(b) recognises that the 20th century began with 1.6 billion and will end with 6.1 billion;(c) understands that there may be as many as 10 to 14 billion people depending on the planet's finite resources during the 21st century; and(d) calls for Australia to establish a global population policy.The world has seen, through this century, on those figures, unprecedented growth of a large and wonderful mammal, homo sapiens, which is at the end of the century taking 40 per cent of the available food stock and which is, according to modest projections from the United Nations, going to continue to grow in population numbers to an estimated 8.9 billion by the year 2050—that is, in the lifetimes of most Australians now in their primary or high school years.The problem is compounded because, as Senator Crowley said a moment ago, there is an enormous imbalance between the haves and have-nots in the consumption of resources. This is true particularly of the wealthiest people in the world—in fact, we have figures that show that some 350 individuals on this planet own as much as the world's poorest one billion or two billion people. It is an extraordinarily out of kilter human community we live in and, if we are going to put things to rights, we are going to have to extend to other people outside our country, I believe, part of the fair go that Senator Harradine was talking about that we have within our own country. It is certainly not the case at the moment. The reason for the urgency of this motion is that it is time that, at the national level, we instituted a population policy which tries to reach out to the rest of the world as well as looks at what we have in this country, in the interests of future generations everywhere, including future generations of Australians.We are still far from achieving a goal of fairness. Let me read from the United Nations publication, noting there are six billion people in the world. It says, for example, of the health life of women in the poorer world, that more than half of the days lost in their reproductive years are related to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy and reproductive disorders. Three hundred and fifty million women, nearly one-third of all women of reproductive age, in developing countries still do not have access to a range of modern, safe and acceptable methods of family planning, and 120 million more women would use family planning now if it were more widely available, better understood, supported by communities and families and backed by quality programs. In developing countries 585,000 women die each year as a result of pregnancy and many times that number of women suffer infection or injury. Seventy thousand lives are lost each year to unsafe abortions. Women are nearly two-thirds of the world's 960 million illiterates, and women and girls make up three-fifths of the world's poor. Part of the response by the United Nations is not just to afford education and alternatives, including the lowly condom, to those people who would want to have that option available to them but to ensure that men also are aware of the advantages of being able to make decisions for themselves.Our national government has instituted many of the policies we would like to see worldwide, including legislation for equality, good health and opportunity to access reproductive choices. Surely we ought to be extending that domestic largesse to the rest of the world in the interests of everybody to come, as well as living space on this planet for our 30 million fellow creatures. I seek the Senate's support to go on to debate this issue for its sheer importance. (Time expired)16:05:009937Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I oppose the suspension of standing orders for the very reason that we do need an extensive, informed debate, and we cannot have an extensive, informed debate by suggesting that a matter can be taken as formal and then voted upon or by a truncated debate in a situation like this, when many of our colleagues do not even know what was going on because they are in committees. Let us have it out at one particular stage in a period of time, say, general business time, when we all know what we are talking about. It is indeed essential to have the facts and be fully informed upon the subject.Senator Brown talks about the effects of population. The figures that he gave to the Senate are somewhat wrong, but we will deal with those at some other stage. Furthermore, he calls on Australia to establish a global population policy. That suggests it would be an entirely cleaner place if there were less Indians in the world, if there were less Asians in the world, if there were less Africans in the world? Tell them to fix themselves up.We are going out the back door in Australia, and so are large numbers of other countries. One particular speaker in the House of Representatives debate talked about Italy and how long it would take for it to double its population. Yet Italy, according to member of the French Academy Professor Pierre Chaunu, has a 0.8 fertility rate when it needs a 2.1 fertility rate to break even. That is how uninformed some of the debate was in the House of Representatives, although there was some other debate that was well informed.But I want to indicate that we do need such a debate. You mentioned health. Look, the UNFPA is after your money. The problem is that the money goes there and it is not going to the real causes of maternal mortality. The vast majority of maternal deaths are directly attributed to four major causes: haemorrhage, infection, hypertension and obstructed labour. Pregnancy, in itself, continues to be blamed for the deaths rather than the disturbing lack of prenatal care, trained midwives and centres equipped for obstetric complications—and the lack of transportation to those centres. Furthermore, the danger is that, if you raise the fear of overpopulation, you are definitely subscribing to human rights violations. I might say that I raised the question of the violation by the BKKBN—the Indonesian family planning organisation, paid for by the UNFPA—of human rights and of women's rights in East Timor. Where were you, Senator Brown, when I raised those matters? In fact, I did so after Bishop Belo had complained, on behalf of his people, about the violations and the compulsion and so forth that were rampant in that particular area.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—That is why we need a debate—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—We do need a debate. Furthermore, we have Mr Hollis in the other house saying:I also believe that many religions, especially the Catholic faith, have much to answer for. It is somewhat ironic that men, often elderly, in dresses are dictating to women how their bodies should be used.Where was he when I was raising the issue of violations of human rights by the Indonesian family planning organisation in East Timor? Was he referring to Bishop Belo and priests `in drag'? They have suffered, and so have nuns and priests in that particular area. I trust that he was not, but he should think very carefully about what he says in future. (Time expired)16:10:009937Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition does not support the suspension of standing orders to debate this motion. I think it is important, however, to emphasise to the chamber that this is of course an issue of the utmost importance.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Then let's debate it.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—No, but the issue itself is of the utmost importance. The problem arises in terms of the wording of the particular motion that we have before us today, Senator Brown. The opposition indicated its support for motion No. 329 on the same question, which was not given formality. That was a motion that was properly worded, well considered and able to attract the support across the chamber of a number of senators.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—So why aren't we debating that?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—We were denied formality on that matter. We do not support the suspension of standing orders in this particular matter because we believe that this motion requires a great deal more thought and consideration of the detail, in particular the reference here to the calling upon Australia `to establish a global population policy'.I might suggest to you that it is somewhat difficult for one particular country—a country of our size and geography—to establish a global population policy. I would have thought that it would have been better for Senator Brown to present this chamber with a policy of substance that was able to attract a substantive level of support within this chamber and would provide an opportunity for serious debate on a very serious matter. I suggest to the chamber that the particular proposition we have before us does not meet those criteria.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brown be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye and to the contrary no. I think that the noes have it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—The ayes have it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I heard only one aye, so I declare the noes have it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You mean I have no support on this at all?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I heard only one voice saying aye.Question resolved in the negative.Ministerial Statements9938993816:13:009938Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a statement by the Minister for Trade on the AFTA-CER ministerial meetings and on a bilateral visit to Japan and I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—STATEMENT BY MR VAILE ON THE AFTA-CER MINISTERIAL MEETING AND HIS VISIT TO JAPAN (1-5 OCTOBER 1999)I wish to inform the House of the outcomes of my visit at the beginning of this month to Singapore and then Japan. Singapore is Australia's eighth largest market taking around 6 per cent of our exports. As a group, the ten countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) account for over 12 per cent of Australia's exports. Japan is, of course, our largest export market taking almost 20 per cent of total exports.Both visits allowed me to continue our Government's efforts to win greater access to regional markets for Australian exporters, and also to advance our agenda on the forthcoming WTO meeting in Seattle.On 1 October, I attended the 4th AFTA-CER Meeting in Singapore between ASEAN Ministers and Ministers from the Closer Economic Relations (CER) countries—Australia and New Zealand. I went there with three key objectives: (i) to produce a strong, unambiguous statement of support by ASEAN for the launch of a new WTO round; (ii) to expand the useful trade facilitation work that has been done under the AFTA-CER linkage; and (iii) to accelerate the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade within our region.Mr Speaker, despite some speculation that events in East Timor might detract from Australia's capacity to pursue our trade interests at the AFTA-CER meeting, I am pleased to report that the meeting delivered some significant breakthroughs for Australia.Most importantly, Ministers agreed that a high-level taskforce will be established to examine the feasibility of an AFTA-CER free trade area by 2010. This process has the potential to achieve substantial improvements in market access for Australian exporters. The taskforce will report to Ministers in twelve months time on the benefits and costs involved in a possible free trade agreement. Independent studies suggest billions of dollars in additional income to Australia from free trade between ASEAN and the CER countries.The Australian Industry Group has congratulated the Government on this "ground breaking announcement" and I look forward to pursuing our agenda when I again meet Minister Yeo from Singapore and Dr Supachai from Thailand later this month. This initiative demonstrates this Government's pragmatic approach to free trade agreements where they can deliver substantial benefits to Australia consistent with our APEC and WTO goals. Members should recall that the Labor Party in Government always liked to parade their multilateral credentials while criticising any discussion of FTAs. Now, all of a sudden, Senator Cook and the member for Fraser have discovered what they call the "free trade agreement game". But in Government, Labor totally neglected this policy track despite the fact that, as Senator Cook himself concedes, the Uruguay Round dragged on for far too long under Labor. This Government is pressing for a short, sharp (3 year) WTO round coming out of the Seattle WTO meeting. At the same time, we stand ready to participate in meaningful efforts for freer trade with key bilateral and regional trading partners.Mr Speaker, there were some other important outcomes from the Singapore meeting.. AFTA-CER's practical work on streamlining standards, customs procedures and quarantine cooperation provides direct benefits to Australian business. The Singapore meeting witnessed the amendment of the MOU on Standards and Conformance to include Burma, Cambodia and Laos. This agreement is already reducing production costs for Australian business by encouraging the adoption of international standards.. Ministers also agreed to trial the Australian developed SANCRT electronic health certificate system for trade in agricultural products and to build closer links between the quarantine services of ASEAN and CER. These measures will reduce the costs to exporters through more timely processing of import documentation and more common approaches on standards, practices and procedures.. In addition, I highlighted the useful opportunity for regional cooperation in the automotive sector presented by the ASEAN automotive study being undertaken by the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council with Australian support. While in Singapore, I also launched a new promotion to boost the export of chilled Australian pork. The strong demand for Australian chilled pork in Singapore has already seen imports increase from 45 tonnes per day in July to 70 tonnes per day at present. And wrapping up a busy program, I presented export awards to two outstanding Australian companies at a dinner organised by the Singapore Australian Business Council. These awards to the Cox Group for its design of Stage 1 of the new Singapore Convention and Exhibition Centre and to Geraldton Boat Builders for the supply of 20 vessels to the Singapore Police Coast Guard drew attention to Australia's expertise in high-value services and high-value manufactures. I want to congratulate both companies on their achievements.JapanThe Japanese leg of my trip provided the opportunity to extend Australia's dialogue with our largest trading partner in the run-up to the Seattle WTO meeting and to have productive meetings with key business interests and Japanese importers of Australian products.Despite the fact that my visit coincided with a major Cabinet reshuffle by Prime Minister Obuchi, I had the opportunity to meet both the outgoing MITI Minister, Mr Yosano, and the incoming Minister, Mr Fukaya.These very useful meetings allowed me to highlight Australia's desire to work closely with Japan in areas of common interest in the new WTO round whilst making clear that we support a three-year round focused on core market access issues. While in Japan, I left a strong message that Australia expects Japan to play a proactive role in the WTO negotiations and that further liberalisation of Japanese markets for agricultural products is central to achieving credible results.I took the opportunity to brief my Japanese counterparts on the proposed feasibility study on an AFTA-CER free trade area. We agreed to maintain contact on how both countries see developments surrounding free trade agreements in our region and to ensure that any initiatives are fully consistent with a strong rules-based system under the WTO.I also met with Japanese business leaders which allowed me to pursue opportunities for Australian exporters, and to obtain a detailed update on Japan's economy and reform measures. The general picture to emerge was one of cautious optimism about economic recovery in Japan. But at the same time, my meetings with Mr Takashi Imai, the Chairman of Keidanren (Japan Federation of Economic Organisations) and other business leaders underscored the need for the Japanese Government to intensify economic reform to achieve a return to sustainable growth. Along with my colleague the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, I was pleased to address an Austrade-sponsored seminar to promote Australian financial services. And in Osaka I officially launched Business Club Australia in the Kansai region—an Austrade program designed to maximise Australian commercial opportunities in and around the Olympics next year.Mr Speaker, this visit which centred on discussions with many of our key trading partners in Asia reaffirmed this Government's determination to work at all levels for Australian exporters—building support for our goals in the WTO, taking our trade ties with our ASEAN partners into a new phase, and opening doors bilaterally for Australian firms.I came away with a clear sense that Australia's trade relations in Asia are in very good shape. East Asia accounts for 52 per cent of our export earnings and includes seven of our top ten trading partners. I encountered widespread appreciation in both Singapore and Japan of the strength of the Australian economy and of how this Government's reform measures have made Australia more competitive. There was a recognition that Australia contributes to the prosperity and security of Asia; just as Asia contributes to the prosperity and security of Australia.16:13:009940Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I welcome the tabling of Minister Vaile's statement. The practice of ministers regularly informing the Senate of current issues in their portfolio is to be commended. The proper role of the Senate in such matters must be to scrutinise the statement, and that will be the basis of my remarks today. The first part of Minister Vaile's statement deals with the recent ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, CER—that is, closer economic relations—with New Zealand and a meeting on the trade pact between Australia and New Zealand. The minister sets out what his objectives were for the meeting and how he went about meeting them. They are all good objectives, I have to say, although I note that this is the first time we have heard of any of them, and it would have been a little braver if the minister had actually stated them before he left Australia rather than when he came back home.Labor welcomes the minister's work on an AFTA-CER trade agreement, but Minister Vaile's attempt to claim credit for inventing the wheel should not go unregarded. A few facts need to be made clear. The idea of an AFTA-CER trade agreement was first raised by Paul Keating in a speech in Thailand in April 1994, yet since the coalition came to power in 1996 the idea has been assigned to the backburner. So much so in fact that in a speech I made in 1997 I criticised the government for neglecting the issue and have done so on several occasions since. In a statement that has been tabled, Minister Vaile said:Now, all of a sudden, Senator Cook and the member for Fraser have discovered what they call the "free trade agreement game" but in Government, Labor totally neglected this policy track despite the fact that, as Senator Cook himself concedes, the Uruguay Round dragged on for far too long under Labor.We were one nation of about 100 in the world, and it was no fault of Australia's that the Uruguay Round dragged on too long.To the charge, let me quote from the speech I made on 24 April 1997. Bear in mind as I do so that I have been accused of neglecting this issue. I said:Let me give you a positive example of where the Government should be pursuing a more activist agenda in the national interest.In 1994 the former Government proposed an initiative to bring CER and AFTA closer together. CER (Closer Economic Relations) with New Zealand is the only thing that approaches a trade bloc for Australia. AFTA covers the ASEAN Region and is a trade bloc with the objective of removing 90% of the Commonwealth External Preferential Tariff (CEPT) on industrial products by the year 2003.In other words the ASEAN countries, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines are removing protection between themselves in order to create an internal free-trade zone.The Keating initiative started a series of talks to bring Australia and New Zealand into this process. At Government level these talks have . . . concentrated on dealing with "facilitation" issues—the sorting out of Customs arrangements and simplifying the red tape associated with market access and Sanitary and Phyto Sanitary regulations.This is an initiative whose value is underestimated or overlooked in Australia. It is rarely referred to by the Minister yet it relates to opening up relations with our neighbouring economies, the Asian Tigers who are leaders in world economic growth, and who have in place some of the higher external tariffs to be found on industrial products anywhere.What has to be acknowledged . . . I then go on and talk about the role of the MTIA. My purpose in quoting that is to mark the spot—that they were the words I said in 1997—and to reply to the allegation by the minister that Labor has neglected this process.Let me go on referring to his statement. The government's decision to take up the AFTA-CER process more than five years after it was first proposed by Labor is due in large part to lobbying by the Australian Industry Group, formerly the MTIA, which has relentlessly pursued AFTA-CER on a business to business basis and through representations to Asian governments. Minister Vaile is right to thank the Australian Industry Group for their work on it for the same reason that a jockey might thank his horse after a race.Labor welcomes the government's decision to pursue an AFTA-CER agreement. It can play an important role in further energising APEC and promoting its free-trade goals. However, we are still waiting for the phrase `Pacific 5' to fall from the minister's lips. I am referring, of course, to the mooted free-trade agreement between the United States, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand and Australia. Recent reports suggest that New Zealand has been the driving force behind this agreement, with enthusiasm from the other partners. In contrast, Australia has been dragging its heels all the way. If Minister Vaile is going to castigate me and Bob McMullan for our support of free-trade agreements, the least he can do is to tell us where he stands on P5—before it becomes P4.To criticise Labor on this ground is hypocritical. Labor initiated the very agreement over which the minister is trying to rewrite history. Last month, during the Jiang Zemin visit, Kim Beazley proposed a China-Australia trade agreement. This would be an important bilateral trade initiative which would bring greater coherence to our flourishing relationship, push the APEC goals further and provide a means for harvesting some business and commercial benefit from our support for China's accession to the WTO. This is an important proposal. On today's performance, perhaps we will hear from the government about it when they claim the credit for putting it forward some time in the future, when the opportunity now available has largely been missed.Of course, there is the overture from the United States, floated in February 1998, and the USTR's report to the President for an Australia-US trade pact. This was dismissed out of hand by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, when Labor advocated exploring the proposal so its economic impact could be properly assessed. The pity for Minister Vaile is that the government has neglected possibilities for bilateral trade agreements and has just now discovered them. Labor has always been ahead of that game.Minister Vaile also informed us of his recent meetings with Singaporean and Japanese government officials. He neglected to say, however, that the latest trade statistics, released just a few days before his departure, showed that, while Asian economic growth has returned, our exports to Asia remain flat. In fact, we exported less to our 10 most significant Asian trading partners in the first eight months of 1999 than we did over the first eight months of 1998. While Asian economies are going north, our trade balance with Asia is going south.As I said at the outset, I welcome this report and look forward to hearing Minister Vaile's next report to parliament. Perhaps in that report he will not only give us a pleasant travelogue but also address some of the hard questions in his portfolio. He could start with the following. Firstly, figures just released show that in 1998 our exports of elaborately transformed manufactures fell in value by $868 million, the first fall in 20 years. Does this have anything to do with the fact that total Commonwealth expenditure on education, training and research has fallen from 2.99 per cent of GDP in Labor's last year of office to 2.53 per cent today?Secondly, why are Australian manufacturing exports as a whole falling for the first time since 1981? Thirdly, the United States has just released a comprehensive statement on its strategy for the next round of WTO organisa tions. When will Australia release a similar statement setting out our goals and objectives for the WTO round, if it is kicked off in the November-December WTO meeting in Seattle this year? Fourthly, why does Australia now have its highest trade deficit, its highest current account deficit and its highest level of foreign liabilities ever? This is a fundamental question going to the heart of the economic performance of the Australian economy and, given international scrutiny of our trade deficit, current account deficit and foreign debt, obviously will militate against Australia's domestic economic performance in the future if there is not a positive program by the government to lift our trading performance and the competitiveness of the Australian nation. I look forward with keen interest to hearing Mark Vaile's answers to those questions.