1999-10-203914SENATE999301999-10-20The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills9993r797Billsr793Billsr7929993Messages received from the House of Representatives: returning the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999, and acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 made by the Senate and disagreed to amendment No. 2, and requesting the reconsideration of the amendment disagreed to by the House; returning the Public Service Bill 1999, and acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendment No. 2 made by the Senate and disagreed to amendment No. 1, and requesting the reconsideration of the amendment disagreed to by the House; and agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate in the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999.Ordered that messages Nos 324 and 326 be considered in committee of the whole immediately.PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE BILL 1999Schedule of the amendment made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed—(2) Clause 22, page 16 (lines 24 to 27), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute: (4) A person may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) only in circumstances prescribed by the determinations. (4A) The determinations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(c). (5) An engagement for a specified term may be extended in circumstances prescribed by the determinations.House of Representatives reasons for disagreeing to the Senate amendment—The Amendment proposes to change Clause 22 of the Bill. The Amendment proposes to change the provision that allows determinations to be made to prescribe limitations on the extension of employment for a specified term. The Amendment would substitute provisions that prohibit the engagement of persons in those categories, or the extension of engagement of people engaged for a specified term until determinations are made dealing with those issues.The Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 provides for the establishment and management of the Parliamentary Service as a separate entity from the Australian Public Service and is to replace the Public Service Act 1922 and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 .The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 March 1999 and the Second Reading debate was adjourned, as required by standing orders. The Second Reading debate on the Bill was resumed and completed on 27 September 1999. The Bill proceeded in cognate debate together with the Public Service Bill 1999 and the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 1999. The Bills passed through the House of Representatives following the passage of amendments and were debated in the Senate on 14 October 1999.During the debate the Senate passed an amendment to clause 22 of the Parliamentary Service Bill and the Bill has been referred back to the House of Representatives.Clause 22 of the Parliamentary Service Bill deals with categories of employment and provides that persons employed in the Parliamentary Service can be engaged:. on an ongoing basis; or. for a specified term or the duration of a specified task; or. for duties that are irregular or intermittent.The effect of the Senate Amendment to clause 22 is to provide that a Secretary would only be able to engage persons for a specified term or the duration of a specified task, or extend an engagement for a specified term, in circumstances prescribed in the determinations.The Amendment is unacceptable to the House because it could operate to effectively prohibit the employment of persons in the Parliamentary Service on other than an ongoing basis unless determinations are made which deliver the Opposition's agenda on this matter.The House appreciates that the Government and the Opposition have held lengthy discussions on the use of these forms of employment in the Parliamentary Service.The House notes that the Government has modified its position considerably on this issue and that Parliamentary Departments should have the flexibility to engage employees for an initial period of up 18 months with the capacity to extend to a total period of up to three years to meet peaks and troughs in workloads, temporary demands for particular skills and to replace ongoing employees who are on leave or who are working elsewhere in the Parliamentary Service. That proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the McLeod report on the Review of the Public Service Act which was endorsed by the Opposition when they were in government.Indeed, the proposed maximum period of engagement for persons engaged for a specified term is less than that recommended in the McLeod report which considered that the maximum period should be able to be extended to five years.In addition the subordinate legislation will require that:. where such employment is to last for longer than twelve months, the employment opportunity must be advertised and a merit selection process must be conducted; and. an opportunity will be provided for any ongoing staff employed in the Parliamentary Department where the vacancy exists to express interest in performing the duties and be considered on their merits before a new employee is engaged for a specified term or task.Contrary to the Oppositions' claims, clause 22 of the Bill will not lead to the casualisation of the Parliamentary Service.The Bill explicitly states that the usual basis for engagement will be as an ongoing employee, while the Parliamentary Service values, which Secretaries and Parliamentary Service employees are obliged to comply with, include a commitment to workplaces:. which are fair, flexible safe and rewarding and free from discrimination;. that promote equity in employment in a career based