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents99429942994210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Australian National Audit Office—Annual Report 1998-99 .Committees9942994210000ACTING 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 Macdonald)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee—Substitute member: Senator Cook to replace Senator Carr on 25 October 1999 for the consideration of the provisions of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Substitute members: Senators Chapman and Gibson to replace Senators Lightfoot and Watson for the committee's inquiry into business taxation reformForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Participating members: Senators Allison and Bartlett for the committee's inquiry into the economic, social and political conditions in East Timor.Bills9942Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws: Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999 Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. Bills9942r8249942Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time. 16:25:009943Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In closing the second reading debate on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 , I want to thank those senators who have contributed. I do briefly want to comment on a couple of things that Senator O'Brien raised about the bill, and I thank Senator O'Brien for his contribution to the debate. Unfortunately he was followed in the debate by Senator Mackay, who, I can at my charitable best say, gave a presentation of babble and bile—little about the bill and a lot about what Senator Mackay, regrettably, is becoming renowned for: personal attacks on me and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson.While I do not want to delay the Senate, I do take some umbrage at some of the things that Senator Mackay said in her contribution. She suggested that some of the programs run in our department are simply, in her words, `slush funds'. As I say, I take exception to that. She obviously judges this government by the standards of the previous Labor government, which we know, of course, did have slush funds. We know about the whiteboard—in fact, we know about the very big whiteboard that the Labor government used to direct funds to marginally sensitive Labor electorates. That does not happen in this government. Perhaps she is familiar with government in her state of Tasmania. Perhaps it happens with the Labor government there. Again, it does not happen in this government.Senator Mackay raised two particular programs that I do have responsibility for, and I just want to mention those for the record. She mentioned the Rural Transaction Centre Program and suggested that it was a slush fund. That program, as I mentioned in the chamber at question time, is a $70 million program. Communities tell us what they want. They suggest the solutions and we fund them. But I do not do what the Labor Party obviously did with their electorates and get a pin and go around picking coalition electorates. I get it looked at by an independent panel of responsible people, who go through the applications very carefully, who do their work very diligently and who recommend to me certain projects to fund. Admittedly, I do have the final say. I asked Senator Mackay last night, by interjection, who she expects should make the decision—a member of the opposition, or a public servant, perhaps? Of course governments make decisions; we are elected to do that. Why shouldn't we make the decisions? That is what it is all about. Certainly, with the rural transaction centres, I am advised by an independent panel. I value their advice and I then make the final decisions. Of course, I have got to—someone has to, and that falls to my responsibility.For Senator Mackay to suggest that this is a slush fund is just absolutely ludicrous. Of the first seven projects granted, one is in the electorate of an Independent member of the lower house. Another, up my way, is in the electorate of Capricornia, currently represented by a Labor Party member. Another electorate is in Tasmania, in St Marys, and I know that is represented by a Labor member of parliament. There are a couple in other parts of Australia that are represented by National Party members of parliament. None of these programs in this first round have gone to any electorate represented by a Liberal member of parliament. That is strange, because Liberal members represent the greatest number of rural and regional seats in this parliament. The National Party represents a great number of the rural and regional seats. Apart from Tasmania, I do not think Labor represents any, do you. And, of course, there are a couple of Independents.You would expect from that that most of the projects in the Rural Transaction Centre Program would go into coalition electorates, but they have not. I am advised by an independent board that the allocations are made on what that board recommends, fitting within the guidelines. So I take umbrage at Senator Mackay's imputations, which she makes quite regularly. Usually I ignore them, but I just happened to be in the chamber yesterday and could not ignore them.Senator Mackay also talked about the Rural Communities Program and the Rural Plan. Again, with the Rural Communities Program, decisions are made by me. Who else should they be made by? I am advised by an independent board, which very diligently looks through all of those matters, looks through the applications, and makes representations to me. While it might have been par for the course for the previous Labor government, it certainly does not apply under our government.Returning to the bill and the contributions that Senator O'Brien made, this bill comes about—as I said in the second reading speech—as a result of higher than expected costs and redundancies associated with the government's waterfront reform program. It has become necessary to increase the original appropriation. Originally it was put in at $250 million, and the government believes that it should go up to $350 million. We have been up-front about what that additional $100 million would go for, and Mr Anderson, the minister responsible for this area, has clearly enunciated where the additional $100 million would go. He put out a press release on 10 June—and I think Senator O'Brien referred to it—which clearly sets out where we want that money to go.As well as additional appropriations to fund the greater than expected number of redundancies—because our program and our reforms have worked—we also wanted to fund some non-redundancy reforms. When we go into committee very shortly we will, I suspect, go through the Labor amendments. I am not sure whether or not they are supported by the Democrats, but I say to Senator O'Brien, to his colleagues and to the Democrats that the proposal we put up is a sensible one. It continues the waterfront reform but it makes the waterfront industry fund its own reform.With the greatest respect, I understand what the Labor Party are doing and I understand why they are doing it, but I think they have missed the point. Where we do not require the industry to fund its own reform, regrettably, the taxpayers will have to do it. I cannot understand why the Labor Party are pursuing these amendments which let the industry off the hook and say to the government, `We do not think the industry should fund these reforms. We want you'—that is, the taxpayer—`to fund these reforms.' Of course, governments do not have money; we only use taxpayers' money. So they are saying that they want the government, or the taxpayer, to fund these reforms in the industry, whereas the government's approach is that the industry should fund the reforms.I want to mention very quickly a couple of matters which I know will come up in the committee. Senator O'Brien commented that the guidelines to be applied in the assessment of applications for funding for non-redundancy reforms had not been made available by Mr Anderson. Those guidelines have yet to be finalised, and that is why they have not been made available. The reason for this is that the focus to date has been on the redundancy submissions. I can say that the guidelines will limit the claims to the three areas identified in section 1B of the current legislation, and that will allow all stevedores to put forward claims for assistance.Senator O'Brien also mentioned that whilst the government is seeking to extend the limit of funding for its maritime reform package from $250 million to $350 million, the actual additional funding required is in the order of only $50 million, not $100 million. I say to Senator O'Brien that evidence to the committee has shown that in order to effect a comprehensive program—including not only redundancy related reforms but improved technology and training—the additional funding requirement is in the order of $100 million. The department has made it clear that the cost of meeting MIFCo's borrowings would be in the order of $300 million. In addition to this, allowance must be made for the department's administrative costs associated with the levy, the payments to Western Australia, and a credible non-redundancy program. Whilst we have not gone into the proposed amendments in detail, I understand that the Labor Party are seeking to do away with those non-redundancy reforms.The Labor Party, as I understand them, are saying that funding collected by the levy should be used only to meet the cost of redundancy packages for workers seeking to exit the industry. The government say that such an outcome will eliminate the opportunity for a wider range of reforms and will deny the opportunity for a number of stevedores— most notably Sealand—to access an equitable amount of assistance in relation to the total amount of the levy that they will pay.As I understand Senator O'Brien's speech, he was suggesting that the government should provide funding from existing programs and apply the regulations governing the administration of those programs to assist the stevedoring industry to implement non-redundancy reforms, such as the application of new technology, increased workplace safety and an increase in the level of training in the industry. I ask Senator O'Brien: what programs are you referring to? We in the government are not aware of any such programs from which we could fund that. As I understand what Senator O'Brien is saying, the opposition are recommending that the taxpayer should fund any assistance to the industry. In contrast to that, we are saying that the government's reform program should be fully funded by the industry through this stevedoring levy. I ask Senator O'Brien and also the Democrats to think about that.At the risk of being repetitive, I again say that we want the industry to pay for those non-redundancy reforms; we do not want to throw it to the taxpayer. If you succeed with the amendments that you have foreshadowed, the effect will be that the levy will fund only the redundancy. The other reforms which have to happen, if they are to happen, will then be funded by the government, which as I say is the taxpayer. We think it is far better that the industry as a whole should do that rather than the taxpayer. Again I thank those senators who have contributed to the second reading debate. I look forward to carefully going through the amendments in the committee stage.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.9945The bill.16:39:009945O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I want to make some general comments at the commencement of the committee stage of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 . I noted some comments by Senator Macdonald in his second reading contribution to close the debate, and there appeared to be a bit of confusion in what he was saying. Perhaps he did not actually mean it to come out the way that he said it, but he implied at one stage that, with the amendment we were proposing, we were cutting back the funding from $350 million to $300 million. Of course, there is no funding that is consequent to this bill. What is consequent to this bill is an extension of the guarantee to MIFCo for them to raise capital to finance certain things in relation to the government's waterfront reform program and for that ultimately to be repaid by the collection of a levy. I know that Senator Macdonald jumped between talking about funding through the levy, but he did at one stage in his contribution talk as if we were cutting back funding through this bill. That is obviously not the case, and I think he would concede that.In relation to the question of funding and moneys available, no-one has referred to the fact that the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, which was set up under the WIRA process, remains solvent. It in fact shows in its balance sheet as at 30 June 1999 total assets of $13,717,126. No-one has paid attention to that. One would have thought that the government might have focused some attention on the expenditure of these moneys, as they are already there, they have already been contributed and they are already available for activities which were authorised under the WIRA program. They are the product of a tripartisan approach to the reform of the waterfront—reforms which, it is a matter of public record, have achieved a great deal in terms of productivity, the number of employees engaged in stevedoring activities and actual statistical improvement of the benchmarks that the government is now talking about and on which it is now proposing further improvements. So it would be interesting to receive comment from the minister as to what the government's intention is in relation to these moneys, given that they are able to be applied to some of the matters that the government seeks to address in this bill. Given that, at the present time, the government has an authority to spend the moneys raised by MIFCo in ways that are solely the prerogative of the minister, the opposition has been keen to know what guidelines would be applied. Bear in mind that in April 1998 these benchmarks, which the government claims it is achieving or will achieve, were announced. All of the measures that the government is seeking to fund out of the moneys raised under the guarantee—the subject of this bill and of course the principal bill that is to be amended by this bill—have been extant since April 1998. We have asked the minister to tell us what guidelines have been developed. Senator Macdonald has just advised the Senate that the guidelines are not yet developed.We are now in October 1999. So we are talking about a period of almost 18 months for the development of guidelines for the expenditure of moneys on measures which were designed to achieve objectives in six months. If the government has not developed those guidelines now, one wonders what real priority the government gave to the improvements it said would be achieved and whether it really ever believed that they would be achieved in six months. It is a matter of public record that they have not been achieved. There have been some incremental changes in the areas where we can actually see statistics. In terms of delineating information on occupational health and safety and waterfront disputation—notwithstanding the fact that these were benchmarks the government set and that the then responsible department was going to collect statistics which would measure that—no such statistics have to date been collected or, if they have, they have not been published.So I would have to say that the opposition is quite sceptical about the approach. One would only have had to have listened to my second reading contribution to see that we are firmly of the view that the original calculations—the basis of the bill that the Senate passed in relation to the original $250 million guarantee—were back of the envelope stuff, determined, I understand, from information provided at the legislation committee hearing on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 by Mr Gillespie of the Depart ment of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. That was the basis for the $250 million. I dealt with that matter and those calculations extensively in my second reading contribution. Why would the Senate not be extremely sceptical about providing additional funding when it is clearly able to be demonstrated that the basis for the original calculation was quite flawed, and that the figures that were put forward in terms of the total amounts for different components of the package have changed substantially?But not only that: we see that the promises that this government made with regard to the improvements that the so-called reforms would achieve, and which were going to be achieved in a measurable sense within six months, have not been achieved at all. There is significant opposition within the industry. The major stevedore, P&O, is on the record as saying that it does not support the funding of these other initiatives—as distinct from the redundancies; that it will not seek funding for these other initiatives; and that it would prefer that these matters were not addressed by this particular method of funding and were therefore not financed by levy contribution. The only occupational health and safety program which has been mooted was one by Patrick, which, when I last heard, was with the minister and had not yet been approved. So almost 18 months after the announcement of the benchmarks and the alleged signing up of the players—and there were only two, at that stage, of all the stevedores that signed up to the government's package—nothing has happened. There has been no change. We have got no guidelines, but the government says, `Give us a guarantee because we might want to do something in the future.'Quite properly, Mr Anderson, in answer to a question on notice—and Senator Macdonald referred to this again today—raised the issue of what the effect of our amendment would be, suggesting that the issue we should pursue is the principle that the waterfront industry ought to pay for these reforms rather than the taxpayer. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there is nothing preventing those who have signed up to the government's initiatives from paying for these reforms if they wish to pursue them or if the government can persuade them to do so. But what the government wants to do is to arrange for a borrowing capacity from MIFCo and then to compulsorily levy all stevedores so that those who want to use the initiative—and I stress that only one at this stage has made an application and the other major has said it will not—can do so. The government wants us to increase the borrowing capacity of MIFCo by $50 million so that some initiatives, as yet unknown, pursuant to guidelines as yet not established, can be approved and financed through this package.The opposition has a significant problem with that. There is no way that this is proper accountability in the legislative process. If the government were genuine in pursuing this, they would have developed guidelines for funding and had certain initiatives that they wanted to fund. They would have established those stevedores who wish to have funding, they would have investigated projects and they would have been able to come to the Senate—or indeed to the House of Representatives when they put the bill before it—with some concrete ideas of where these moneys were to be spent. We are talking about these issues more than a year after the original bill was carried. Have they got that? The answer, of course, is no. So in this case, we think it is apparent that, whatever the Senate has done in relation to the initiatives of the original bill, it has the opportunity to look at those in the light of the performance of the government.In relation to the government's proposal to extend borrowings, we are not so dog in the manger as to say, `Let's do nothing.' We concede that there are certain commitments which require a borrowing guarantee increased from $250 million to $300 million. That is from evidence that we were able to ascertain not from the second reading speech, not from the minister's answer to questions on notice or anything put in here, but from questions asked of officers of the department, who were able to give us accurate figures. Dr Feeney and Mr Brocklebank gave us information on the borrowing needs and the consequences of not increasing that borrowing capacity. There are no consequences in terms of the original loan arrangements entered into by MIFCo if our amendment is carried—that is, to limit the borrowing to $300 million, not to the $350 million that the government is seeking.We believe—if I can speak generally at this stage—that there is every reason to support our amendments, and carriage of the bill with those amendments will not disadvantage MIFCo or the stevedores. As for any known or contemplated project, if Patrick have a need for $1 million, one would have thought, given that they are not passing on the savings that they have made through the reforms which have been financed by this package, that perhaps they ought to pay for that themselves. There is no reason why those improvements should be imposed on other stevedores, thereby keeping stevedoring charges high for the users of Australian ports, by allowing the extension that the government proposes to the bill. At this stage, I will leave it there. Obviously, I would be interested to hear some comments on that. I have some questions to ask. Perhaps the minister could respond now, before I move the amendments.16:52:009947Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator O'Brien was correct: this bill does not fund anything, but it provides the guarantees. I apologise for my slip in English usage. The effect is the same, though. A guarantee implies that if someone else does not pay, whoever is giving the guarantee pays. If the guarantee is called upon, it is the taxpayers who will fund it. Whilst he is technically correct, the result is the same.Senator O'Brien spoke about the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, SIFC, and mentioned an amount of around $13 million. He wondered why it had not been referred to and why it was not being accessed to support non-redundancy reform. I am advised that the moneys that are in that fund—which, as you know, is a previous incarnation of assistance to the waterfront—are contingently committed against health claims that may be made by workers. There is a case before the courts at the moment which, together with flow-on cases, could well require payment in excess of $13 million. That is why we have not made too much of that. The moneys are contingently committed.Senator O'Brien again raised the matter of the guidelines for non-redundancy payments. I am instructed that I can say with absolute confidence that when the guidelines come out they will specifically refer to only those matters referred to in section 18(1)(b) (i), (ii) and (iii). If you accept that that is a commitment by the government, then you might be assured that it cannot be used for what one of your colleagues was suggesting might be a slush fund or something. It is really to be used for occupational health and safety programs, training programs to improve the performance of the work and the introduction of new technology or improvements of wharf facilities. Senator, you query why they are not available. We concede they are not available; that is a matter of fact. I repeat that the government's concentration to date has been on the redundancy elements of the package. We have been focusing on that and I understand the guidelines are almost finalised.But they will become fairly irrelevant if your amendments are approved. If this happens, there will be no guidelines because there will be no money to fund those sorts of things. Perhaps if there is a tiny little bit of money left over, then the guidelines might have to be altered to focus that money into a specific area. But it will be in one of those parts—either paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) of subsection (b) of section 18(1) of the existing legislation. They are the reasons the guidelines are not available. There is nothing sinister about it. There is no slush fund—as was suggested by one of your colleagues. It is open: the commitment is given that they will go to those three matters and nowhere else. You have the opportunity of pursuing that, in estimates, in this chamber and elsewhere if that does not happen. Again, I appeal to you to allow this.You raised the question of P&O indicating that they did not particularly support the non-redundancy reform package. I am instructed that they indicated that they would not have supported it initially. I am also instructed that they have said that if the money were available then they would certainly access it and use it to bring reform and improvement to the waterfront.I will leave it there. I conclude by reiterating that if your amendments go through and the government is obliged to assist the industry or give direction or support for non-redundancy reform, that additional assistance will be paid for by the taxpayers. We say to you and the Democrats: why ask the taxpayers to fund that reform? Why not get the industry to fund its own reform? It is fair and across the board. The industry as a whole would pay but the industry as a whole can apply for the benefits from that funding that would be available, rather than the taxpayer doing it. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible proposition that the industry should fund its own reform rather than the taxpayer.16:58:009948O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In terms of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, I asked a question on notice to which you gave me an answer. It does not have a date on it. It is question 1242. I asked:Is the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act still in effect and are the arrangements the Act underpinned still in place; if so, when does the Government intend to wind up the above arrangements?The answer to the first part was yes, so the arrangements are still in place. The answer to the second part was:The Government is working to wind up the arrangements as soon as possible.In terms of your suggestion that it is intended that whatever surplus there is will be sought to be redistributed, I take it that means there will be a redistribution back to the government as they would have been a contributor to that particular fund. But the principal thrust of what you are suggesting is again the question of whether these non-redundancy reforms ought to be funded in this way or in some other way. You suggest the only other way is through funding by the government—which of course is only one of a number of ways of funding it.Let me make this point to you. I am advised that P&O's original stance was to oppose it. Their position, I am told, is that they would seek to recover whatever their contribution was through the stevedoring industry levy. That means that those costs are imposed upon users of the wharves who ship containers. We have very clear evidence that there has been no benefit of substance to users of stevedoring in this country in terms of reduced charges and evidence that the likelihood is there that shipping charges will go up rather than down. The measures in this bill will continue to impose the levy upon the users of those charges, in effect, because there is no passing on of those costs; and it is envisaged, I think, by Mr Corrigan, that it will be seven or eight years before there will be a recovery of the so-called cost of the waterfront dispute to that company, and therefore that will impinge upon their costs.I think we are entitled to be sceptical about the benefits of this whole package, given that the only beneficiaries to date have been shareholders in the Lang Corporation, given the movement in the value of their shares since the resolution of this dispute. At another time, I have put on the record the substantial appreciation in the value of those shares, but not only do we already have on the record substantial evidence that there have been costs at the initial stage of the dispute which centred around the government's policies on waterfront reform, but also we have clear evidence that the costs have not gone down to shippers, whereas costs to stevedores have fallen because there have been substantial redundancies.The government might suggest that there are other cost savings because of other productivity measures, but it is irrefutable that the costs of the stevedores have gone down. It is also irrefutable that their charges have not gone down any substantial way and that, overall, Mr Lachlan Payne, on behalf of the Australian shippers, is pretty clear that the experience of his members is indicative of no real benefit accruing to shippers. They would be in a position of passing on savings were they handed them, but no real savings have accrued to shippers. And if they have not accrued to the shippers, they have not accrued to the farmers, manufacturers, importers and exporters who are using Australian wharves to ship their goods—to import their goods, to export their goods.At the end of the day, all we are setting up is a circular arrangement which will have the effect of prolonging the need for the levy and give justification for the maintenance of higher than might otherwise be the case stevedoring charges. I do not think that the government have really thought through what they are achieving with this levy proposal. Indeed, if, on the current advice, we are talking about the need to borrow $300 million, and not $350 million, the chances are that the levy will be repaid sooner than would otherwise be the case. Certainly, simple mathematics would indicate that, if you extend the borrowing capacity and indeed that amount is borrowed, there will be a need for an extended period of application of the levy to recover that money—certainly a longer period than would be required for the recovery of the smaller amount that we propose, the $300 million. Indeed, that would be a greater benefit in the long term for the users of stevedoring around Australia. What is wrong with the principle that some of the benefits that have already accrued to stevedores through the redundancies that they have achieved will not be dealt with and paid for by the stevedores if they wish to put into place measures which are designed to make their waterfront operation more effective?This is not a benefit that applies evenly. We do not have the guidelines. We are told that they will be available for other funding. We know that there is only one application in to date, and that is from Patrick, who are the biggest and earliest beneficiary of this scheme, for as yet not very specific improvements which are, I understand, to go to the question of occupational health and safety. They are looking for a $1 million grant, I believe. But nobody else is. Perhaps the minister can update it. I concede that information is information that arises from the Senate's legislation committee hearings; there may be something that has occurred since that time, and the minister may be able to advise us of it.That is all we have on the table at the moment. We are arguing effectively about a $50 million borrowing capacity; if it is borrowed, an extension of the period of the levy; and an extension of the amount of interest that is required. And the only thing that we know we are going to fund is $1 million to Patrick. There may be a few hundred thousand here or there—there may be more—but the government certainly has not been forthcoming in advising that there are other applications in place.It is a bit of a wish list that the government has come to the Senate with in the case of this legislation. We are also told that $13.7 million that is in the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee might be the subject of claims. There might be additional moneys. That is, I suspect, a bit of a speculative comment in terms of the action that is available, because I understand that there are other views afoot that a substantial amount of those moneys will be available for redistribution. At the end of the financial year, according to Mr Catterall, the chairperson of that fund, the committee held $13 million in unappropriated funds in interest bearing bank facilities. The other noted comment on their balance sheet was that the total liabilities, provisional and current, seem to total $68,815. So it may be somewhere else on the balance sheet, but there is no expression on the balance sheet of contingent liability of anything near $13 million in relation to these funds.I guess the question is whether, if the funds are available to be distributed, that is not a way that some of the existing stevedores can fund some of these programs, given that some of them, at least, would be consistent with the objectives in terms of improvements to training and health and safety, all of which will impact on the productivity of the waterfront. As to the question of industrial peace on the waterfront, I must say that I am doubtful that this government has any solutions to that matter.17:08:009950Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In response to Senator O'Brien's questions, I can only repeat that I am advised that the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee has the $13 million, or thereabouts. It has that money to meet claims that are expected to be made and, as I mentioned before, there is a court case in operation at the moment. Senator, you mentioned that the government was trying to wind up the committee. We are, but we cannot do that until these contingency claims are out of the way.