service; and. where there is communication, consultation co-operation and input from employees on matters that affect their workplace.The Amendment, if accepted, would be likely to result in even less people being employed under the Parliamentary Service Act as Secretaries will be forced to contract out short term work. This will mean that people, especially young people and women, will no longer have the opportunity to work in the Parliamentary Service for a short period of time to improve their chances of ongoing employment or to meet their family/work responsibilities.Accordingly, the House opposes Senate Amendment Number 2 to clause 22 of the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999.PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1999Schedule of the amendment made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed—(1) Clause 22, page 14 (line 26) to page 15 (line 2), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute: (4) A person may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) only in circumstances prescribed by the regulations. (4A) The regulations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(c). (5) An engagement for a specified term may be extended in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.House of Representatives reasons for disagreeing to the Senate amendment—The Amendment proposes to change Clause 22 of the Bill. In particular the Amendment proposes to change the provision that allows regulations to be made to prescribe limitations on the extension of employment for a specified term. The Amendment would substitute provisions that prohibit the engagement of persons in those categories, or the extension of engagement of people engaged for a specified term until regulations are made dealing with those issues.The Public Service Bill 1999 (PS Bill) provides for the establishment and management of the Australian Public Service (APS) and is to replace the Public Service Act 1922 and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 . The PS Bill's accompanying legislation is the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999.The two Bills were introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 March 1999 and the Second Reading debate was adjourned, as required by standing orders. The Second Reading debate on the Bills was resumed and completed on 27 September 1999. The Bills proceeded in cognate debate together with the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999. The Bills passed through the House of Representa tives following the passage of Government amendments and were debated in the Senate on 14 October 1999.During the debate the Senate passed an amendment to clause 22 of the PS Bill. The Bill has been referred back to the House of Representatives.Clause 22 of the PS Bill deals with categories of employment and provides that persons employed in the APS can be engaged;. on an ongoing basis; or. for a specified term or the duration of a specified task; or. for duties that are irregular or intermittent.The effect of the Senate Amendment to clause 22 is to provide that an Agency Head would only be able to engage persons for a specified term or the duration of a specified task, or extend an engagement for a specified term, in circumstances prescribed in the Public Service Regulations.The Amendment is unacceptable to the House because it could operate to effectively prohibit the employment of persons in the APS on other than an ongoing basis unless Regulations are made which deliver the Opposition's agenda on this matter.The House appreciates that Government and the Opposition have held lengthy discussions on the use of these forms of employment in the APS.The House notes that the Government has modified its position considerably on this issue. The House notes that the Government is adamant that APS agencies should have the flexibility to engage APS employees for an initial period of up to 18 months with the capacity to extend to a total period of up to three years to meet peaks and troughs in workloads, temporary demands for particular skills and to replace ongoing employees who are on leave or who are working elsewhere in the APS. That proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the McLeod report on the Review of the Public Service Act that was endorsed by the Opposition when they were in government.Indeed, under the Bill the proposed maximum period of engagement for persons engaged for a specified term is less than that recommended in the McLeod report which considered that the maximum period should be able to be extended to five years.In addition the subordinate legislation will require that:. where such employment is to last for longer than twelve months, the employment opportunity must be advertised and a merit selection process must be conducted; and. an opportunity will be provided for any ongoing staff employed in the Agency where the vacancy exists to express interest and be considered before a new employee is engaged for a specified term or task.Contrary to the Opposition's claims, clause 22 of the Bill will not lead to the casualisation of the APS.The Bill explicitly states that the usual basis for engagement will be as an ongoing employee, while the APS values, which Agency Heads and APS employees are obliged to comply with, include a commitment to workplaces:. which are fair, flexible safe and rewarding and free from discrimination;. that promote equity in employment in a career based service; and. where there is communication, consultation co-operation and input from employees on matters that affect their workplace.The Amendment, if accepted, would be likely to result in even less people being employed under the Public Service Act as Agency Heads will be forced to contract out short term work. This will mean that people, especially young people and women, will no longer have the opportunity to work in the APS for a short period of time to improve their chances of ongoing employment or to meet their family/work responsibilities.Accordingly, the House opposes Senate Amendment No 1 to clause 22 of the Public Service Bill 1999.Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:That:(1) the committee does not insist on its amendment no. 2 to the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed; and(2) the committee does not insist on its amendment no. 1 to the Public Service Bill 1999 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.09:32:009995Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I acknowledge on behalf of the opposition that we have reached agreement with the government on the complete legislative package for the Public Service bills, which are now before the Senate. We have overcome the final obstacle in our negotiations with the government, that is, the conditions that will apply to the use of temporary employment in the Public Service. The government and the opposition have reached agreement on the regulations which will limit the use of temporary employment in the Australian Public Service. The opposition is pleased that the government has now acknowledged that there need to be clear restraints on the use of lengthy temporary employment in the APS.Through amendments to the bill negotiated by the opposition the new act will enshrine the principle that the APS is a career based service with the usual basis for engagement being as an ongoing employee. This will be supported by a fair and transparent process relating to the termination of employees on specified grounds. The new act and associated regulations will therefore provide the framework for greater employment security in the APS.We have achieved a substantial movement in the government's original position of wanting to be able to engage people on a temporary basis for up to six years with little restraint. We now have a general limitation of 18 months on specified-term employment with some significant restraints on the ability to extend such employment up to three years. The revised regulations will permit persons to be employed for a specified term up to 18 months.Under the proposed Public Service Commissioner's directions, engagement for longer than 12 months must be on the basis of merit. An employee engaged for a specified term for their particular skills or to replace an ongoing employee who is on extended leave or transfer may have their engagement extended up to a total of three years only if the original circumstance of their engagement continues to exist and the agency head has certified that it is in the public interest that their services be retained until the circumstance in relation to which they were engaged has ceased.An employee engaged for a specified term related to a temporary increase in the workload of an agency which is not expected to be sustained may have their engagement extended up to a total of three years only if the increase in the workload is due to the implementation of a government policy that involves a temporary increase in the ongoing work of an agency. However, in both these circumstances involving extension of engagement up to three years, agency heads must be able to demonstrate that they cannot manage the situation through the effective management of their ongoing work force. We believe this places a firm obligation on agency heads to have regard to the staff turnover within their agency to assess whether they can effectively manage the circumstances through the use of ongoing employees and subsequent redeployment to other jobs when those circumstances cease. In other words, there will be a strong incentive for agency heads not to waste the investment they make in training and skilling employees through a failure to maximise ongoing employment in the agency.The government have stated that they want to `encourage employment under the new bill rather than resort to alternative and uncertain employment practices'. We share this objective and we urge the government to pursue it by directing agency heads to use the employment categories in the new act and phase out the use of `independent contractors' and `labour hirees'. The opposition will closely monitor the operation of the new provisions to ensure that they are appropriately applied. I am sure that the CPSU will also be vigilant in keeping agency heads honest in using the new temporary employment arrangements. We would expect that there would be no increase in the proportion of the APS work force engaged on a temporary basis. Employment security is fundamental to all employees in both the public sector and the private sector. The improvements that we have negotiated to the bill and the associated regulations will lessen the current high level of job insecurity evident in the APS. That has been an important principle as far as the opposition is concerned.In conclusion, I take this opportunity to reiterate that, since we entered into these negotiations with the government, it has been our objective to achieve a legislative framework for the Public Service which will endure beyond the term of the Howard government. We wanted a framework that would be equally acceptable to a future Beazley Labor government, a framework that would encourage continuity, stability and certainty—all of which we believe are essential prerequisites for an effective and thriving Public Service. We are confident that the legislative package that we now have before us and the regulations that will be brought forward by the government in due course achieve those objectives.In view of our agreement with the government on the last