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Why aren't they on the balance sheet?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I will get some advice on that. Apparently that is what those funds are about. The government's understanding, and my advice on that, is that there will be none of the $13 million left to do what you are suggesting or anything else. I will come back to that shortly, if I can get some advice.Senator, you also raised the issue of the levy being passed on to the users by Patricks and P&O. Again, I am instructed—and you would probably know this, as you have obviously followed this a fraction more closely than I have in the past, although certainly not more closely than Mr Anderson or Mr Reith, who are the relevant ministers—that both Patrick and P&O have given commitments that they would absorb the levy themselves and not pass it on to their customers. You would raise the question that I raised when I was told that. I asked, `Is that legally binding?' The answer given to me, which I pass on to you quite fairly, was, `No, it's not.'However, I understand that the government has asked the ACCC to have a look at that and to make sure that Patrick and P&O do meet the commitments and the undertakings they have given. If they do not, I am told that there is nothing the government can do in a legal sense, but we would certainly be very disappointed. We would be disappointed with Patrick and P&O if they did not meet their undertakings and commitments. They would know that and would appreciate that their dealings with the government would be set back a piece—to put it mildly—if they were not prepared to meet the public commitment and undertaking that they have given which, I understand, was the basis of the government putting this project together.I might add that Sealand, another big player in the field, can access the levy to fund redundancies, although the number of redundancies it has is quite small. Sealand has accessed only one per cent of the RRPs. Sealand was hoping to get its equitable share of the levies by applying for non-redundancy assistance. My advice is that it has already put in a claim. By cutting out part of the act, as your amendment proposes, Sealand will not be as fairly dealt with as it otherwise might. I am told that some of this information was put to you at the committee, although not in relation to Sealand. To give you the figures that I have been given, Senator: Sealand's redundancies will give it one per cent of the cake, the pool, but its percentage of the levy payment is five per cent. So if your amendment goes through, it is going to be out of pocket. Again, we thought this was a way of providing some equity.You also said that Patricks were the only ones applying for the non-redundancy reform—that was the evidence you had at the committee. You acknowledged that perhaps things had moved on. I am told—unsolicited—that three or four have indicated that they will be applying, so it will be an across-the-board allocation of that non-redundancy reform. This has been looked through carefully and, again, we would hope that you would see that we are trying to make sure the industry itself funds those much needed reforms. The government cannot insist on the reforms, but we can encourage them by having the money available. We are hopeful of getting these non-redundancy reforms through for the benefit of everyone, including our nation.17:15:009951O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Minister, you said that there are undertakings in relation to not passing on the levy by certain stevedores—certainly Patrick and P&O. My understanding is that those undertakings related to not passing on the levies relating to funding of redundancies, but no such undertaking, certainly not from P&O, has been received that the levy will not be passed on in relation to the funding of non-redundancy reforms. That is an important differentiation that ought to be made in relation to the guarantees that the government has received. Certainly the evidence is clear that the government did not even seek commitments to passing on the savings which were funded and there is certainly a degree of doubt as to whether you even have those undertakings in writing from the stevedores. So I am not surprised that it is suggested that perhaps there is nothing you can do if those undertakings such as have been given are not honoured.I suppose the ACCC can look at it in the context of other legislation, but they certainly could not look at the issue of charges in the context of this legislation. One wonders how the ACCC might draw together this legislation and the other legislation on which it operates.It seems to be setting up a straw man to talk about a fair distribution of the levy income, for two reasons. Firstly, the levy income is futuristic. We do not know what contributions will be made into the future by stevedores because one does not know what proportion of the market share they will have. So it has always been a distinct possibility, indeed an extreme likelihood, that there would be a disproportionate distribution of the moneys available through MIFCo and funded by the levy to stevedores. It was always the case that Sealand was not going to be a major beneficiary from the legislation setting up the availability of finance through MIFCo, which was to be funded by the levies, because it was always known that their intentions were quite different in relation to their stevedoring operations than, clearly, were the intentions of Patrick and subsequently P&O. It was never the case that there was to be a fair share; nor is there any guarantee, even if this legislation is passed, that there will be in future.The only guarantees that we can have if our amendments are carried are that the extension of the levy will be minimised and those costs which are known and were clear from day one—that is, the redundancy costs, as clear as we could know them, and even the government did not know them at that stage—are properly funded. Our amendments will make sure that in respect of all the redundancies, the funding applications for which are in—I believe they have all been approved now; if not, there would be only a very small number outstanding—no further such applications are permissible. So we have a real known cost situation now. We can fund—I am sorry; I am using Senator Macdonald's incorrect use of the word `funding'—we can permit a guarantee to be extended sufficient to allow MIFCo to borrow to fund those amounts which are known and which I think have broad support.If these stevedores wish to take other actions to make improvements, where they are not passing on to shippers the savings that they have made through this redundancy funding, then perhaps they can apply some of those funds to the improvement of their health and safety record. We are talking about long bows here when we talk about funding some of these initiatives, unless there are matters which the government is not sharing with us.Earlier this year, I asked some questions about funding by this government for occupational health and safety. My recollection—and I am sorry that I have not brought the Hansard with me—is that the major amounts funded through the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission program were to the major employer organisation in this country on the one hand and to the ACTU on the other, and the amount in each case was about $200,000 for those national organisations. We are talking about potentially extremely large amounts of money and guidelines about which we know nothing and for which the government has not even developed programs, and for magnitudes which may be significantly in advance of the sorts of funding that this government gives to major national peak organisations to deal with issues such as occupational health and safety.I am sure senators would be much more comfortable with the position that the government is taking if there were a greater amount of knowledge this far out from the originally announced intention, from April 1998, as to where this money was going, an additional borrowing amount of $50 million. I guess you could reduce that down with interest to something like two-thirds of that amount, but we are still talking a substantial amount of money for which, approaching 18 months out, we have no guidelines. Personally, I think it has got to the point where no-one could be comfortable with providing the extension that the government is talking about. Indeed, no-one could be comfortable with the legislation which has been passed and which provides for funding these things when demonstrably there is very little need for it and certainly less justification for it.I am not sure whether anyone wants to make a contribution, but at the appropriate stage I will move our amendments. Perhaps if there are other questions that anyone wants to ask me about the amendments, I can attempt to deal with those.17:22:009952Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—We are now getting to the stage where you are repeating the questions and I am repeating the answers, so I do not think I will waste the time of the Senate by going into those things any further. I have tried to answer as best I am able the questions you have raised, and I can only repeat what I said earlier about the absorption of the levy. I am told that what I said previously was absolutely correct.It has been suggested to me that I clarify the situation with SIFC by saying that it cannot be wound up until it has discharged all of its obligations and liabilities. The legal advice is that it is unable to determine liabilities until the outcome of the court case is nigh. You asked why, if it is a contingent liability, it is not shown on the balance sheets. My advice is that more funds are expected to be required than are available. It is not a contingent liability in the strict accounting sense, so I am instructed. That is why those funds cannot be available, and the advice we have is that the whole committee cannot be wound up as the committee wants and the government wants until those liabilities are determined.From here I can only start repeating myself, which I am loath to do. Perhaps your questions are becoming repetitive. If your mind is made up and all the persuasive arguments I have at my disposal are not going to convince you, we may as well go on to face the inevitable, deal with your amendments one by one and do what has been determined shall be done by this parliament.17:24:009953O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I am waiting for a document, but I am quite happy to proceed with the amendments. I will come back to one of the points that we have just been dealing with in the context of that. I will seek leave to move them.17:25:009953Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I would prefer the financial amendment to be put first. If Senator O'Brien thinks it is appropriate to move the others, by leave, together, I do not object. We have three amendments. I think it is best to get the money out of the way and then talk about the two other issues.17:25:009953O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I was proposing to move amendments Nos 1 and 3 together and then amendment No. 2. If I understand Senator Murray correctly, he is suggesting that I move amendment No. 2 first.Senator Murray interjecting—8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I will move Nos 1 and 3, which amend parts of the originating bill and the schedule. Amendment 2 is to omit the amount $350 million and insert the amount $300 million. Have I leave to move amendments Nos 1 and 3 together?Leave granted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:1A Paragraphs 18(1)(b) and (c) Repeal the paragraphs.1B Paragraph 18(1)(d) Omit ", (b) or (c)".(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:2 Subsection 18(4) Repeal the subsection.17:26:009953Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I have given leave, but I am not sure of what Senator Murray's position is. If there were a specific reason for wanting amendment No. 2 to be moved first, I wonder if he might enlighten the committee. Of course, it is for Senator O'Brien to move his amendments as he chooses rather than Senator Murray or I. But if Senator Murray were able to explain that, perhaps we might get excited and do certain things to bring that on first.17:27:009953Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—That is actually a legitimate question, because I have not made a contribution yet and you are not aware of where I am going. The fact is that I have come to a view on the money, and I have understood the arguments clearly. I was not, as you know, a member of that committee or attending the hearings, but I have read the report and the minority report, and I am aware of the bill. However, I did not bring with me a copy of the act, and I would like to hear expressed very clearly the exact effect of items Nos 1 and 3 on an existing act: what effect they would have in terms of what is being done at present, whether there is a retrospective effect—the usual questions you ask when an act is being amended. The money issue is quite clear to me. I do not mind which order you take them in, but that is my reason for separating the two.UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Senator Macdonald, does that clarify the question?17:29:009953Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Murray knows what he is talking about, but I do not know what he intends. He says he has come to a very clear conclusion about the money, but he did not share with me whether it was a clear conclusion to go for the $350 million or the $300 million. Can I say to him that, if he were inclined to the $300 million, it is our best advice that most of that money would go towards redundancy payments, and there would be very little left for non-redundancy payments.Having said that, rather than being against us on the $350 million—being a $300 million man rather than $350 million—we hope you are for $350 million so that we can not only do the redundancy but also do all the non-redundancy reform that we think the industry should pay for rather than the taxpayer. But if you are against us on that, if you are going for the $300 million, I do want to ask you to support the other amendments, Nos 1 and 3, because there may be a little bit left over. That depends on how things fall: it depends just how many redundancies have to be funded and what the interest rates are, which I am told will have a significant effect as they vary. There may be a little over and so there may be some opportunity to do the things in paragraph (b), which are the non-redundancy reforms.So, if you are against us on the money, we would certainly hope that you would agree with us to leave (b) and (c) in it. I am mounting a difficult argument here. Having said that, if you do go for the $300 million, then if there is anything at all left to do what we want to do in (b)—that is, the non-redundancy reforms—there is not going to be much. I guess in the end the money is perhaps the important thing, and certainly we would not have the money to make the industry pay for the occupational health and safety programs, the training programs to improve the performance of work, the introduction of new technology or the improvement in wharf facilities. If the government wanted to make sure those things happened, we would then have to fund them with taxpayers' money. The alternative is that we do not fund them, and so goes the opportunity to do those non-redundancy reforms.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Senator Murray, the money or the box?17:32:009954Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The minister, of course, wishes to flush me out, and that is perfectly reasonable, so let me be a bit more explicit. I am aware that Senator O'Brien has taken a deep and informed interest in this matter because I have watched him patrol this area through the estimates process as well as through this process. I am aware that he has a very informed view, and obviously I am aware that the minister has a very informed view. Consequently I have been listening to the interaction between the two of you intently. I was intimately involved in the entire waterfront dispute—not in the sense of being on the barricades, though I was certainly very nearby in Perth listening and watching and feeling the cloth, as it were. I was very much involved in the political sense and eventually in this chamber when we came to consider the bill. I thought it was a particularly unhappy set of events in our industrial relations history.The fact is that when the levy act was passed we ended up with the feeling we were over a barrel. Our own opinion had been that, if there was to be a levy, it should have been on Patrick; it should have gone to resolve the issues of redundancy with Patrick's employees. That is where the issue was and that is where it should have lain. The government took a view that in fact the industry at large should pay for what they regarded as reform which would benefit the entire industry and that the process of de-manning, if I may call it that, would carry on to other players within the industry and that they would benefit, and therefore there should be a levy.If you accepted that argument, you then had to look at the small business sector of this industry. From memory, there were five or six small players, of which I think the largest was Sealand in Adelaide, who had a very good relationship with their employees, a very personal one, yet they were going to cop this levy, which was not recoverable from their customers, as well as everybody else. The minister is quite right in saying that their likely use of the levy funds therefore would have been non-redundancy rather than redundancy oriented. We were very keen to, and in fact did, move amendments to try and keep small business out of this whole levy charge so that they had some kind of advantage in this situation, which had been brought about by forces beyond their control. We were essentially given the view by government that the choice was to accept the government's view or not—in other words, the redundancies would not be paid and the Patrick's workers would not be looked after. That was Hobson's choice, so the act eventually passed intact.Now we are in a position where the government wish to extend the amount of money available under the act and the opposition are arguing that the act should be constrained. I think the opposition have made a good case on the money side. Frankly, I do not think that the government—it is not typical of the government, might I say—have presented a well-budgeted case. We all accept that the original $250 million was what is known in the industry as a BOTE—back of the envelope—calculation and was a guesstimate. That was perfectly reasonable given the circumstances at the time. It is not perfectly reasonable now. One hundred million dollars added on is just a round figure and nobody is exactly sure what it accounts to. If you were hard-hearted, you would say to the government, `Get lost, you actually haven't made your case. $250 million is what you have got and that is the end of it.' I think the opposition have been extremely generous by suggesting that $50 million to the government, which, if I might say so, Senator O'Brien, given your fairly forensic destruction of the government case, is also an estimate. Should it be $50 million or $48 million or $56 million? Who knows? I think you have taken a generous view, given the evidence that was before you at the hearing.So I think in this sense it is an admonishment to you, the government, to do your work better if you need more money and to come back to the Senate with a far better argued case and a far better presented financial picture, and in that case the Senate would be obliged—in particular the opposition, who have taken a close interest in this—to look upon your estimate favourably. In summary, may I say that on the financial side I think the opposition have made their case. But I do not think that you on the government side have made your case and I think that the opposition have actually dealt with you lightly by giving you $50 million when a case has not been well presented, so that would be my decision: to support them on the $50 million.And that is why I indicated that I did not have the act before me—I understand the Clerk has asked that I get a copy, because I have only the bill before me—because I need to know exactly what effect that would have. I have now got the act. I listened to the minister's answer with care because the minister is arguing that, whilst people like Patrick will get most of their return from this fund and put it into direct redundancies, for others—like Sealand and the small businesses I referred to, and perhaps even P&O—it is possible that their legitimate share of this fund, which should arise from their market share overall of the industry and therefore of the levy paid, would be got by means other than the redundancies.As I have understood your general remarks so far, Senator O'Brien—and that is why I want to hear you put your case—that may not be so. So I want to be sure of two things arising out of the opposition amendments: firstly, and pre-eminently—and this is my and my party's pre-eminent interest—that any workers to be made redundant will be looked after; secondly, that those employers whose employee relationships are such that they are either so productive or so good that they do not need redundancies in their sector would have access to funds which will allow them to do other things within the industry which would be of benefit in terms of productivity, technology and training.So, Minister, I hope you are now clear as to where I am going. I am clear on the money issue, and I will be voting with the opposition on that. I want to hear their argument and your counterarguments on the other issues because I wish to understand fully the consequences of that decision—that is, especially bearing in mind that those changes may alter a situation which is already part-way through, and you would need to explain that more fully for me. I hope that is of assistance to the committee.Consideration interrupted.Distinguished Visitors995510000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of a former President of the Senate, Sir Harold Young. Welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear! Hear!Bills9955r8249955Consideration resumed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—The question is that the amendments moved by Senator O'Brien be agreed to.17:40:009956Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I will speak to give Senator Murray the chance to have a look at the bill and just see what the removal of (b) and (c) will involve. I hope that, having had a look at the bill, he will appreciate that it is essential that these remain, even with the reduced amount, which is obviously going to happen as a result of what Senator Murray has just said. I think it argues for itself, but Senator O'Brien will argue his case and I will respond to that at the time.At this stage I just want to say to Senator Murray that there was a suggestion that the government had not clearly made the case for the $350 million. Unfortunately I was not there, as Senator Murray was, but I understood that this was all done through the committee and done in some detail, and I did refer to it by reference to a press release in my speech. But just for the record—and I suspect that I am not going to change your mind, Senator Murray, as you have made your mind up—the original $250 million was made up of $148 million for the redundancy package; $50 million for interest; $2 million for administration; $10 million for the Western Australian government element of the package; and $40 million for non-redundancy reforms, such as occupational health and safety, training programs et cetera.Because of the higher than expected number of redundancies and the size of the redundancy packages, the government's best advice is that we need to increase that by $100 million. I just want to explain to you for the record, Senator Murray—although, as I say, you have made your decision and I am sure that nothing I can say will alter that—what had been provided to the committee and provided in the public domain by Mr Anderson on a number of occasions.Of the $350 million we wanted, or the ability to levy that, there was $195 million for the redundancy packages—and that, as I say, is because of the higher than expected number—and that is up almost $50 million. There is $105 million for interest because of the greater exposure; $6 million for administration because of the greater administration with the higher numbers; and $4 million for the Western Australian redundancies, which fell quite dramatically. As to why that is so, I have just been told that Western Australia has reduced the number of ports that were going to be eligible for this funding, so the Western Australian redundancies element was reduced to just $4 million. The non-redundancy reforms were reduced from $40 million in the original package to $30 million in this package, and the final $10 million of the $350 million was for contingencies in case MIFCo's interest or redundancy estimates were exceeded.So that is how we got to that, Senator Murray. I am sorry if that was not made available to you previously. As I say, it was made available to the committee and it was in the public domain. They were not just figures plucked out of the air and put down on the back of an envelope, as you might suggest; they were calculated conscientiously by the government's advisers and were arrived at on that basis.17:44:009956Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, those figures that you outlined were indeed in the report. Although I did not sit through the hearings or read the submissions, I have certainly read the report and the summary. I assume it is a good summary of what went on; it is a legislation committee report, and those are usually pretty good. My point simply was that it was almost impossible, first time round, for the government to get it right with the $250 million. In those circumstances, it was a rushed bill.I do not point any fingers at the government as a result—they just needed to get on with it—but I must say that the second time round, when it neatly rounds to $100 million, it makes me suspicious. If it came to $96 million or $102 million or something like that you would think there might be a little more science in it than there is at present. However, Minister, you are quite right. We have come to a view, and that will be what happens. Frankly, you will need to come back to us.Minister, what I find difficult to work out from here is the argument between you and Senator O'Brien regarding the next two amendments, because I have now read exactly what comes out. As I understood your argument, you were saying that, if you cut the amount of money available from $350 million to $300 million, you would not have the money available to fulfil the requirements of 1(b) and 1(c) on section 18. In other words, the only amount of money available will be for interest administration and redundancies. That is as I understood the gist of your reply earlier, in which case, if that argument is correct, Senator O'Brien would need to put it to bed. It therefore renders Senator O'Brien's amendments unnecessary because those things can no longer be done. So you can see where I am going with it.Minister, when you picked up the argument a little later, I think your answer was, `Well, there could be a few million that we might have for that, so leave it in.' I am attracted to the idea that, for employers who are not making employees redundant, it may be in the interest of those employers and employees, particularly in the small business area, for some moneys to be available from (b) and (c). That is what I really wish to hear from Senator O'Brien.17:48:009957O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I wonder which amendments we should deal with first. Perhaps we will deal with the arguments and then vote on the amendments, if senators are happy with that. I know that there are amendments before the chair, but I suppose we can be a bit `careless' with the way we address the debate.17:48:009957Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My apologies, Senator O'Brien, but I suggest we knock the money out of the way and get that done because, if you have the numbers and the decision, the minister will know where he stands, and then we will have the other two to deal with.Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That further consideration of opposition amendments Nos 1 and 3 be postponed. Amendment (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "$350 million", substitute "$300 million".17:49:009957O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In relation to the amendments, I take it that Senator Murray now appreciates exactly the effect of amendments Nos 1 and 3, particularly No. 1, which in effect repeals parts of the original bill. In the period of the discussion between Senator Murray and the minister, I obtained what I was certain was in existence: P&O's submission to the legislation committee inquiry.So that we can put this to bed, there are a couple of matters that I did say I would return to. I am happy for this document to be tabled or incorporated in Hansard—whatever you wish; it is already on the public record as part of the Senate inquiry—or to simply get copies made and supply them. P&O, amongst other things, said:Support for extended financial assistance did not form part of our undertaking to government in regard to absorbing the cost of the levy. Our support for the levy and undertaking not to pass it on to our customers was confined to the purpose for which MIFCo funds were initially to be raised—that is, for redundancies in the stevedoring industry. This remains our position.In the passage of time between September last year and now—and I interpose that that was 25 August this year—we estimate there have been some 1,300 exits from the industry, of which P&O Ports' share was 41 per cent. Based on its market share, our company will contribute approximately 50 per cent of the levy each year. Based on our own experience, and in the absence of accurate figures on the maritime industry finance company's actual projected costs, we have made the following assumptions. We estimate that the cost of the above exits, assuming an average exit cost of $130,000 per person, is approximately $170 million—and there I interpose that, although the government had estimated $195 million, the evidence before the committee was that it would be somewhere between $185 million and $190 million for the cost of redundancies at the time of that hearing. Nearly all of the costs were known. There was a very small package of redundancies that were yet to be signed off, and that was the estimate at the time of the hearing.The submission continues:Assuming administrative costs for MIFCo to administer the levy collection of, say, $30 million plus the capitalised cost of interest of, say, $100 million, the cost of the program would be approximately $300 million, leaving an approximate surplus of $50 million. It would be appreciated if MIFCo could provide accurate figures so that the actual costs can be better understood.We are not much further advanced, frankly. It goes on:In the light of the Minister's second reading speech, we understand any surplus would be available to implement non-redundancy related reforms aimed at improving performance.Then they come to their view, which is:We are of the view that any surplus of funds . . . should, in order of preference, be dealt with as follows: MIFCo funds should be confined for redundancy purposes only; the loans should be reduced to the amount required to fund redundancies plus administrative costs and interest, and the loan structured accordingly; and repayment of the loan should cease immediately the cost of redundancies has been met, thus reducing the period for levy collection and its impost upon the industry . . . If there is to be further spending for non-redundancy related matters, then the parties responsible for meeting the cost of the levy—that is, the stevedores—should be charged with the role of administering the equitable distribution of such funds through an industry working group. We would propose that such distribution occur on a pro rata basis equivalent to the levy payments made.That is P&O's position. Unfortunately, there were no substantial submissions from other stevedores. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of levy funds raised will be from the two major stevedores. There is not much doubt about that. Probably the third biggest is Sealand, where we are talking about five per cent of the levy payments being raised. So we are really talking about rats and mice—if you will excuse the term—in terms of what comes for the rest.We are saying that, at this stage, months and months after this package has been announced, we have very little idea of what the additional moneys are to be spent on. Senator Murray, you suggested that, if the government had a real plan that required additional money, they should come back to the Senate and ask for further money. One presumes that what you mean by that is that they would come with some firm ideas of money that was going to be spent, how they would cost it, what the interest administration costs would be—a whole package. Whilst you were excusing the government, I think very leniently, for coming to the parliament with legislation which is back of the envelope stuff, there is no excuse now—absolutely none.If the government want to come up with a package on waterfront reforms, what is wrong with having the total support of the stevedoring industry for that package? You make the suggestion that we leave the bill as it stands—that is, if there is some money available leave it to the minister to distribute. What does that mean? Does that guarantee what you are suggesting ought to be some redistributed mechanism for the levy? No, it does not, because you do not know what deliberations the minister will make. What I do know is that Patrick want another million dollars, and they already have the lion's share of the levy. They have already got more than anyone out of the levy, as far as I am aware. There is absolutely no guarantee that what you will do by leaving these measures in will assist any particular small business. I suppose the government might argue that they get a better bang for their buck if they put the money into the big players.More importantly, of course, what we do know—and it is clear from P&O that they do not consider they have given any undertaking to pass on costs—is that they are effectively arguing that 18 per cent of their contribution can be passed on. I make those calculations in a back of the envelope way, saying there is a 41 per cent return off a 50 per cent contribution. So they are saying that, if you move their half contribution to a 100 per cent figure, you double the 41 per cent. So 82 per cent of what they spend goes to pay redundancies, and they have another 18 per cent. What they are saying is: `If those are the rules, we will get it back; we will apply it to our charges. We will pass it on because we have never given an undertaking that it will not be passed on.'Our amendments say to the government: `If you have a plan, get the industry behind it, get a definite plan and come back to the parliament with a total plan.' If you want to reintroduce mechanisms which are specific, you can do that, but why leave these provisions in place when all you are guaranteeing, in my view, is that there will be more money for Patrick? If P&O get some, they will pass on the costs. You might get an outcome for individuals, but there is no certainty that your redistributive approach will be any more equitable than what has happened to date.You are much more assured, if the government are intent on pursuing this and they are going to go away and do their work properly, of getting a proper package if you support our amendment to take out these measures and say to the government, `Bring it back with a whole package. Don't leave it in there and then come saying you want another $50 million and here is the plan.' Let us come back with a whole package and, importantly, come back with a package that has the support of the industry and that has a guarantee from the industry that they are not then going to pass on the costs of the extended levy to the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of these programs—that is, the people who use the stevedoring services, the shipping services, through the Australian ports. At the moment we have not done that.There is a job of work to be done by the government in this area. It is clear that they do not understand, from what the minister says, the extent of the commitment from the players. Frankly, it is very clear that they do not even have those commitments in writing, because we have got that on the Hansard as the evidence from the first legislation committee inquiry into the original bill. When the questions were asked, there were unequivocal answers that, no, there were no written commitments.In relation to the amendment, which has the effect of deleting parts of the existing bill, I would put that to you as an argument to say, `Don't support the government's position. Amend the bill and give the government the message that if they are going to do the job they are going to do it properly. If they come back with a whole package of measures they will have to convince the opposition, and more importantly the industry, that it is worth supporting.' At the end of the day, if we receive a bill and it goes through the process that this bill has followed—and, may I say, quite properly—then everyone can be convinced, and there will be a representative group of stevedores coming to us saying, `The industry supports this package as a total package.' At the moment, there are no guarantees that the outcomes you want will be achieved and there are no guarantees that the outcome the government says it wants will be achieved. We are absolutely certain that the outcomes that significant parts of the stevedoring industry want will not be achieved in the measures that are proposed here.18:00:009959Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have a short question, just so I have the complete picture. Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman: Senator O'Brien, you did not really spell out why you want to repeal subsection 18(4). I can see why you would want to repeal part of that, because it refers to paragraph (1)(c), which you would be getting rid of. But paragraph (1)(d) actually survives, even though part of it is omitted. I do not really understand why you want to repeal subsection 18(4) completely and not just take out `(1)(c) or' in the first line.18:01:009959O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My understanding is that all payments in relation to (1)(a) have been made, so it is redundant.18:01:009959Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In response to Senator Murray: if paragraph 18(1)(b) and (c) are removed, the industry will collect only the amount required to refund the redundancies. Estimates will be made and, when the levy gets to that amount, the levy will stop. This means that we will not be able to achieve the reform program that the government originally set out to achieve on the waterfront. The whole of the efficiencies that we wanted to achieve to make the waterfront more productive will be unable to be met because the redundancy payments will be there but the additional money to fund the non-redundancy reforms will not be there. All seven of the benchmarks that we hoped to achieve by our original proposals will be unable to be met.If your position is to fund only the redundancies and nothing further, then you would support the amendment. That is of course a decision for you. If you have decided to do that, no further amount of arguing by me is going to change your mind. But if you want to go beyond just funding the redundancies and have some commitment to non-redundancy reform of the waterfront, then you will vote with us to leave those provisions of the act in place.18:04:009960Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to Senator O'Brien: I am interested in 18(1)(c), which is:payments in respect of activities that are prescribed by the regulations, being activities in connection with the reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry;I may have missed it somewhere, but I am not sure that those regulations are disallowable. Perhaps the minister will tell me whether they are or not. Section 21(2), at page 14 of the act, states:. . . regulations may be made on the following matters:(a) providing for the manner of payment of levy and late payment penalty;(b) providing for the repayment of overpayments;(c) requiring persons to keep records about the loading and unloading of ships;(d) requiring persons to provide information, to such persons as are prescribed, about the loading and unloading of ships;(e) prescribing the form of warrant for the purposes of section 14;(f) prescribing penalties for offences against the regulations by way of fines of up to 10 penalty units.I heard the case you put, Senator O'Brien, and I thought it was put with regard to (1)(b). I am not sure it was put with regard to (1)(c) if it relates to the prescribed regulations that I have just read out. If they were disallowable—and the minister would have to confirm whether they were or not—you would have the option anyway to deal with regulations about those matters if they came before the Senate.18:06:009960O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I will rely on the advice of the minister as to whether the regulations are disallowable. The advice that we have received, as I recall it, is that it is not the intention to deal with other areas of funding by way of regulation—but I am open to being contradicted in relation to that.This provision is somewhat of a catch-all. I take your point that it appears, on the face of it, that there might be other things which might be funded which might be the subject of an alteration to the regulations. I must say that all of the focus has been on (1)(b) in terms of areas that might be funded. I know of no proposals at this time—perhaps because they are not permitted until, if you are correct, there is a regulation passed.In terms of this activity, I return to my original point that, if there is to be further reform activity funded by the levy process, would it not be better if there were a guarantee of an equitable distribution through that process, which is not there at the moment, and all that the government would need to do to authorise funding of an activity was to promulgate a regulation in general terms about that sort of activity—not promulgate anything about the way that applications for funding would be assessed, not promulgate anything about the equity of distribution of funds under this measure? So I return to the argument I put to you that would it not be better that, if we are going to address these things, we address them in a way that maximises the equitable benefit across the industry and minimises the cost implications for the users of stevedoring?If you are against us in relation to item (c) then I would say that we are prepared to seek to put that amendment in a different form so that 1(b) and 1(c) would be dealt with separately if you wish to vote on those matters separately. But I stress to you that it is our view that, if you are really looking for this matter to be dealt with in the future in a proper manner and if there is real support for this throughout the industry, you would excise both of these provisions and require the government to bring them back with a total package with the support of industry.I hear what you say about coming up with a proposal that might be disallowable, but I stress to you that that proposal would not require anything other than the mention of a particular activity to allow it to be funded. That is as I read the amendment—`payments in respect of activities that are prescribed by the regulations'. So promulgation of a regulation which permits payments in relation to an activity would have to be no more than that to allow the government to make decisions by whatever process to fund whomever they chose, whatever the views of the industry were.18:10:009961Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Murray asked me whether the regulations that could be made under the act were disallowable instruments. My understanding is that regulations that the Governor-General makes are disallowable instruments. But I have sought higher advice. The advisers from the department tell me that that is the case. But, even more persuasively, I have just checked with the two clerks at the table who confirmed for me that any regulations that the Governor-General makes are disallowable instruments. Senator Murray is obviously conscious of what that means: that, if the regulations are not to the liking of the Senate or the House of Representatives, they can be disallowed. That of course provides, might I suggest, the sort of assurance that I think Senator Murray is seeking.18:11:009961Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator O'Brien, I cannot accept your amendments as presently structured. I do not know what the consequence would be of getting rid of 18(4) in view of section 21, which I think seems to deal with some very practical issues. I would suggest to you—if you would accept—that you amend amendment No. 1 by removing the bold words `and (c)' in the paragraph beginning 1A and, in paragraph 1B, you remove the words `or (c)'. Then your amendment No. 3 would fall away. I think that would leave you with the nub of your argument. My concern is that you are too embracive with the amendments that are before us.18:12:009961O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I have received, I think, impeccable advice that the regulations set out in section 21(2) of the act have nothing at all to do with 18(1)(c) and would not be affected by 18(1)(c) being excised. That is the advice that I have. I am not sure if that is the point you were making, but perhaps you could let me know.18:13:009961Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—18(1)(c) says `that are prescribed by the regulations'. I cannot find `the regulations' in anything other than section 21—being the `Regulations'.18:13:009961O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I am advised that the empowerment to make those regulations is in section 21(1)(a) and not 18(1)(c). Therefore, by excising 18(1)(c), you would not in any way affect the regulations which are contained in section 21.18:14:009961Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator O'Brien, my difficulty is that, following from section 21(1), 21(2) spells out what the regulations may be made on. None of those seem items that really fall within the area of your argument. They seem to me quite practical: providing for the manner of payments; providing for the repayment of overpayments; requiring persons to keep records; requiring persons to provide information; prescribing the form of warrant; and prescribing penalties for offences. I am sorry but, in terms of the way I read this and the way I am reacting, I am very uncomfortable. I can deal with your amendment No. 1 on the basis I outlined, but I am uncomfortable with knocking out the regulations.18:15:009961O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Just to clarify: I think that, if I understand you correctly, you are concerned that 18(1)(c) is a section which gives permission for parts of 21—that is, the regulations—to be knocked out. That may be what you believe, but my advice is that that is not a properly held view. Section 21 sets out the power to make regulations, not regulations in themselves, and that provision is unaffected by the amendment. If we take out 18(1)(c), 21 remains in its entirety and is unaffected. But if we take out 18(1)(c), you prevent the making of a regulation which would specify matters in addition to those specified in 18(1)(b) as able to be funded out of the MIFCo moneys, if I can put it that way. I am not sure if that helps you or not.18:16:009962Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—18(4) also refers to (1)(d), which is payments in respect of administrative costs. You would repeal that. I do not think that is sensible. At present you are trying to get out of the act items (1)(b) and (1)(c) and item (4) under section 18. I am suggesting to you that your amendment should really focus on item (1)(b), so that items (1)(c) and (4) would remain intact. That would deal with the matters that you are after.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Wasn't that 1(d)?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Let us go back through it again. In section 18 on page 12 of the act, you have 18(1)(b) and (c) and your amendment No. 1 seeks to repeal those paragraphs. Amendment No. 3 on sheet 1605 seeks to repeal subsection 18(4), but 18(4) not only refers to (1)(c), which is covered by your amendment No. 1, but also refers to (1)(d). If you look at (1)(d), it refers to payments in respect of administrative costs. I do not think you should be wiping that out.18:18:009962O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—With respect, of course we do not take those out. What we take out of (1)(d) is reference to (b) and (c) but not (a). If you are not going to pay moneys in accordance with (b) or (c), you have no administrative costs. I think that is a logical proposition. So you do not need a provision to authorise the payment of an administrative cost of something that is no longer there. But you retain in (4) the provision which would read: `The minister cannot authorise payments under (1)(d) in respect of an activity until after the end of the period in which those regulations can be allowed'. So that would remain.18:18:009962Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—This comes back to your proposition: (1)(d) refers to payments in respect of administrative costs in connection with matters in respect of which payments may be authorised under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (a) is the redundancy paragraph, and you will have administrative costs to deal with redundancies. All I am saying to you is that you are not going to get my support because of the interlocking nature of these things for anything other than repealing paragraph 18(1)(b). The consequence of that, of course, is that you must omit (b) in paragraph 18(1).18:19:009962O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I am quite happy to have the matters put in a way that facilitates you supporting those parts that you do and those that you do not. I think that, from what I am hearing—and perhaps I am hearing it wrong—you are under a misapprehension as to the linking of these matters. The advice I have is that the general regulatory power under 21 is unaffected. So, indeed, it is being further supported.Focusing on section 21 is taking you away from the main game. I see the point that you are getting at: by repealing 18(4), you repeal the provision which would authorise payments under (1)(d) in respect of an activity prescribed by the regulations until after the regulations had been disallowed. What that does is not prevent the minister from paying it but remove the impediment from the minister authorising those costs. I think that is right, but we are dealing with this quickly.That is a restriction on the minister, and we would remove that restriction because (a) the administration arrangements have already been put in place for redundancies, so he should not have to authorise them, and (b) he should not need any other mechanism which makes those provisions disallowable because those provisions are no longer in the bill if our amendments succeed. I take your point that if you did not leave (c) in there, then you would want to leave (4), and I understand that. I am debating this to be clear on where we are headed. I suggest that perhaps your concerns about the removal of (4)—if you were otherwise generally supportive of the propositions I have put—would not be a problem.18:22:009962Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will put the committee out of its agony: if you retain (1) and (3) in their present form, I will vote against them. The argument you primarily put, which would require the government to come back with a far clearer exposition of what it intends with the industry, is covered by 18(1)(b). Therefore I would like to move an amendment to your amendment—to drop item (3) on sheet 1605 and to amend item (1) so the bold words `and (c)' following 1A are removed; and under 1B in amendment (1) we simply omit the unbolded letter `(b)'. In other words, the words `or (c)' fall away.18:23:009963O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—To come to the point on this: I have heard the message loud and clear. I would seek to defer consideration of the amendments before the chair and move another amendment which would have the effect that Senator Murray outlined—that is, to amend the amendment in the following terms:Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:1A Paragraph 18(1)(b)Repeal the paragraph.1B Paragraph 18(1)(d)Omit "(b)"I have a form which reflects that. If that is passed, then I would seek leave to withdraw the other amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—Senator Murray was suggesting amending your amendment. Rather than you withdrawing your amendment, he would move to amend it. As I understand it, this gives the effect of what you have just called for.