remaining obstacle in our negotiations—the regulations which will govern the use of temporary employment in the Public Service—we will be supporting the government in moving that the chamber not insist on its amendments to the Public Service Bill and the Parliamentary Service Bill. I think it is appropriate in this circumstance that the minister at the table, Senator Ellison, representing the Public Service minister, Dr Kemp, acknowledges that the description I have given of the agreement that we have reached on these regulations on temporary employment is completely consistent with the government's own understanding of the situation. In the event that that acknowledgment is given by the minister, we will see very significant reform occurring today to the Public Service Act of this country which, as I have indicated, will stand in good stead for many years to come.09:43:009997Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset I acknowledge Senator Faulkner's comments and the position as he has outlined it. This legislation provides a careful balance between devolved responsibility and approved accountability. In developing the bill, the government has negotiated in good faith with the opposition in recognition of their position as an alternative government and has sought reasonable compromise and bipartisan support.Before the bill was debated in this chamber last week, agreement had been reached on amendments to the bill which were acceptable to the government and the opposition, with one exception. The circumstances under which agency heads would be able to engage non-ongoing employees was a matter of contention. The government was unable to accept the Senate amendment to clause 22. Since that debate there have been continued negotiations between the government and the opposition, and also consultation with the Community and Public Sector Union, about the circumstances in which people can be employed on that basis.I take the opportunity to reiterate what I said last week during the debate on this bill—namely, that the government has appreciated the positive approach taken by the opposition. Negotiations have continued in the spirit of goodwill and with the intention of developing a realistic and workable alternative approach. Agreement has now been reached on the use of non-ongoing employment in the APS, and I would like to place on the record how the new employment arrangements are expected to operate.Clause 22 of the bill allows an agency head to engage employees in one of three categories—ongoing, for a specified term or a specified task and for duties that are irregular or intermittent—while recognising that the usual basis for engagement is as an ongoing employee. Regulations will limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as a non-ongoing employee for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task. Agency heads will have the flexibility to engage persons for a specified term of up to 18 months to meet a temporary increase in workload in the agency or part of the agency, to meet a temporary demand for particular skills, or to replace an ongoing employee who is on leave or undertaking other duties.Provided that the original reason for engagement still exists, agency heads will be able to extend the engagement of an employee engaged to meet a temporary demand for particular skills or to replace an ongoing employee for up to a maximum of three years if they certify that it is in the public interest to do so. Agency heads will also be able to extend engagements undertaken because of a temporary increase in workload, if the reason for the engagement still exists, to a maximum of three years if the increase is due to the implementation of government policy. This reflects the nature of government, where programs often have a two- to three-year lifespan. Before extending the engagement of an employee engaged for a specified term to replace an ongoing employee who is on leave, temporarily assigned to other duties or moved temporarily to another agency, an agency head will need to ensure that there is no scope to use their existing ongoing work force to cover the temporary work increase, the demand for skills, or the replacement of ongoing employees.In addition, the employment of an employee engaged for a specified term can only be extended in circumstances where the agency head cannot manage the temporary increase in workload, the demand for particular skills or the need to replace APS employees through the use of the agency's ongoing work force. Agency heads may also engage persons for the duration of a specified task when the service of the person will no longer be needed once the task has been completed, provided that existing staff members have the opportunity to express interest and be considered. There are no time limits for this category as it is linked to the length of time needed to complete the specific task. This flexibility means that the agency head is able to determine the nature and extent of the task to be performed. The regulations will also allow agency heads to employ persons for the purposes of gaining employment experience.To ensure that there is transparency in decision making, service-wide employment schemes will be specified in a Prime Minister's direction under section 21 of the bill, and agency-specific schemes will need to be notified in the Gazette by agency heads. The regulations will also provide that a person who has been offered ongoing employment may choose to be engaged as a specific-term employee for a period of up to three years. This recognises that some people, often professionals, may wish to work in the APS only for a short period, and also provides an employment option for people on a secondment or interchange to the APS from overseas