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—That is the same thing as what I have just read. If Senator Murray wants to move to amend it, that is a different proposition. But I thought he was asking me to move it in a different form and that was what I was proposing to do. I am happy to do either—which has the same effect. I am in the hands of the chair.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Listening closely to the debate, as I always do, I thought I had heard Senator Murray say he would seek to amend them. I think he has signed a bit of paper which, as you say, gives the same effect. So you would then seek to withdraw your amendment No. 3. Senator Murray's amendment is to your amendment No. 1.Amendment (by Senator Murray) agreed to:Omit:1A Paragraphs 18(1)(b) and (c)Repeal the paragraphs.1B Paragraph 18(1)(d)Omit ", (b) or (c)".Substitute:1A Paragraph 18(1)(b)Repeal the paragraph.1B Paragraph 18(1)(d)Omit ", (b)".18:27:009963Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Before you put the amended amendment, Mr Temporary Chairman, I would like to speak on a not completely unrelated matter. I want to correct the record regarding something I said earlier which we have passed by. I do not know that it is specifically relevant to the debate, but I would like to correct it whilst I have the opportunity. Senator O'Brien was talking about the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee and unquantifiable contingencies. You convinced me that I was wrong, Senator O'Brien. I now find that I was wrong in agreeing that I was wrong and that in fact I was right all along, unbeknown to all of us. I am told that this Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee annual report was tabled only today in the parliament. The accounts of the committee mention unquantifiable contingencies, which I have not had a chance to read. Glancing through it, I see there is reference to a number of court cases and decisions. I see you have the same booklet in your hands. I am assuming you did not have it when you told me earlier I was wrong. I wish to correct the record that in fact that is what would happen to the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee. Question put: That the amendment (Senator O'Brien's ), as amended, be agreed to.18:35:00The Committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)34Allison, 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. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.29Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Cooney, B. Hill, R. M.Faulkner, J. P. Alston, R. K. R.Hogg, J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hutchins, S. P. Troeth, J.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Ray, R. F. Ellison, C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.18:36:009964O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—I withdraw opposition amendment No. 3.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. 9964Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Macdonald) read a third time.Bills9964r8859964Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Senator Patterson:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Senator Carr had moved by way of amendment: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".18:37:009964Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 to give effect to initiatives announced in the context of this year's budget. The provisions of this bill include $36.3 million in the year 2000 for increased funding under the Literacy and Numeracy Program to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for students, particularly in the middle years of schooling. It also includes $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy for the year 2000; the continuation of previous capital funding arrangements for non-government schools; and, more importantly, contingency funding for struggling non-government schools in the transition to the new system of funding for those non-government schools.In March 1997, the Commonwealth, state and territory education ministers agreed to a national literacy goal that every child leaving primary school should be numerate and able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level. This is a goal that not only most of us here but also those in the community would agree with. The ministers also agreed to the adoption of a national literacy plan. There are two strands to the Commonwealth funding for literacy programs which give effect to the plan. These are grants to schools to foster literacy and numeracy development, targeting educationally disadvantaged students, and grants for national literacy and numeracy strategies and projects.The proposed legislation will increase funding generally for the literacy and numeracy plan and it will specifically support new initiatives that target students in the middle years of schooling—students in upper primary and secondary school through to year 10. The additional capital grants funding for non-government schools and the additional funding for short-term emergency assistance are also for non-government schools. It is a contingency fund to assist those schools which will receive increased funding under the new system announced in the 1999-2000 budget. That outline of the bill may sound okay for those who know very little about what is happening in the primary-secondary school system, but the motion moved by Senator Carr in the Senate last week condemns this government for using the important issue of literacy in a cynical and political fashion and for failing to provide government schools with additional resources in line with its increased expenditure for the non-government sector.Let us now turn to what is, in fact, going to be the new system of funding for non-government schools. Of course, this bill provides contingency funding for those struggling non-government schools. In Dr Kemp's statement on choice and equity in funding arrangements for non-government schools in the years 2001-04—the minister has hit the headlines this week for his most shameful and incompetent attempt to realign the higher education sector to a position where most Australians do not want it to go and would never agree to the position on which he has insisted—he claimed, at page 1, that the system will provide high levels of funding for the neediest school communities, that the government is committed to needs based funding for non-government schools and that a more equitable funding mechanism was sought. At page 2 the minister said that the government had decided that funding to non-government schools serving the neediest of communities should be significantly increased.Given this level of rhetoric, it seems reasonable to assume that the schools that are the most likely to benefit from the new arrangements—as we have been told in estimates—will be those that currently have the lowest levels of resources. It is something of a shock when you analyse the figures very carefully to find that, in fact, it is exactly the opposite. The schools which gain most from the new model will be those schools which are currently considered the most wealthy. Let me provide you with one example. One of the schools that will benefit is believed to be the School of Total Education in Warwick, Queensland. This school currently has a budget of $1 million for its 115 students, largely as a result of corporate sponsorship. This works out to be nearly $8,700 per student in a school of only 115 students, compared with about $5,200 in government schools. Under the new funding arrangements, this school is apparently set to gain in the region of an additional $3,000 per student—taking it to well over twice the resourcing level of a government school. Those on the government side may well argue this is an extreme example, and it is, but it is one example under this new funding model.The new model, which is called the SES model—the socioeconomic status model—provides funding for the non-government school sector and was announced as part of this year's budget. The new funding arrangements are due to be introduced from 2001—hence the contingency funding in this bill—and they will be phased in over four years so that any increases will occur at 25 per cent per year from 2001 to 2004. Non-government schools are currently funded on the basis of a funding model called the education resources index. We have known for a long time that there have been inadequacies in this funding arrangement. There have been many comments about a need to actually revise and review this funding arrangement. However, we in the Labor Party believe that this is not the way to deal with it; this is not the answer. It is not adequate. It also targets only a certain range of schools in the non-government sector. The education resources index measures the financial capacity of the school. The current method includes such things as fees and schools' income from bequests, reserves and so on. In effect, the current system attempts to measure the total financial resources of the school and, therefore, the remaining needs which the government should meet.It is claimed that the current system is not working and that there are widespread discrepancies between schools with the same ERI—the education resources index. In part this is because, some would say, in the past NGSs have become very good at manipulating their figures, distorting the ERI and therefore maximising government funding. However, there has been no attempt by this government to analyse what the problems were or to find better ways of measuring school wealth. The research carried out by DETYA was, I believe, controlled by the non-government sector and driven by their concerns rather than by genuine research criteria.The new funding model, which I do not have time to outline, in effect measures the financial resources of the student community attending a particular school. It is actually based on a random sample of 100 addresses in that area which are then coded against ABS statistics—a fairly complicated process. In fact, what you actually do is measure the financial resources of the student community attending the particular school, rather than or ignoring the financial capacity of the school.So what are the problems with the current proposal? Firstly, only a few of the non-government sector schools were included. Catholic schools, which represent over 60 per cent of private schools, will not have their SES assessed but have been deemed to be at a certain level as part of a settlement between that sector and this government. Wealthy schools will not have their funding reduced. Even schools which are operating at twice the level, or more, of resources in government schools are guaranteed $597 per primary student and $829 per secondary student per year. No school will be worse off than at present. If their SES puts them below the current funding, then the SES will be ignored.Even DETYA admits that only about 750 of the 2,500 non-government sector schools will actually have their funding determined by their SES. All others will either be exempt or funded above the SES. This means in effect more money for the private schools. Between now and 2003, private schools will receive an increase in recurrent funding of $755.2 million; that is, about $418 million for Catholic schools and $338.2 million for other private schools. Government schools will in fact receive no increase.When the coalition came to power in 1996, government schools got 54c of operational expenditure for every dollar spent on private schools; by 2003, they will get only 42c. Even the wealthiest primary schools will get about $72 more per student under the proposed scheme. The SES scheme is not a needs based model. It will create less equity, not more. The proposal is based upon creating equity of federal government inputs, not equity of resource provision. Schools will get the money regardless of their own financial situation. The school can then add on its own resources, whether they are accumulated reserves, bequests or even greater fundraising capacity, to advantage its students over those from similar backgrounds attending less advantaged schools.This system is designed to undermine the public education system. Private schools will be able to lower their fees and attract even more students. It will encourage private schools to open campuses in less well off suburbs, cream off the best students from government schools and then claim a lower SES rating for all their students. Low fee private schools will get almost the same money as government schools. Wealthy private schools will be encouraged to poach the highest achieving students from government schools through scholarships. They will be able to keep expanding because they will always produce apparently better outcomes than schools that are not able to select who they teach. All this will mean that government schools will be robbed of even more by the increase in the EBA—the enrolment benchmark adjustment.This scheme is intended to ensure that public provision is basic. Any parent with aspirations that their child receive quality will be forced to pay, either through fees to private schools or through contributions to those government schools which are seeking to compete.Let us have a look at the status of education, particularly in secondary schools, since 1996. We have had four years of hostility from the Howard government towards public education. In 1996, $350 million was cut from public education and private schooling was deregulated.Debate interrupted.Documents996710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! It being 6.50 p.m., it is now time to move on to consideration of government documents. There are 53 government documents for consideration listed at the back of today's Order of Business. There is a limit of 30 minutes for their consideration. To expedite consideration of the documents, I propose, with the concurrence of honourable senators, to call the documents in groups of five. Those documents called in each group to which no senator rises will not be listed on the Notice Paper . Documents not called on today will remain listed on the Notice Paper for debate at a later stage.996718:50:009967Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the documents.These two reports deal with safety, rehabilitation and compensation within the Commonwealth work force. They are the three things which should be present in the workplace. There has not been enough emphasis on safety in recent times. If there is safety, then there is no need for compensation or, for that matter, for rehabilitation. There has been a campaign in Victoria about safety, although unfortunately there have been more injuries down there than is desirable.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Particularly with the Kennett government.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator Quirke has mentioned the Kennett government. There is about to be a change in government in Victoria, Senator Quirke. The Premier-in-waiting, Mr Steve Bracks, has promised that emphasis will be given to safety in the workplace, to rehabilitation and to compensation, including a return to some degree at least to common law cases.Common law, may I say, does two things: firstly, it is a dampener on employers taking risks, because the employer realises that, if somebody is injured in the workplace through his, her or its negligence, then they are going to have to pay for that negligence when it results in injury; and, secondly, it gives a reasonable return to the person who suffers injury. No doubt you will join with me, Senator Quirke and Senator Ludwig, in paying tribute to Mr Bracks and to those other members of the government-to-be of Victoria.There are some graphs set out in the annual report from Comcare, and I would like to make some remarks about graph 15 and, on the same page, table 28. Graph 15 depicts the proportion of expenditure by injury group, 1996-97 to 1998-99, and table 28 depicts the percentage of expenditure by injury group, from the year 1991-92 to 1998-99. Both tables show that back injuries persist as the sorts of injuries that require expenditure. It is to be hoped that the Commonwealth will pay more attention than it apparently does at the moment to arranging the workplace so that people do not injure their backs and, if they do, that they are rehabilitated rapidly and compensated properly in the meantime.The other injury that seems to have persisted from 1991-92 to 1998-99—in fact, it has grown—is stress. Stress is becoming more and more a factor. Stress is just as much an injury as a wound inflicted by some external force, and attention should be paid to it. It is an indication that the workplace is becoming a place where people are not able to live the sorts of lives they ought to. This manifests itself in stress. I notice too that the occupational overuse syndrome category is one that persists. I talk to these two reports and exhort the Commonwealth to make greater efforts in terms of safety, rehabilitation and compensation for its employees.Question resolved in the affirmative.996818:56:009968Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I wish to comment on the Productivity Commission's report, Impact of Competition Policy on Rural and Regional Australia (Inquiry Report No. 8), 14 September 1999. The report is a comprehensive inquiry into competition policy in rural and regional Australia. It is certainly long overdue. It follows on the back of a recent Senate report in respect of national competition policy, Competition policy: Friend or foe . The Treasurer put out a press release, No. 068, on 19 October 1999 in respect of the Productivity Commission's report. The press release states that it is releasing the report now because it will provide a valuable contribution to discussion at the Regional Australia Summit, to be held on 27-29 October 1999. It says that the rural community should take note and certainly make sure that there are sufficient delegations to attend that Regional Australia Summit to put their views across succinctly to the Treasurer about the plight of regional and rural Australia.However, the press release goes on. You would think, after reading the press release, that you would end up with a warm inner glow in respect of the impact of competition policy on reforms in rural and regional Australia. I would encourage the chamber and the public to read the contents of the report closely. It does not, in my opinion, provide an upbeat view of national competition policy. The report recognises that communities in regional and rural Australia are receiving a range of negative impacts, and the aspects of those range across a number of influences. However, it says that national competition policy is only one of those. The report says that the government cannot control these long-term influences, that these are primarily responsible for the declining share of primary industries and that national competition policy is by and large used as a scapegoat. But the press release does not address the recommendations of the report: that the government should take steps to improve community understanding of the national competition policy; and that it should provide clarification of how matters of wider public interest and social considerations are taken into account and how they are implemented. On page xxx, the report says:The commission sees a need for a significantly improved community understanding of NCP.The Treasurer's press release seems to completely miss out these elements of the commission's report, which really go to the heart of it and need to be made clear. The government needs to be able to provide a clear answer to these recommendations. The recommendations address the need to take steps to ensure that the information they provide about their national competition policy is accurate in terms of both its content and its relationship to other policies, and that it is publicly available in a readily accessible manner.Recommendation No. 2 provides that all governments should `publish and publicise guidelines which outline the purpose and scope of the public interest provisions of the competition principles agreement and provide guidance on how the provisions should be interpreted and applied'. Obviously, as I understand the Productivity Commission's report, there was significant confusion over those particular recommendations. The Treasurer's press release makes no mention of that second recommendation either. I suggest that the government should also take a long look at those two recommendations and see whether they could address them in a more positive light, at least as upbeat as the Treasurer's report about the Productivity Commission report has been.The Treasurer mentioned in the press release that the formal response to the report's recommendations will be made in due course. I hope that is a lot shorter period of time than the time we have been waiting for a review and that the matters that I have alluded to today are also addressed succinctly by the government. I trust that the Senate will not be kept waiting on the recommendations that are addressed, that they are addressed in a positive and sensible manner and that the plight of regional and rural Australia is taken into consideration.19:01:009969Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I do not want to take up too much of the Senate's time tonight, but I too wish to be associated with the motion to take note of the Productivity Commission report on the impact of competition policy on rural and regional Australia. As senators would know, the Productivity Commission has extensively inquired into the impact of competition policy in Australia and somewhat surprisingly—I suppose not so surprisingly for others who are more cynical—the Productivity Commission came down with primarily the Treasury line when it released its report earlier this year. This is a further indication of this particular process. In fact, the most the Productivity Commission is able to do with respect to this is to say that national competition policy is blamed for a lot of things that are going wrong in rural and regional Australia. Whilst there is some justification for that, there are a few other problems as well. The recent result in Victoria clearly indicates that the bush is extremely unhappy with a number of processes, including national competition policy.I think it would be inappropriate for me to go too much further on this. I will simply make a few remarks about it. As the chair of the Senate's own committee in this area, I think it is better for us to approach it with an open mind. But at the end of the day one of the major problems we have is that there seems to be a lack of understanding by Treasury, and through that the Productivity Commission, that there is a major problem out there and that it needs to be dealt with. It is all very well to sit back in some parts of Australia and say, `Look, there aren't the financial resources to look after a particular part of rural and regional Australia,' but at the same time go home at night in an imported car, go into the house and turn on an imported TV, use an imported video and use other imported products that in many respects are paid for in our trade balance by these very same rural and regional areas in this country.Our committee's interim report that came down had a number of interesting things in it. I well remember one of the tiny communities in Western Australia coming to give evidence to the committee that I chair. There were only something like 600 or 700 people in that particular area. They felt particularly aggrieved over the way that the Western Australian Treasury had interpreted competition policy. On further questioning, we found out that that particular area contributed more than $15 million annually to Australia's exports. They were concerned about their little community no longer getting the road grants and no longer getting a piece of the action. In fact, they could not even understand it. These are the sorts of things happening around the countryside which we really need to take note of. If we do not, we will have the same problems as the Victorian government had a few weeks or so ago. I simply say that out there in Australia there is a problem and we need to plumb the depths of it. I think we need to be much more sensitive in applications of some of the economic theory that has floated around this country for the last 10 or 15 years.Question resolved in the affirmative.996919:05:009969Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the documents.These reports, from the Australian Film Commission, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and the National Library of Australia, deal with an aspect of Australian life that we perhaps should deal with more often than we do in this place. We have today been talking about matters of industry. Yesterday we were talking about corporations. We talk about the economy of the country, which of course is absolutely fundamental to the way we live. But in addition to the economy there are matters of the mind, the heart and the soul which are matters proper for parliament to deal with.In these reports there is a discussion by the people writing them about the way money that has been collected from the taxpayer is used to increase the quantity and quality of the films that we produce and generally about the way we make art in this country and how we bring it to its peak. We have great artists in this country. I note, for example, that Rick Amor is going off to East Timor. He is a great Victorian, as Senator Troeth would know, and a person who has painted for a number of years and has done brilliantly at it. We have great poets like Bruce Dawe, who is now in your state, Mr Acting Deputy President Bartlett, but is a Victorian by background and by education.They are just two of a great number of people who presently write, paint and tell about Australia, which helps us as Australians identify who we are, where we are going, what sort of people we are, what sort of people we would like to be, where we place our values and what our values are. That is a very significant issue, particularly now as we are soon to vote upon whether or not we want an Australian to be the head of this country. That is a question that raises these issues of identity and values—issues, as I say, of the heart, the mind and the soul.So it is timely that we should consider the issues that are raised by the reports to which I have referred because, although I would not say they are reports that help us identify ourselves directly, they do underpin those artists and those people who help us identify where we are going, what we are and what our aspirations are. They are important questions and it is important that we as a parliament encourage those people who are able to express the things that we think ought to be expressed on behalf of us all. It is good to be able to get a number of reports, as is the situation here, which show that the community, as represented in this parliament, has matters about which it is concerned other than the plain matters of economics—although those matters are of course terribly important—and that we will look at those properly. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.997019:10:009970Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I could not let this annual report of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission go through without making some comments in respect of it, having served on the safety and mines testing research station in Queensland, which was dedicated to occupational health and safety in mining, and having also spent a considerable amount of time developing new occupational health and safety legislation for the metalliferous mining industry in Queensland in a tripartite organisation. I also served as a member of the occupational health and safety board in Queensland. Safety is one of those matters on which there have been tripartite support from all parties. It is self-evident that, in addition to support at a state level, there also seems to be tripartite support at a national level.The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission should be praised for its diligence and hard work in this area in providing comprehensive and accurate national OH&S data and facilitating and coordinating OH&S research efforts, particularly developing and updating a nationally consistent OH&S standards framework. The work of the commission, as I indicated earlier, is tripartite in nature and it provides a comprehensive view—from both sides of government, state and federal, and also from unions and employer organisations—about the level of importance of occupational health and safety.The work that the commission does deserves praise. The commission, in effect, leads and coordinates national efforts to prevent and reduce the incidence and severity of occupational injury and disease by providing a healthy and safe working environment. The work is invaluable and should not be dismissed lightly. The range of activities that the body does includes research grants. However, since 1996 those research grants have ceased, and that certainly is a concern. The amount of funding that has gone into the research grants has dropped, as evidenced by the commission's report at page 71. The research grants in 1998 were in the order of $295,000. By 1999 the balance at the end of that year had dropped to $192,000. There was a significant reduction in grants themselves, which went from something of the order of $400,000 to $103,000—as I understand the figures—which is certainly a concern that should not go unnoticed.The work of the commission needs to be well funded and well maintained to ensure that the aims of this body are maintained. When you look at the revenue from government outlined on page 60 of the report, you see that principally the total revenues from government have also dropped from 1998—in the order, as I understand the figures, of $18,498,000 to $15,683,000. So there has been a significant reduction in the revenue that has been set aside for the work of the commission.That might be explainable when you look at the baseline figures, but there is certainly a concern that there has been a reduction. It is one of those areas where the money certainly would not go astray and would be used for worthwhile purposes, as I outlined earlier. In addition, there is work such as providing Worksafe news, which, in a previous occupation, I had the opportunity to distribute to many work sites and also to read. They provide a valuable service to workers in the field. The work of public affairs—the media liaison and the work of printing and publishing—is extremely important. In fact, it is noted at page 16 of the report that some 16 new titles were released in 1998-99. I will not go into all of those titles but they provide in particular the evaluation of the Queensland Construction 2000 initiative, which is certainly an important matter that needs to be put out into the public. In conclusion, I bring to the Senate's attention the important work of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission.Question resolved in the affirmative.997119:17:009971Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the documents.These documents are to do with our Defence Force and those who have served in our Defence Force and are now veterans. It perhaps deserves comment that, had this been a year ago, the importance of these reports might not have been as apparent, with members of our Defence Force now in East Timor. I ask the Senate to note these reports and pay tribute to the people who are in East Timor carrying out our obligations as citizens of Australia—although we do not become citizens in the true sense of the word until we become a republic. Nevertheless, the general thrust of what I mean comes across.The citizens of Australia should pay tribute to the Defence Force in East Timor and note the reference to veterans. It is only proper and right that we look after people who have gone out on our behalf to defend these shores, that we reinforce our determination to make sure that they and their families are looked after and that we give them every bit of support that we can.Question resolved in the affirmative.9971The following government documents tabled earlier today were considered:Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust Fund—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Australia New Zealand Food Authority—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Repatriation Commission, Department of Veterans' Affairs and National Treatment Moni toring Committee—Reports for 1998-99, including reports pursuant to the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 and the War Graves Act 1980. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Grains Research and Development Corporation and Grains Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Cotton Research and Development Corporation and Cotton Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Sugar Research and Development Corporation and Sugar Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Tobacco Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Adjournment997210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn. 997219:20:009972Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I rise tonight to address an area of particular ongoing interest to me and one on which there are regular contributions by various senators in the chamber: the challenges that face people living in rural and regional Australia. Specifically, I want to look at some of the issues that confront rural families.This government, since its election and for many decades before that, has had a longstanding commitment to families who live in rural and regional Australia, most recently developed through the launching of a National Families Strategy. That announcement, which was partly in response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, included the establishment of a new Marriage and Family Council. The strategy will focus on the different life stages of families and their different needs through those stages.Announcements were made in the last budget of a pilot voucher scheme for marriage and relationship education services and also for men and relationship education services. These are very important developments and I think are a valuable step forward in an important policy area. I receive a huge number of constituent inquiries in relation to issues of family breakdown, domestic violence, family law and a range of the other concerns that surround this area. Those constituents of mine are members of families of every size and description, from the most traditional to the so-called unorthodox. They have concerns which impact significantly on their day-to-day lives.Some of the strongest concerns that are expressed come from families living in rural and regional areas of New South Wales, in relation to the particular challenges they face. Recently, I addressed questions of the challenges faced by people in those areas. For example, I have touched on the challenges facing rural women in accessing new technologies and the impact of mental health difficulties on young Australians, amongst other things. But they are only some of the issues that concern many Australians, espe cially those who are not in the metropolitan areas, on a daily basis. These issues challenge those who live outside metropolitan areas in particular ways that often differ from the challenges faced by their counterparts who do live in metropolitan areas.The differences between the situation of families in regional as opposed to metropolitan New South Wales are significant. There are statistical indicators of the income and expenditure differences between families in rural and regional Australia and those in metropolitan locations which are indicative of that. For example, according to the ABS figures of 1993-94, metropolitan households earn, on average, $783.14 while those outside the metropolitan areas earn $614.71. Of those living outside metropolitan locations, a total of 16.7 per cent of their income is derived from government pensions and allowances, compared with 11.4 per cent for those living in the cities. On average, households in metropolitan areas spend $83.94 per week on recreation, compared with $71 in rural areas. Households in rural areas spend markedly less on personal care and less on clothing and footwear. So the picture that emerges from those figures is of two households: one in, say, suburban Sydney earning more than their regional counterpart in Albury or Armidale in New South Wales, spending more of that income on relaxing, looking after themselves and being less reliant on government for financial support. I recognise that these figures are averages, but it is not necessarily a welcome comparison that they provide. The challenges that families do face in non-metropolitan areas of New South Wales are not always financial. The concerns of many of my constituents who come to me relate to less tangible issues, such as their quality of life. They relate to matters like access to quality health care in rural and regional New South Wales. This is an issue that has received significant attention through the launch of a new plan to improve rural health across Australia.As senators may be aware, this plan, Healthy Horizons, is a partnership between the Commonwealth, the states, the territories and the National Rural Health Alliance. It includes commitments to improve highest health priorities, concentrating effort where health is poor; to improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in rural, regional and remote Australia; to maintain a skilled and responsive health work force; to develop needs based, flexible funding arrangements for rural, regional and remote Australia; and to achieve recognition of rural, regional and remote health as an important component of the Australian health system. In that area, one of the particular issues raised is access to doctors. I have heard many stories of the problems faced by communities that do not have the same access to doctors as those in the cities and which are often not even able to attract a single practitioner to their towns. There are real challenges in attracting and retaining GPs in rural communities. At present, about half the general practitioners who move to rural areas remain there for less than two years. The challenge in that area is partially to do with the perception that is held by doctors themselves about living and working outside the cities.There is now some support available to assist in addressing the problem. In the last budget there was funding in excess of $43 million over four years for retention payments to encourage doctors to stay in rural and remote areas. There has been funding directed towards medical education, including the establishment of a medical school at James Cook University and a clinical school at Charles Sturt University at Wagga Wagga.The University of Southern Cross, though, has also proposed the establishment of a postgraduate medical school at their campus in Lismore, New South Wales. Their aim is to address the shortage of doctors in northern New South Wales, where the problem is especially acute. In towns like Kyogle, which is just west of Lismore, there are five local GPs, but they are all about the same age. They are all about to retire, leaving the town's population quite probably without access to a GP.The University of Southern Cross suggests that the problem can be approached by training local people and encouraging them to stay in their local community, and it is an approach of which I am particularly supportive. That, in conjunction with other initiatives, like assisting rural medical students with their studies, is one answer to the complex question of addressing this issue on a long-term basis.There is also the significant issue of family breakdown. It is difficult in any circumstance but often, if it occurs in rural areas to farming families, the problems are exacerbated. Recently while visiting a New South Wales rural town, I met with the coordinator of the local women's refuge. We talked about some of the problems that she and her workers faced every day. It is not surprising that you would hear someone like that speak about problems associated with mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse or domestic violence. But what is really interesting is the way those problems manifest in a small town. For example, anonymity and confidentiality is one of the most important safety concerns for women who enter a refuge. But in this town, the presence and location of the refuge is very well known. She told me a story of a man who arrived in town on a train, walked to the taxi rank and asked to be taken to the refuge. It is not surprising that the taxi driver knew the location of the refuge but what is of concern is that the gentleman could simply be delivered to the front door of the refuge, and it becomes a much more significant problem than you would otherwise expect. The location of refuges in cities is not a secret, but issues of confidentiality and safety are perhaps a little easier to manage among a larger and more diverse population. There are real safety and ongoing effectiveness concerns about the operation of those organisations in rural Australia.I have also been approached about intergenerational farming and property settlement in the case of family breakdown, particularly in relation to a husband and wife who are divorcing and have to look at a very complex property settlement. The concern particularly raised with me recently was about the property in question having been in the ownership of a family for several generations. A family breakdown or divorce is a difficult circumstance to endure at best, but when compounded by the threat of losing your property, held and looked after by your parents and your grandparents before them, the problems are heightened. It is a complex property situation that many city residents may find hard to relate to. Balancing the contributions of both partners in a relationship with an eye to generational contributions is fraught with difficulty.We have sought to address the broader issue of intergenerational farming outside of circumstances involving family breakdown, and the Retirement Assistance for Farmers scheme, part of the Agriculture Advancing Australia initiative, allows older farmers to gift up to $500,000 of farm assets to younger generations and to access the age pension. But it is a much broader issue than that.Earlier this year the Attorney-General announced plans to implement family law reforms to ensure greater certainty in property settlements, to allow people to make binding financial arrangements about their property before marriage, during marriage and on the dissolution of marriage. It is the hope of many of us who have paid particular attention to this issue, either through personal involvement or otherwise, that legislation introduced as a result of that announcement might improve the situation.There are other issues of significant concern to rural families: finding jobs for their children in small towns; arresting the alarming rate of youth suicide, particularly amongst young men; and dealing with new emerging technologies and their impact. But the sentiment most often expressed to me by families in these areas is their commitment to solving these problems as a family and as a community.Anyone who has ever spent much time in a small town or regional area will be aware of the strong sense of community. While it may have been eroded by contemporary developments, there still remains a sense of assurance which is not always visible in metropolitan areas. (Time expired)997419:30:009974Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Tonight I rise to pay tribute to the Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice. This group is part of an emerging network of similar organisations around Australia dedicated to improving the lives of women with breast cancer. These organisations, run by volunteers who are breast cancer survivors, play a vital advocacy role for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Tonight I would like to draw particular attention to the efforts of the Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice in raising awareness of this significant women's health issue in the lead-up to National Breast Cancer Day on 25 October.The significance of breast cancer cannot be denied. Given that an Australian woman born today has a one-in-11 chance of developing breast cancer, it is an issue that can no longer be ignored or underestimated. If we exclude non-melanoma skin cancers, breast cancer remains the most frequently diagnosed cancer for Australian women. It is also, of course, the major cause of cancer death among women in Australia.While these statistics are rather sobering, tonight I want to highlight the positive efforts of women involved in advocacy agencies around the country. These organisations are formidable advocates on issues affecting the lives of women with breast cancer, and their efforts are an inspiring example of what women can achieve when they act collectively on issues that affect them uniquely as women.I am proud to stand here and support the Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice. I have followed their achievements with a great deal of admiration since they began in August of last year. During this month, the Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice is coordinating several events to raise awareness of breast cancer which I believe are worthy of acknowledgment. Last Sunday, the planting of a `field of women' in Darwin—coinciding with a similar activity at the MCG—provided an opportunity to reflect on the meaning of breast cancer, both for those women living with the diagnosis and for those people who have been affected by the death from breast cancer of a friend, a family member or a patient.The Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice is determined to send positive messages about breast cancer to the community. Later this week they will launch a calendar, `The Australian Face of Breast Cancer Calendar', featuring images of women from different parts of Australia with breast cancer. With the causes of breast cancer still not well understood but the lifetime risk of breast cancer well known, the calendar sends a powerful message about the diversity of women affected by breast cancer. It also sends a positive message about life after diagnosis and treatment.Last year, the Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice came up with a novel way of raising awareness of the issue. They put together the first Australian dragon boat racing team, and the team was comprised of breast cancer survivors. For those who do not know, dragon boat racing is an Asian form of rowing. This initiative has been extremely successful, and there are now plans afoot for a national team to compete both nationally and internationally.It is the advocacy work of Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice that I want to draw particular attention to this evening. I believe that the capacity for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer to really take control over decision making depends on two things: firstly, women need adequate information about breast cancer and their options for treatment; and, secondly, they need to be able to exercise an authentic choice in relation to these options. There are, however, several issues that limit the capacity of women in the Territory to exercise choice about their treatment for breast cancer.To address the first issue, access to information, the Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice is launching a breast cancer book collection this week. These books will be made available to women throughout the Territory through public libraries, and the collection will be updated annually. I applaud the Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice on this very positive initiative, which will enhance women's access to information about breast cancer.While information is a vital component of decision making, the capacity to exercise real choice is equally important. But women in the Territory are disadvantaged in several ways when they face a diagnosis of breast cancer. Firstly, there is no specialist breast surgeon or breast cancer oncologist in the Northern Territory. It is true that treating doctors in the Northern Territory have access through telemedicine to specialist advice when considering treatment for their patients. But the breast cancer patient herself is generally not included in these sessions, so she does not have the means to directly ask the specialist the questions that are relevant to her decision about treatment. This is of some consequence, because the issues which affect a woman's decision about breast cancer treatment are highly individual. Unlike her treating doctor, whose main concern is which treatment offers the best chance of a cure, a woman with breast cancer is likely to consider many other issues, and the importance of these issues in a woman's final decision about treatment is not easily understood by others.There is also the second problem about exercising choice. If a woman with breast cancer is given a choice of a mastectomy and chemotherapy or, alternatively, a lumpectomy and radiotherapy, what does that choice really mean for a woman who lives in the Northern Territory? What are the real implications? The mastectomy option, for some women, means travelling to Darwin or Alice Springs, a situation that has its own problems for women who live in remote parts of the Territory—for example, on Croker Island, in Numbulwar or in Tennant Creek. But the other option, the lumpectomy, means the same thing for all women who live in the Northern Territory, that is, travelling interstate for radiotherapy, for a period of six weeks at a time, because the Northern Territory has no radiotherapy facilities. Consider a woman with a partner and children. Does she leave her partner and children for six weeks at a time when they most need each other's support? Can she afford for all of them to travel interstate? Can she afford to spend, herself, six weeks at a time interstate? It is fairly obvious that under these circumstances there is not much of a choice. Generally, she will opt for the mastectomy, for financial and even psychological reasons. But a further problem besets women in the Northern Territory: there are no specialist breast nurses. The Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice and other advocacy agencies around the country have been lobbying hard recently for these specialists to be employed, and in this year's federal budget $4.1 million was set aside to provide such professional support for women in rural and remote Australia.What has happened since the budget? The National Breast Cancer Centre has been given the task of allocating the funds and has called on each state and territory government to provide a representative for a working party. However, both the NBCC and the Territory government have failed to provide an opportunity for consumer input. The Breast Cancer Network of Australia is currently arguing for consumer input on this working party, and from the point of view of women in the Northern Territory this is essential. It is only fair that consumers have a say in the allocation of these funds, understanding as they do the issue of dealing with a diagnosis of breast cancer while living in rural or remote Australia in such conditions as I have outlined tonight.I understand that all major projects undertaken by the National Breast Cancer Centre are supposed to have consumer input. But this one, with such important implications for women in rural and remote Australia, might have slipped through without consumer input had it not been for the vigilance of the Northern Territory Breast Cancer Voice. I want to pay tribute to and salute the efforts of this organisation for their ongoing demand to be heard by the government. Their commitment to improving the lives of future generations of Australian women, particularly in the Northern Territory and those who have suffered with breast cancer, is inspiring. I sincerely hope that the recent events they have undertaken will not deter them from continuing to speak out in the future.997619:39:009976Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak briefly tonight on the issue of the direction of Australia's refugee policy, particularly recent statements by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, relating to the people from Kosovo who were admitted to Australia under the safe haven legislation and also proposals he floated last week, supposedly to deal with people smuggling but in effect to further weaken Australia's obligations towards people who apply for protection visas in Australia.The issue of the people from Kosovo who were brought into Australia under the newly created safe haven visas during the recent conflict over there is an issue I particularly want to mention. As the Senate would probably be aware, Australia has recently marked Refugee Week as a way of trying to highlight the importance of recognising and acting upon our obligation towards refugees and to highlight and recognise the extreme suffering that so many people go through and the efforts that Australia can make to try to reduce that suffering. Yet at the same time as we are supposedly marking Refugee Week, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs announced that he would be proposing to allow people who are applying for refugee status to initially only stay in the country on a temporary basis across the board—supposedly due to some link with the increase in people smuggling—and, straight after that, he went down to Tasmania, to the camp where the safe haven visa holders from Kosovo are currently staying, and basically told them to get out by the end of November or they face the risk of being put in detention and forcibly deported. I think that is a disgraceful message to send, particularly in Refugee Week.The minister followed that up in question time yesterday in response to a dorothy dixer by once again repeating that message. He said that, if the Kosovars who are here were thinking of their own interests, they would take advantage of the allowance that has been offered by Australia of $3,000 per adult and leave here by the end of this month—30 October. I think it is a shameful approach from the minister to deign to tell people who have experienced what these people have gone through that he knows what is in their interests, as though he has a full understand ing of what is in their best interests and what they would be facing if they were to return home.In repeating his threat, he later stated that, if people remain in Australia after their visas expire, there is an obligation on his department to detain them and then remove them from Australia. Whilst he said that he thought nobody would want it to come to that, he said that that was what the outcome would be if you are maintaining a temporary regime. I think the key point to highlight in relation to this issue is the minister's insistence on maintaining a temporary regime. It is a matter of record that the immigration