organisations, academia and the public and private sectors who might wish to retain their main employment relationship. This obviously provides some flexibility. The government considers that this framework provides the flexibility agency heads require to meet their operational needs, while ensuring transparency and accountability in relation to the engagement of non-ongoing APS employees. I commend these bills—and the motion in particular—to the Senate, confirm the arrangements as outlined by Senator Faulkner and once again place on record the appreciation of the government in relation to the cooperation showed to it by the opposition.09:48:009998Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I want to indicate that the Democrats do not support this move to not insist on the amendments. We did, generally speaking, support the agreement as struck between the Labor Party and the government. However, there were within that significant compromises. In our view, this is an important principle and compromises too far on what were very significant changes in relation to employment on a temporary basis. We heard no real arguments to support this extension from the current arrangement of 12 months to 18 months, just as there were no good arguments to support the extension to a maximum of six years. There is already, as I understand it, within the Public Service a great deal of employment that goes on on a temporary basis and great nervousness about employing people beyond 12 months. This will set in train a further exacerbation of what I see as a problem. It is reflected beyond the Public Service, of course. The casualisation of the work force has been identified many times in this place as being a bad thing. It seems to the Democrats that extending this period within which public servants can be employed on a temporary basis is a move in the wrong direction, so we will not be supporting this move. Question put: That the motion (Senator Ellison's ) be agreed to.09:55:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)43Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Hogg, J. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. * McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Reid, M. E. Sherry, N.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. * Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Lees, M. H.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills9999r8859999Debate resumed from 19 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".10:00:009999Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—When I concluded my contribution last night, I was outlining to the Senate the facts in relation to the way in which this government has treated public education since 1996. Immediately upon taking up office, in its 1996 budget this government cut $350 million to public education and private schooling was deregulated. In 1997 equity programs were abandoned. In 1998, despite increased numbers in public schools, the enrolment benchmark adjustment took effect. That stole $11.9 million from public schools to pay for increased enrolments in private schools. In 1999 around $800 extra per child for private schools by the year 2003, and only around $100 extra for public schools, was injected into this country's education. Also, the enrolment benchmark adjustment takes a further $21 million from public schools.In the last 3½ years we have seen $800 million in total lost from public education under the Howard government. When Prime Minister John Howard came to office, there was 54c in recurrent expenditure going to public schools for every dollar that went to a private school. It is now unbelievable and quite clearly a measure of injustice that this amount has been reduced to 42c, equalling a total loss of $800 million.But some would argue that Minister Kemp has another agenda and that it has been revealed quite clearly in the last fortnight. In respect of his plan for higher education, we notice that, as of Monday, there is still on the table an attack on the unions within the education arena in higher education and that he continues that attack on unions in the public education arena. He explained in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 May this year that the budget was `part of a wider strategy'. He went on to say the ability to support choice is, from the Commonwealth government's point of view, `a major driver for reform' in the government sector. The plan is to provide a competitive environment which will force the state education ministers to `push ahead with the reform process and stop being intimidated by unions'.With that effect, I assume he is meaning the Australian Education Union or even the Independent Education Union. Again, he continues with his obsession about what he believes is a dominance by the trade union movement of the education sector, not only by the AEU but also by the NTU in the higher education arena. That is a claim that, of course, cannot be legitimatised, given that this week there has been a negotiated settlement, for example, in the Northern Territory for a 10 per cent wage increase without, I declare, any intimidation by the unions and without any industrial action but with a concerted campaign of negotiation.The equity concept has been abandoned. Equity programs targeted to assist the poorest and most disadvantaged of our children were established 20 years ago after a significant struggle by parents and teachers. The money, which totals $170 million, from these programs has been transferred to literacy support, an important priority, but it should not be at the expense of guaranteed support across all areas of need.Public schools in this country struggle with a $2 billion deficit and are now seriously underfunded. Nationally, we face a deficit of at least $2 billion in that sector. The increased burden on parents and the community to make up the difference through voluntary contributions, such as fundraising and sponsorship, is clearly an unacceptable move on behalf of this government in respect of the way in which it treats public education.Federal and state governments must accept the responsibility to fully fund public education. Federal and state ministers are responsible for $4.6 million missing from their budgets. In the early eighties Australia spent 3.6 per cent of GDP on schools; in 1995-96 Australian governments only spent 2.7 per cent, so we have seen over the years a decrease in the commitment of money that we actually spend on education. That flies in the face of us wanting to be a skilled country, a knowledgeable country, a country that can in fact contribute, through the learning outcomes of our people and workers, towards the economy and turnover.Federal and state governments must accept, I believe, that investment in schools must increase dramatically, with the initial target being to meet the $2 billion. This can only be done in partnership, and therefore state and federal governments in particular should feel responsible for the absolute neglect we have seen in our public school system since 1996.In finishing, I believe you should be left in no doubt as to why earlier this year parents and teachers launched a campaign to demand that this federal government, as a first step, put into the budget the $800 million that it has taken from public schools through a loss in parity over the past four years. In June this year, parents and teachers together launched a campaign titled, `Public school children deserve a fair share' with a press release jointly launched by the Australian Education Union's Federal President Sharan Burrow and Mr Ian Morgan, the President of ACSSO, which is the Australian Council of State School Organisations. Mr Morgan said, `Every coalition politician in Australia has a responsibility to deliver equitable, quality education to the whole of Australia.' He went on to say that he felt:The 1999/2000 budget is an attack on public schools and a windfall for the private sector.He said students in private schools would receive nearly $800 extra funding each on top of the government's already generous funding of the private sector. (Time expired)10:07:0010000Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Democrats will not oppose the bill that is before us today, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 . However, we believe public schools will get very little out of the budget measures implemented by these amendments. These allocations for the year 2000 include $36.3 million for the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan and $26.4 million for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy. I note that these amounts are somewhat lower than the allocations set out in the May budget papers. In May NALSAS was to receive $30 million, so $3.6 million is somehow missing. The literacy initiatives were to receive $41 million, which means that a little under $5 million has gone. This is hardly surprising given Dr Kemp's habit of making funding figures look far more glamorous than they actually are and of disguising inflation and indexation as new additional funding.The bill also provides for an extra $1.9 million in short-term emergency assistance for non-government schools, and this is to smooth over difficulties experienced by disadvantaged schools in the transition to the new SES funding model. I will discuss that model a little later. Lastly, capital grants for non-government schools will be increased by $10.1 million to maintain them at the real levels prevailing from 1997 to 1999. I welcome the inclusion in the budget of national teacher professional development through the Quality Teacher Program, but I also note its absence in this bill.We note that this is an emaciated version of the professional development program abolished in 1996. Teacher development is now valued at a total of $77 million over four years compared with $45 million every year between 1993 and 1996. It is funny that a government intent on withdrawing money from schools and blaming teachers for poor literacy outcomes should want to devote fewer resources to their development. Senator Carr has pointed out that only $15 million has been legislated for, but not the remaining $62 million for the following three years.There is nothing in this states grants bill to address the needs of large numbers of alienated youth. There is nothing for learning difficulties. The impact of the Common Youth Allowance has been somewhat surprising. On the basis of the DETYA figures, schools groups anticipated an increase for Victoria of between 2,000 and 3,000 16- and 17-year-olds compelled to return to school in order to keep receiving the allowance. According to a recent survey by the Australian Education Union, 22 per cent of schools had unusual enrolment increases in 16- and 17-year-olds. The actual numbers of returning students were small.These young people do exist: 15,000 exemptions were granted nationally in March this year. The reasons included substance abuse, learning difficulties, homelessness, incapacity, caring responsibilities, pre- and post-natal, and community service and juvenile justice orders. It appears that we have lost many young people well before they have turned 16 or 17.It would have been a pleasant surprise to see some federal initiative on teacher shortages in this bill. I am told that the Queensland and Western Australian education departments are trying to recruit teachers from Europe, the US and South Africa. This is certainly a turnaround from the responses that I received