minister did not want to allow any people from Kosovo into Australia at the time the conflict there was at its worst. That was basically overturned in cabinet. The concept of this temporary safe haven visa was born as a political necessity by the cabinet in effect being shamed into responding to the massive wave of concern amongst the Australian public at the time.We brought these people here to Australia. Often they had little practical choice in the matter, given the situation they were in at the time. When we brought these people into Australia, the government with great fanfare highlighted the compassion that Australia and the Australian government had towards these people. We welcomed them at the airport. There was blanket media coverage about how wonderful it was that Australia was offering a helping hand. Yet just a few months later we are in a situation where, with a few well-placed stories in the media highlighting a couple of safe haven visa holders who had some complaints or concerns about the accommodation, we are trying to turn the whole situation around and basically force them out of the country. It has been said a number of times before that, if it does get to a situation where people are forcibly detained and then removed, it will be interesting to see whether the Prime Minister will be at the airport cheerily waving them goodbye as cheerily as he welcomed them here.We are basically moving towards a situation where the government will be able to operate this safe haven visa. The concern the Demo crats have is that we will have this form of temporary compassion—refugees with use-by dates that we bring into this country any time there is sufficient public pressure to make the government feel like we need to look compassionate; leave them here until we move on to the next issue and then force them out again. That is what our refugee program is potentially coming to and that is a matter of great concern to the Democrats.That concern is compounded by some of the proposals the minister put forward last week. It is no secret that the minister has not been keen on the operation of our onshore humanitarian program and people applying for protection visas onshore. He has introduced a number of measures in recent times and continues to try to introduce further measures to make it harder for people to apply for protection visas when they are in Australia. He came forward with a few more proposals last week in a media conference and tried to link those proposed changes to the issue of people smuggling. While this issue is of concern to the Democrats and to most Australians, it is one that is very tenuously linked to people applying for protection visas in Australia.The government has taken other measures which the Democrats have supported, and we are willing to consider further measures to directly address the problem of people smuggling. I refer here to increasing penalties for people who are involved in organising it, not penalising people who are the victims of it; other legislation that is still before the parliament in relation to border protection measures; other measures that have increased the powers to conduct phone tapping; and measures that go directly to the issue of the organising and implementing of people smuggling.It seems clear to me that the minister is using that quite legitimate concern—and whipping it up with some well-placed articles in the press to try to generate the community concern that again hordes of people from South-East Asia or further afield are about to descend upon Australia—as a smokescreen for furthering his own agenda of making it more difficult for people to apply for protection visas in Australia. That is a move that the Democrats have great concerns about. We will examine any proposals in detail when the minister actually puts them forward as legislation or regulations as opposed to press conferences. We have great concerns about the agenda and the aims and the real impact of such moves.Returning briefly and finally to the issue of Refugee Week, I had the pleasure of attending a media awards night put on by Austcare that highlighted both some of the best efforts of the media around Australia and the issues facing refugees in Australia across a range of categories. I congratulate Austcare for organising those awards. The event sent an important message about the power of the media by highlighting the reality of what refugees face. It is quite easy not to have compassion or concern when reports present the situation as one in which hordes of faceless people are descending here on boats as part of some organised criminal racket, as part of a people smuggling organisation.But when the media highlights individuals and the personal reality, experiences and suffering that people have to go through, there is quite a different outcome. I would like to congratulate all of those people who were entered for the awards as part of that function. All of those entrants highlighted the reality of the suffering that individual people and families go through. That is what is behind all the public policy debate about refugee issues. We need to remember that it is real people who are being affected by these measures.I would particularly like to congratulate the winner of the overall award, David Leser. His article `Welcome to Australia', published in the Sydney Morning Herald last year, highlighted in great detail the very real suffering that people were going through because of measures taken which, on the surface, seemed to be reasonable public policy ones. But when one examined the actual impact on individual people, it became clear that immense suffering was happening as a consequence. When the Australian public are made aware of that, their compassion will come to the fore.997919:49:009979Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I recently informed the Senate of the remarkable achievements of the poppy industry in Tasmania. Tonight I have a similar success story: that of the pyrethrum industry in Tasmania. Pyrethrum is a plant which, during December of every year, produces a daisy-like flower with a yellow centre which contains pyrethrins in its seeds. Pyrethrins are six closely related chemicals extracted from the flowers of the pyrethrum plant. They are natural insecticides. The pyrethrum bush grows to a height of 45-75 centimetres, or 18-30 inches, with the flowers growing on long upright stems. It prefers a climate where the temperature is no greater than 30 degrees C and grows best on well-drained soils. Tasmanian senators would be well aware of the soils of the north-west coast of Tasmania. As a perennial plant, pyrethrum grows for many years. In Australia, it can still produce economic yields after seven years but, typically, it is grown from four to five years.In the United States, where the market is huge, pyrethrum has a unique position among pesticides, which has made it is one of the most valuable products in the country. It has the ability to be used at low levels in the control of a broad spectrum of insects, pest resistance is almost non-existent, and it has relatively low toxicity to man and warm blooded animals. One drop of pyrethrum is all that is required in a can of spray. It is often referred to as liquid gold. Pyrethrum has broad use in controlling cockroaches and pests in food handling areas of restaurants. It is widely used as an ingredient in pet shampoos and dips to control fleas and ticks. It is an ingredient in flying-insect killer aerosols for use in homes. Industrial plants use it, and horse stables and dairies use it to control flies and small flying moths. It is even used in ointments and shampoos to control head and body lice on humans.The Australian pyrethrum industry is the only one of its kind that is fully mechanised from plant seeding right through to harvesting. Kenya is the world's largest producer of pyrethrum, where some 90,000 small-scale farmers hand-harvest the flowers every two to three weeks over a large window of nine to 10 months of the year. Pyrethrum is also grown in Tanzania, Ecuador, Uganda, Rwanda and Papua New Guinea. The Tasmanian crop uses a variety of pyrethrum that has all its flowers blooming at once, unlike the Kenyan product. This ensures maximum efficiency with the harvester fleet. Pyrethrum is harvested in December and January, as my Tasmanian colleagues well know.The development of the pyrethrum industry in Tasmania started in the 1970s when the University of Tasmania commenced a pyrethrum breeding program with genetic material from India. By 1980, the university had produced several high yielding cultivars which produced one single flush of flowers suitable for mechanical harvesting and it sought commercial partners to finance the development of a pyrethrum industry. CIG Pyrethrum, the Tasmanian government and the University of Tasmania formed a three-part agreement in 1981 to develop a new, fully mechanised world pyrethrum industry. The industry progressed slowly until Ian Folder was appointed manager in 1986. He has achieved enormous gains and taken the venture from humble beginnings to a fully commercialised, sustainable venture.In 1996, the owner of CIG Pyrethrum, the British Oxygen Company, placed its pyrethrum arm on the market as part of its worldwide rationalisation to concentrate on its core business. A syndicate led by Ian Folder took over the company, which then became Botanical Resources Australia, or BRA, as we know it in Tasmania. The company has five board members, including a former Premier of Tasmania, Mr Robin Gray, as Chairman. One of Botanical Resources' first initiatives as the new owner of the pyrethrum industry was the construction of a state-of-the-art $700,000 prototype carbon dioxide refinery in Ulverstone, on the north-west coast of Tasmania, Senator Denman's home town. Up until this time, the company was only able to undertake primary extraction in Tasmania, sending the oleoresin product to the United States of America for further processing.An industry strategic plan for all of the local stakeholders identified industry expan sion, research and development and industry diversification as the three key objectives for the future. To ensure it has a technological advantage, the pyrethrum industry has developed innovative research and development programs. Research is funded through a grower contribution of 2.5 per cent of their returns, which is then more than matched by BRA and then again by the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. Growers, suppliers and BRA staff make up the industry's own Pyrethrum Research and Development Committee, which has the role of determining the priorities for research. The total value of R&D projects for the last three years was in excess of $1.6 million spread across a wide range of projects utilising a large number of highly skilled researchers.In order to achieve higher yields and high pyrethrins content, a major area of research was the development of a seed based industry to move away from the traditional vegetative propagation method of dividing superior plants into splits. It is well known by all industry participants that cost reductions will come from better weed and disease control and better crop establishment. Yield increases will come from higher crop densities of seeded crops, good seed quality and well-managed crop nutrition.The first direct drilled seeds were sown in late 1996 and the results since then have been amazing. Direct seeded crops have yielded, on average, a lot higher than transplanted crops and the gross margin to growers has equalled the BRA projections. A new purpose-built laboratory and a new $700,000 crop pelletiser were added to BRA's development site in 1998 in order to handle the extra capacity created by increased plantings and higher yields and to bring all areas together on the one site.Extensive laboratory procedures test crops before harvest, after harvest and after extraction, and test the refined product. This quickly shows any problem areas where the pyrethrins may be lost during the manufacturing process. Growers are paid on assay results produced by the laboratory. The company has never been a day late in payment and grower trust in this company is absolutely enormous.During this year, under the direction of BRA's Research and Development Manager, Brian Chung, the company has undertaken an extensive pilot project with the aim of promoting the benefits of electronic commerce within the local farming community and assisting in the administration of pyrethrum issues. A working group consisting of key growers and BRA staff obtained a $108,000 grant from the Tasmanian Electronic Commerce Centre to fund the use of computers for farm management. Systems have been installed on approximately 80 farms, and growers and members of their families are now attending classes to improve their computer and electronic commerce skills. BRA are presently in the process of building a new $1.6 million refinery on their present site and a new storage shed to hold increased harvest tonnage, costing $750,000.The company now has 20 to 30 per cent of the world pyrethrum market and its share is growing rapidly. This coming season, BRA will have over 200 growers and a planted area of 2,400 hectares—up significantly from 99 growers and 1,500 hectares of last season. The crop will be harvested by 26 purpose-built harvesters, eight more than last year. The capital being poured into this industry is significant. The company exports 95 per cent of its product and the United States is its largest customer.BRA are constantly looking for more markets but they have a secure customer base and will not seek additional customers until they can guarantee supply. One customer has contracted forward to the year 2004 and another has recently rolled over their contract to the year 2008—such is the confidence in this industry. BRA strives for best practice in pyrethrum oil production and as this company's address is Export Drive, East Ulverstone, one cannot help but think just how appropriate is the situation. With Ian Folder, Brian Chung, their expert staff, extremely dedicated growers and an army of committed consultants and contractors, this innovative Tasmanian industry is in excellent hands.Senate adjourned at 7.59 p.m.Documents99819981The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal Hostels Limited—Report for the period 21 June 1998 to 26 June 1999.Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 1998-99.Airservices Australia—National equity and diversity program—Report for 1998-99.Army and Air Force Canteen Service (AAFCANS) (trading as Frontline Defence Services)—Equal employment opportunity management plan—Report for 1998-99.Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management (trading as Frontline Defence Services)—Report for 1998-99.Australia New Zealand Food Authority—Report for 1998-99.Australia-Japan Foundation—Report for 1998-99.Australian Bureau of Statistics—Report for 1998-99.Australian Film Commission—Report for 1998-99.Australian Film Finance Corporation Limited—Report for 1998-99.Australian Film, Television and Radio School—Report for 1998-99.Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 1998-99.Australian Landcare Council—Report for 1998-99.Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Report for 1998-99.Australian National Maritime Museum—Report for 1998-99.Australian Sports Commission—Report for 1998-99.Australian Statistics Advisory Council—Report for 1998-99.Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation—Report for 1998-99.Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Comcare Australia—Report for 1998-99, including the report of QWL Corporation Proprietary Limited.Cotton Research and Development Corporation and Cotton Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority—Report for 1998-99.Department of Finance and Administration—Service charters in the Australian public service: Two-year whole-of-government report, July 1997 to June 1999.Department of Transport and Regional Services—Report for 1998-99.Federal Airports Corporation (FAC)—Report for 1998-99.Film Australia Limited—Report for 1998-99.Grains Research and Development Corporation and Grains Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99.Health Insurance Commission—Report for 1998-99.Higher Education Funding Act 1988 —Report on determinations made under the Act in respect of 1998.Indigenous Land Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Report for 1998-99.Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees No. 1—Report for 1998-99.National Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory Council—Reports for 1998-99.National Capital Authority—Report for 1998-99.National Competition Council—Report for 1998-99.National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme—Report for 1998-99 on the operation of the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 .National Library of Australia—Report for 1998-99.National Occupational Health and Safety Commission—Report for 1998-99.National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals—Report for 1998-99.National Science and Technology Centre (Questacon)—Report for 1998-99.Northern Land Council—Report for 1998-99.Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 1998-99.Private Health Insurance Administration Council—Report for 1998-99.Productivity Commission—Report—No. 8—Impact of competition policy reforms on rural and regional Australia, 8 September 1999.Repatriation Commission, Department of Veterans' Affairs and National Treatment Moni toring Committee—Reports for 1998-99, including reports pursuant to the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 and the War Graves Act 1980 .Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust Fund—Report for 1998-99.Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission—Report for 1998-99.ScreenSound Australia—Report for 1998-99.Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee—Report for 1998-99.Sugar Research and Development Corporation and Sugar Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99.Tobacco Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Wool International—Report for 1998-99 (Final report).The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Defence (Visiting Forces) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 233.National Health Act— National Health (Loyalty Bonus Scheme) Guidelines 1999. National Health (Maximum Percentage of Discounting of Contributions to Organisations) Determination 1999.Answers to Questions on Notice9983The following answers to questions were circulated:9983(Question No. 1204)12049983O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 July 1999:(1) Will livestock sold at auction not be defined as food and therefore subject to a goods and services tax (GST).(2) Will stock sold over the hooks where the point of sale is the point where the carcass is weighed post-slaughter be defined as food and therefore GST free.(3) Will auctioneers be required to include the GST in the bid price or will they be able to separate out the GST component of each bid to allow buyers to identify the GST component of each purchase.9983Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Live animals are specifically excluded from the definition of food. Consequently, livestock sold at auction will be subject to GST where; the seller is registered for GST.(2) Where stock sold post-slaughter is food for human consumption (is where the animal is of a kind generally used as food for human consumption), the supply will be GST-free.(3) The treatment of sales of livestock under auction will be consistent with the treatment of other sales which are facilitated by an intermediary.If the seller is unregistered, no GST will be charged on the sale.Where a registered business sells livestock at auction, GST will be charged on the sale. The GST will be included in the bid price so that the auctioneer will charge a GST inclusive price.A registered purchaser will be able to claim an input tax credit equal to 1/11th of the purchase price of the livestock.9983(Question No. 1245)12459983O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Re gional Services, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) Can any aircraft operating in Australia broadcast a mayday call on high frequency (HF) radio that can be picked up by Air Traffic Services.(2) Has Airservices Australia decided to decommission the domestic HF radio network from 15 June 2000.(3) In the absence of a domestic HF radio network, will there be locations in Australia where Mayday calls from aircraft will not be received by Air Traffic Services.(4) (a) What consultation has there been with the aviation sector and search and rescue organisations about this planned reduction in services; (b) when did the consultations take place; (c) which organisations were consulted; and (d) what was the outcome of the consultations.9983Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices Australia has advised that:(1) Pilots are able to transmit emergency radio calls such as a Mayday on HF radio and, under normal circumstances, these calls will be received by Air Traffic Services. However, there may be occasions when interference on HF or the effects of solar activity might prevent a call from being received.(2) No. Airservices advises it will be reviewing and rationalising the number of HF sites currently used to provide services across Australia. Emergency services referred to in (1.) above will continue to be available on HF across Australia, but from fewer sites which will be upgraded where necessary. The current level of coverage is expected to be maintained.(3) Not applicable.(4) (a), (b), (c), (d)Airservices has advised that it is currently in the process of consulting on this matter with a range of interested parties including industry associations, individual airlines and industrial associations. Also, Australian Search and Rescue (AusSAR) will be consulted on any implications for search and rescue operations. 9984(Question No. 1380)13809984Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 31 August 1999:With reference to the Albury-Wodonga national highway bypass:(1) Is it a fact that Hume Shire Mayor, Councillor Mr William McDonald, participated as a council representative at the Value Management Study Forum or other forums conducted by the Public Works Department and the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) to asses the alternatives to the Albury-Wodonga national highway project; if so, did Mayor McDonald declare a pecuniary interest or conflict of interest caused by his ownership of properties directly affected by the proposals.(2) Is it a fact that the outcome of the study processes has taken both proposed variations and the existing route away from properties owned by Mayor McDonald.(3) (a) Does the Minister agree with RTA staff that the `common route' element of the inner bypass has been inadequately investigated; and (b) what action will be taken to ensure that thorough investigations of the internal route option are conducted.(4) Is the Minister satisfied that all common route land-holders have had equal opportunity to exercise influence over the routing of the bypass; if not, what action will be taken to remedy the situation.(5) Will the Minister direct the RTA to temporarily abandon the acquisition of land that is presently taking place, as the whole process may be set aside and the land no longer required.9984Macdonald, 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) The RTA has advised that Councillor McDonald participated in the Value Management Study for the Albury project. The issue of whether there has been a conflict of interest by Councillor McDonald was the subject of a complaint to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). I understand ICAC has examined the matter and decided to take no action in relation to the complaint. If the honourable senator has any new evidence of wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour he should place it before the appropriate authorities.(2) Planning and route selection in NSW was undertaken by the RTA and approved by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, under the relevant NSW legislation. This involved a major long-term program of studies, public consultation and an EIS. The results of these processes have been scrutinised by both NSW and Victorian environmental and planning authorities and subsequently both Governments recommended the Commonwealth fund the internal route. Issues about route selection, and its effect on various properties, are therefore matters for the relevant NSW Ministers in the first instance.(3) The views of RTA staff are a matter for consideration by the NSW Minister for Roads in the exercise of his responsibilities under NSW legislation and in advising me on matters such as this project. These are therefore questions that the honourable senator should address to the NSW Minister and his colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning.(4) See answer to (2).(5) No. Land acquisitions will be necessary for the implementation of the first stage, and I expect that these will proceed without further delay. However, land identified for the remainder of the route will not need to be acquired until its construction is scheduled. This is not likely for some considerable time.9984(Question No. 1415)14159984Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, 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 expected action; 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.9985Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Agency: Attorney-General's Department(1) The Department has established a GST Project Team to manage the implementation of GST. Two officers have been seconded full-time to this task.A network of GST Liaison officers has been established throughout the Department and a project plan has been developed and is being implemented.(2) (a) $31,500(b) (i) nil (ii) nil (iii)) nil (iv) $26,000 approximately (v) nil (vi) seminars and information sessions approximately $3,000; legal advice $2,500.(3) No. Funding has been met within existing appropriations.(4) The Department will undertake tasks as defined as a consequence of the project plan.(5) (a) It is not possible to estimate the total cost at this time.(b) Whilst most of the planned actions will be met from existing in-house resources, eg. staff training etc, additional costs will be incurred for HR and FMIS system changes. Additional staff costs are estimated at approximately $200,000.(6) No. Costs incurred will be met from within existing appropriations.(7) It is not expected that there will be any significant change to the ongoing running costs of the Department resulting from the introduction of GST.(8) Nil.Agency: Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1) Relevant staff have attended information sessions and will attend ATO training sessions when they take place so than an implementation plan can be developed.(2) (a) The cost to date is negligible and relates to training.(b) Not applicable at this stage.(3) No, as only travel costs involved, travel budget used.(4) Modification of computerised management systems, development of procedures and training of relevant staff.(5) (a) Not known at this stage.(b) Not known at this stage.(6) No. See Question 3.(7) Not known at this stage.(8) Not known at this stage.AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE(1) Customs as a corporate entity has undertaken a complete assessment of the tax reform legislation enacted by Parliament. This includes the identification of all changes that need to be made to ensure compliance with the Goods and Services Tax, Withholding Tax, Personal Income Tax and Customs reporting requirements through the Business Activity Statement. Preparations are well advanced in all areas including the development of business rules and the identification of required functionality for the Financial Management Information System (FMIS) and Human Resource Management System.(2) (a) The total cost of actions already undertaken is $83,345.(b) (i) nil for consultancies; (ii) $7,944 for staff training; (iii) nil for computer software; (iv) $15,179 for extra staff; (v) nil for stationery; (vi) $60,222 for existing salaries.(3) No. Customs has prioritised the use of its existing appropriation to enable the necessary work to occur.(4) System functionality for Customs Financial Management Information System has been designed and is currently being developed. It is expected that testing of the new functionality will commence in November of this year. Calculation of new prices incorporating the effect of the removal of WST and the inclusion of GST for all chargeable goods and services has commenced. Updating of instructions, guidelines and procedures, re-wording of contracts and all related training requirements are expected to be complete by end January 2000.(5) (a) The estimated total cost of planned actions prior to the commencement of GST is $360,000.(b) (i) $50,000 is estimated for consultancies (ii) $10,000 for staff training (iii) $60,000 for computer software (iv) $123,000 for extra staff (v) $1,000 for stationery (vi) $116,000 for existing staff salaries, IT desktop and general administration.(6) No. As with question 3, Customs has prioritised its existing appropriation to enable the necessary work to occur.(7) Yes, there will be a change in ongoing running costs. Although Customs has been exempt from paying WST there will still be indirect cost savings as a result of the abolition of WST (eg. sales tax on machinery has cascaded through the production chain increasing the cost of most goods and services). Although the GST can be claimed from the ATO there will be amounts of GST that cannot be claimed eg. Input-taxed goods and services. The implication of removing WST and imposing GST is yet to be determined. It is expected that the change in ongoing running costs will be determined by end December 1999.(8) Other than those items identified in the answers to previous questions, Customs has no other GT-associated costs on internal operations to be incurred prior to the commencement of the GST. However, $23.5m has been appropriated to Customs in 1999-2000, plus $6m carryover from 1998-99, for tax reform to change procedures and computer systems, and to communicate these changes to staff and industry.AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE(1) The AFP has formed a working party to address the implementation of the GST. A review of all transactions within the AFP is underway to assess the impact of the tax and the AFP's response to that impact. A review of all contracts the AFP is party to, is also underway to ensure that contracts spanning the implementation date adequately address the GST. The AFP GST working party will review and modify the AFP's accounting and IT systems to ensure the AFP is GST compliant.The AFP's project plan for the implementation of GST is in draft form pending the issue of the Department of Finance and Administration's `roadmap' detailing deadlines for agency milestones.Finance and IT staff have attended various industry seminars on the implementation of GST. The AFP has registered attendance at the Australian Taxation Office's `train the trainer' course for GST when it is available. Ongoing staff training in GST at all levels is a priority for the AFP.(2) (a) A minimal amount of expenditure has been incurred on the AFP's GST implementation on legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. The cost of AFP employee hours spent on GST implementation is unquantifiable at this time.(b) Not applicable. (3) No additional funding is available to the AFP for the implementation of the GST. Costs will be met within existing appropriations and forward estimates.(4) Expected future preparations for the implementation of the GST include ongoing review and modification of the FMIS including software upgrades and legal advice on the application of the GST to AFP activities.(5) The bulk of the requirements of the GST implementation is expected to be met by in-house resources. Some costs may be unavoidable in the area of software, legal advice and the possible use of consultants. Training offered by the Australian Taxation Office free of charge will be utilised and other training requirements met in-house. It is not possible to qantify future costs at this stage.(6) See (3) above.(7) There will be no expected major change in the ongoing running costs of the AFP after the commencement of the GST.(8) No other GST related costs have been identified by the AFP that will be incurred prior to the commencement of the GST.AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR(1) AGS has identified the likely impact of GST on its administrative systems and is planning to change them to deal with GST.(2) (a) Costs to date are only of staff time and training.(b) (i) No consultants have been used (ii) Administrative staff training to date is of the order of $3,000 (iii) None (iv) None (v) None (vi) None(3) AGS is not now funded by budget appropriation.(4) Scoping of training, system changes, implementation of system changes, training, new procedures.(5) (a) It is expected that the costs of administration systems change and staff training may be of the order of $250,000.(b) (i) It is not expected that consultancies will be used (ii) staff training may be $100,000 (iii) computer software may be $100,000 (iv) no extra staff will be needed solely for operation of GST but extra staff time of $50,000 may be involved in implementation and training (vi) stationery costs will be small.(6) AGS is not now funded by budget appropriation.(7) Ongoing annual administrative costs may be around $50,000 a year.(8) AGS expects to incur costs in training its lawyers to ensure it is able to continue to offer comprehensive, cost effective services, including GST services, to its clients.AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY(1) The Institute has contacted the Australian Taxation Office in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000. The Institute also has registered with the Taxation Office and with the Department of Finance for the information and training sessions.(2) (a) Costs to date are negligible.(b) At this stage the Institute does not have any cost estimates in relation to Consultancies, Staff Training, Computer Software, Extra Staff, Stationery and Other.(3) The portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation does not have any provision for the introduction of GST.(4) Computer software will be upgraded and the key staff will be trained to implement GST.(5) The Institute does not have any estimated cost of expected actions at this stage.(6) The portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation does not have any provision for the estimated cost of future work.(7) The Australian Institute of Criminology is a very small agency and does not envisage any major change to running costs.(8) None at this stage.AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION(1) The GST will only have limited impact on the internal operations of the ALRC. No specific preparations have been undertaken to date.(2) (a) Nil(b) Not applicable(3) Not applicable(4) The ALRC's Finance Manager will attend training seminars to be organised by DOFA, and by MYOB, supplier of the ALRC's finance software package. Order forms and publications price lists will be redesigned to incorporate the GST.(5) (a) $500(b) (i) Nil (ii) $300 (iii) $200 (upgrade) (iv) Nil (v) Nil (vi) Nil(6) The estimated costs of preparing for the introduction of the GST are insignificant and will be funded from the ALRC's existing budget appropriation. No specific provision was made in the 1999-2000 budget estimates.(7) There is not expected to be any significant change in the running costs of the ALRC after the commencement of GST. (8) The ALRC does not expect to incur any other GST-associated costs prior to the commencement of the GST beyond the estimates disclosed in response to question 5.AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION(1) Relevant staff have attended information sessions run by the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Computer Society. Names of staff who are the main contact for GST related matters have been given to the Department of Finance and Administration GST group.(2) (a) $30 for the attendance of one officer at an information session.(b) $30 on staff training.(3) No. The cost is being met from our existing budget allocation.(4) ASIO are waiting on examples of implementation plans which they believe will be issued by the ATO and DOFA before doing any further preparation for the GST. Their Financial Management Information System already has a GST capability; this may require fine tuning once details of the implementation plans are known.(5) (a) Not known at this stage but not expected to be significant.(b) See (a) above.(6) No. The cost is being met from our existing budget allocation.(7) No.(8) None known apart from possible minor modification of the Financial Management Information System.AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN TRANSACTION REPORTS AND ANALYSIS CENTRE(1) Preparations undertaken to date in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000:- sought legal advice relating to the wording of service and consultancy contracts which AUSTRAC enters into;- relevant finance staff have undertaken awareness and implementation training;- liaison with FMIS provider on GST ready software.(2) (a) Total cost of those actions already undertaken—approximately $4,000.(b) (i) Nil (ii) $1,000 (iii) Nil (iv) Nil (v) Nil (vi) (legal advice) $3,000.(3) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999-2000 budget for GST implementation. AUSTRAC is using existing departmental funs for this purpose.(4) Future preparations planned or required in regard to GST implementation: - installation of GST ready FMIS software provided via software license support;- registration with the Australian Taxation Office in November 1999 for an Australian Business Number for GST purposes;- commence recording of GST paid or received.(5) (a) $nil(b) Not applicable.(6) As there are no costs planned or expected this question is not applicable to AUSTRAC.(7) Apart from the abolition of wholesales sales tax, there is not expected to be any major change to running costs. AUSTRAC does not anticipate being provided with any input taxed supplies.(8) $nil.AGENCY: COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS(1) Key staff have attended briefings provided by the ATO, our FMIS vendor and other relevant training courses. A project team is currently being developed with at least 1 representative from each State Office. A preliminary time line has been prepared that is consistent with the timing proposed by a GST unit set up within DoFA.(2) The only cost incurred so far has been for staff training. The estimated cost is $4,600.(3) Costs are being met from annual running costs.(4) The internal project team will be identifying all transactions subject to the GST and reviewing potential implications.We are waiting to see how much system functionality is delivered by our FMIS vendor before developing a specific plan for FMIS modifications.After the impacts of the GST have been fully identified and system modifications made then comprehensive training will be provided to all relevant staff.Progress will be reported to DoFA on a regular basis.(5) It is difficult to estimate costs at this early stage. Additional costs will be incurred through consultancies which provide specialist knowledge and to make agency specific FMIS changes. Staff training will be conducted both internally and by external providers. There will also be some travel costs incurred in providing training to State Offices. The DPP is not planning to employ extra staff.(6) Costs are being met from annual running costs.(7) It is possible that there may be a slight increase in ongoing running costs. A preliminary estimate is less than 0.2%.(8) No. AGENCY: FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA(1) The Court's internal auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, has been requested to provide advice on the effect of the GST on Family Court operations, internal and external.(2) (a) Nil.(b) Not applicable.(3) Nil.(4) Uncertain. Refer to answer to question 1.(5) (a) Unknown as to the total Court but individual costs currently estimated as:(b) (i) $30,000 (ii) $15,000 (iii) nil (iv) nil (v) negligible (vi) unknown.(6) No. Existing Departmental funds will be utilised.(7) No significant change is expected.(8) Unknown. See answer question 1.AGENCY: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA(1) The Court has been preparing for the introduction of the GST by:. Familiarising key staff with the implications of the GST by attending information sessions run by DOFA, AGS and professional bodies such as the Institute of Certified Practising Accountants.. Developing an implementation plan.. Examining current contracts to identify potential GST impacts if they extend beyond 1 July 2000.. Advising staff of the need to include certain provisions in all contracts that may extend beyond 1 July 2000.. Identify possible impact of the GST on court fees including liaising with Treasury on GST exemptions. Identifying capability of our financial management system to cope with GST payment and recording, including modifications to our chart of accounts to record GST payments(2) (a) the total cost of preparations excluding staff time is $1,255(b) These costs comprise: Staff training—$295.00; Other (travel)—$960.00.(3) No funds were provided to the Court in the 1999-2000 budget. Any expenses incurred have been from the Court's existing budgets for financial administration.(4) Future preparation will include training all staff involved in financial administration throughout the Court in the impacts of GST on accounts processes, asset management, contract administration, recovery of GST credits etc. At this stage only central office staff have had the benefit of any GST training. Future upgrades to our financial management information system will include GST specific changes.(5) (a) The estimated total cost of actions planned is $79,500.These costs relate to: Consultancies (not known at this stage), Training $22,000, Software nil (upgrades would have been purchased irrespective of GST inclusions), extra staff $50,000,Stationery $2,500 (only will apply if GST applies to court fees), Other—$5,000 (upgrade of Point of Sale systems).(6) No additional funds were provided to the Court to undertake this work. It will be funded from the Court's existing funds which make provision for financial management expenses.(7) The only expected change to the Court's ongoing running costs is the impost of the GST administration (which is not quantifiable at present) and the impact of reduced wholesale sales tax where the Court did not previously obtain sales tax exempt price, for example lease charges for motor vehicles.(8) The Court will incur additional administrative workload as a consequence of having to record and recover GST. It is not possible to quantify the extent of this increased cost at this time.AGENCY: HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA(1) (a) Officers of the High Court's administration have attended introductory workshops on the GST conducted by the Australian Taxation Office.(b) Investigations have been made with the suppliers of the Court's financial management system to ascertain the ability of that system to deal efficiently with the GST;(c) Contact has been made with relevant agencies to ensure the court is kept informed of developments in the introduction of the GST, and receives early advice of assistance available.(2) (a) Nil.(b) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.(4) (a) Modifications to the court's financial management system;(b) Staff training;(c) Continuing attendance at appropriate information seminars;(d) Continuing contact with the Australian Taxation Office in order to resolve queries with the GST, as they arise.(5) (a) It is estimated that the total cost of the preparations listed at (4) will be $15,000.(b) (i) $5000 (ii) $3,000 (iii) $5,000 (iv) Nil (v) $2,000. (6) The estimated costs listed at (5) were not included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation. The High Court is using its existing operating funds for this purpose.(7) A small increase is expected in the ongoing running costs of the High Court's administration.(8) None are expected.AGENCY: HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION(1) Staff of the Commission have attended a briefing by the Australian Tax Office on the impact of the GST.(2) The costs of preparing for GST for internal operations are small relative to the total cost of preparing for GT and are not easily separable.(3) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999-2000 budget for GST implementation. The Commission is using existing departmental funds for this purpose.(4) Future preparations expected to be required for internal operations in regard to the introduction of the GST will be included in total preparations for GST and will encompass staff training, changes to computer systems and stationery.(5) The costs of preparing for GST for internal operations are small relative to the total cost of preparing for GST and are not easily separable.(6) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999-2000 budget for GST implementation. The Commission is using existing departmental funds for this purpose.(7) No.(8) The costs of preparing for GST for internal operations are small relative to the total cost of preparing for GST and are not easily separable.AGENCY: NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY(1) The NCA has put in place an implementation plan that addresses issues such as procedures, training, systems and record keeping for the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000. Procedures have been put in place for orders that will span 1 July 2000.(2) (a) Total cost to date has been approximately $1,000 associated with travel and attendance at seminars.(b) (i) nil (ii) staff training is approximately $1,000 associated with travel for attendance at seminars, and seminar fees (iii) nil (iv) nil (v) nil (vi) opportunity cost of time in preparation and consideration of plans.(3) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999-2000 budget for GST implementation. The NCA is utilising existing agency (departmental) funds for this purpose. (4) The NCA has put in place an implementation plan that addresses issues such as training, modifications to accounting systems, amendments to Chief Executive Instructions and post implementation reviews for the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(5) (a) Total cost is estimated to be $5,000(b) (i) the NCA does not plan to engage consultants (ii) estimated to be $5,000 (iii) the Australian Customs Service is providing the NCA with a bureau service in relation to corporate systems. They are addressing this issue. (iv) extra staff will be nil (v) stationery will be minor (vi) opportunity cost of time in preparation and consideration of plans.(6) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999-2000 budget for GST implementation. The NCA is utilising existing agency (departmental) funds for this purpose.(7) There is not expected to be any significant change.(8) Not at this stage.AGENCY: NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL(1) Key financial staff have attended introductory information and training sessions—Department of Finance Administration session in Canberra, Certified Practicing Accountants' training seminar in Perth. A draft implementation plan has been prepared.(2) (a) $5,380(b) (i) nil (ii) $5,380 (iii) nil (iv) nil (v) nil (vi) nil.(3) No. Part of normal administrative functions.(4) Implementation of financial recording and recovery procedures in the finance unit.(5) (a) $9,380(b) (i) Nil (ii) $5,380 (iii) nil (iv) $4,000 (v) nil (vi) nil(6) No. Part of normal administrative functions.(7) No.(8) Unknown at this stage.AGENCY: OFFICE OF FILM AND LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION(1) Preparations to the date for the implementation of GST in OFLC include:. Finance and administrative staff have commenced a program of on-going research and assessment of the logistics of implementing the GST;. Details of OFLC's GST requirements have been discussed with the developers of the new Classification Database system (soon to be implemented), with regard to incorporating GST functionality;. Preliminary discussions have commenced with the vendors of OFLC's FMIS with regards to implementing the GST functionality.(2) (a)Total cost of these actions has been minimal to date.(b) (i) nil (ii) nil (iii) nil (iv) nil (v) nil (vi) nil.(3) The cost of implementing the GST in the OFLC was not specifically identified in the 1999-2000 budget. Since the total cost of this implementation is not expected to be significant, it will be absorbed into the normal running cost budget.(4) OFLC is planning the following activities in relation to implementing the GST:. including GST functionality in the OFLC's new Classification Database system;. including GST functionality in OFLC's FMIS.(5) (a) OFLC expects that the total cost of expected actions will not exceed $10,000.(b) These additional costs relate to the enhancement and modification to computer software by the vendor/developer.(6) The cost to OFLC of undertaking this work was not specifically identified in the 1999-2000 budget. Since the total cost of this work is not expected to be significant, it will be absorbed into the normal running cost budget.(7) The OFLC expects there will be a negligible change in the on-going running costs after the introduction of the GST.(8) No other GST associated costs have been identified by the OFLC in relation to the commencement of GST.AGENCY: OFFICE OF PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL(1) At this time, OPC has identified the "Legislation Process Course" as the only service provided by OPC which will attract GST. The software vendor for OPC's FMIS has been requested to provide a quote to upgrade the FMIS to enable automated processing of the GST.(2) The only cost to OPC to date relates to existing staff and the actual time spent on implementation of the GST has not been recorded.(3) No additional funding to implement the GST was sought in the 1999-2000 budget. The cost of implementing the GST is expected to be covered by funds received to achieve our agreed outcomes/outputs through annual appropriations.(4) OPC has not yet determined what further action will be required before the introduction of the GST.(5) No costings are available for future actions. (6) No additional funding to implement the GST was sought in the 1999-2000 budget. The cost is expected to be covered by funds received to achieve our agreed outcomes/outputs through annual appropriations.(7) At this time, no changes to ongoing running costs of OPC are expected.(8) No other GST related costs have been identified.9991(Question No. 1421)14219991O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 September 1999:(1) Is it still the case, as the Senate was advised by Treasury on 1 June 1999, that there is currently no settled policy for deciding which government levies are to be subject to a goods and services tax (GST).(2) Is it still the case that before a policy on the application of a GST to government levies can be determined, discussion will have to take place with the States to ensure a consistent application of the tax to all similar levies and charges: (a) if so: (i) have discussion on the matter with the States taken place, (ii) how many States have consulted, (iii) when did those consultations take place, (iv) who participated in the consultations, and (v) in each case, what was the outcome of the consultations; and (b) if discussion have not taken place, when are the discussions with each state scheduled to take place.(3) If the Government has determined a position in relation to the application of the GST to government levies and charges (a) what is that position; and (b) when was it determined.(4) Will the Treasurer provide: (a) a complete list of government levies and charges that will attract the GST; and (b) a list of levies and charges that will not attract the tax.9991Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth+State Financial Relations was signed by all States and Territories in June 1999. In signing that Agreement, States and Territories agreed that the GST should not apply to some taxes and compulsory charges. The Parties to the Agreement are currently in the process of agreeing on a list of taxes, levies and other charges that should be outside the scope of the GST. The complete list will be promulgated by a determination by the Commonwealth Treasurer as set out in section 81-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act).9991(Question No. 1422)14229991O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 September 1999:(1) Can the Treasurer confirm that the goods and services tax (GST) will apply to payments of taxes and other charges except those taxes and other charges that are excluded from the GST by a determination of the Treasurer.(2) (a) How many such determinations has the Treasurer made; and (b) when was each determination made.(3) What taxes and charges have been excluded from the GST by the above determinations.9991Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Act) 1999 (the GST Act) applies GST to payments of taxes, fees and other charges, except those taxes, fees and other charges that are excluded from the GST by a determination of the Treasurer. Discussions are currently being held with the States and Territories and with local government, as to which taxes, fees and other charges will be outside the scope of the GST. The list of taxes, fees and charges that will not be subject to the GST will be promulgated by a determination by the Treasurer.9991(Question No. 1546)15469991Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:With reference to the Minister's decision in August 1999 to lift the 10-year moratorium on food irradiation and to introduce the compulsory labelling of such foods:(1) (a) What labelling specifications will be required; and (b) what will be the requirements for the label size.(2) Will labelling be similar to that on cigarette packets clearly stating, `IRRADIATED FOODS'.9991Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) Labelling of irradiated foods will need to comply with current regulations in the Food Standards Code (ie, Standard A1-Labelling and Advertising). This standard describes key criteria that labelling must be in English, distinct, legible, indelible, conspicuously visible and in standard type on the label. There will be no specific requirements for minimum print size for irradiated foods as the labelling of irradiated foods is considered an advisory statement.(2) The following is an extract from Standard A17 which describes the labelling of irradiated foods:(a) The label on or attached to a package containing a food that has been processed by ionising radiation must include a statement that the food has been treated with ionising radiation.Examples:- `Treated with ionising radiation';- `Treated with ionising electrons'; and- `Irradiated (name of food)'.(b) If a food contains an irradiated food as an ingredient or component, the label on or attached to a package containing the food must include a statement that the ingredient or component has been treated with ionising radiation, either as part of the declaration of that ingredient or component in an ingredient list or elsewhere on the label.(c) Where an irradiated food, or a food containing an irradiated food as an ingredient or component, is displayed for retail sale otherwise than in a package, there must be displayed on or in connection with the display of the food a label containing a statement that the food has been treated with ionising radiation, or that it contains an ingredient or component that has been treated with ionising radiation, as the case may be.(d) Where an irradiated food is sold other than for retail sale, the food must be labelled with:- a statement that the food has been irradiated;- the minimum and maximum does of the irradiation;- the identity of the facility where the food was irradiated; and- the date or dates of irradiation.