when I wrote to state ministers last year. They all denied that there was a problem. I eagerly await the forthcoming Preston report on teacher shortages. Unlike last year, this report has been compiled with the assistance of the states. Hopefully it will spur some federal action, too.The section of this bill that allocates transitional funding to non-government schools in readiness for the new SES funding model should remind us that a sea change is about to occur in schools funding. It is the legislative debut of the SES model. In itself, this debut is of marginal importance—$1.9 million in transitional funding for the neediest non-government schools. While the Democrats have significant problems with this model, which has not yet been set, we will not be opposing this small allocation of money.We are very fortunate that cabinet has rejected Dr Kemp's plan for deregulation of university fees and a voucher system. There was, quite rightly, a public outcry at Dr Kemp's ambitions for a two-tiered tertiary education system. Unfortunately, Dr Kemp has a similar free market revolution in mind for secondary schooling. Dr Kemp has remarked that he envisages a future `where distinctions between government and non-government schools will become outdated and increasingly irrelevant'. Yet the beginnings of this revolution have largely escaped the outcry that accompanied the elite blueprint for universities.First, Dr Kemp introduced the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment. The formula works by taking money away from the public system if the proportion of non-government enrolments rises in a given year. Even if the actual numbers of enrolments are rising in both sectors, money gets taken out of the public system. My calculations show that, between now and 2007, public schools stand to lose $121 million through the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment.But the new SES model threatens to trigger far larger losses to the public system. Non-government schools will be allowed to raise any amount of money they like without this being taken into account when their level of funding is calculated. Elite schools will be treated no differently than the poorest Catholic schools. The government promised that no school, no matter how wealthy, would be worse off. In effect that means only a small percentage of schools will have their funding determined by the SES model. So much for a newer, fairer formula. The government has, from the word go, decided that the formula on its own is not good enough. The promise to the Catholic schools to fund them all at the former category 11 has no equity rationale at all as far as I can see. As we know, Catholic schools vary enormously in terms of the fees that they charge, their location and the socioeconomic status of students.Dr Kemp's free market model is far from needs based, and the Democrats have a problem with this. We would rather see more money go to the neediest non-government schools instead of throwing more money at schools that are already wealthy. At many non-government schools, spending per student is something of the order of $13,000 per annum, including state and federal grants, fees and the like, whereas the cost for a secondary student in the public system is around $6,000—less than half the amount spent on moderately well-off private schools.I am disappointed that the opposition have seen fit not to support our amendment to their second reading amendment condemning the government for quarantining wealthy schools from the needs based funding model. It is one thing to be cynical of Dr Kemp's literacy hoax and to call for increases in funding to government schools, but the ALP have completely nobbled themselves when it comes to attacking the heart of Dr Kemp's agenda, which is to prop up the private system at the expense of the public system. We are talking about fair distribution of funding within the non-government sector, and that will not happen under the government's SES model. How the ALP can ignore this equity question is beyond me. In the view of the Democrats, it is time for Dr Kemp to look at educational and outcome guarantees rather than affluence guarantees—and I think that is what is represented in this legislation.10:16:0010002Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 proposes to implement some of the government's undertakings from the 1999-2000 budget. The measures provide additional spending of $36.3 million for the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan and for literacy improvement strategies for the middle years of schooling, and $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy in the year 2000.Other measures include $10.1 million annually for the years 2000-03 to maintain funding for the non-government component of capital gains programs at the same level as 1997-99 and to provide an additional $1.9 million for Short Term Emergency Assistance for 2000 to allow schools which are experiencing severe financial hardship or facing problems of viability to apply for STEA during the transitional period to the new SES funding for non-government schools, to make minor technical amendments to the headings in the act and to change the name of the literacy program to the Literacy and Numeracy Program. We support those measures; they are a very small contribution on the part of this government to an increase in education funding.Measure that against the government's record on funding for education. In the almost four years they have been in office, they have slashed something in the order of $2 billion from education funding. These government cuts include: a total of $961.59 million taken out of higher education and university funding; a reduction in discretionary funding—$215 million; a reduction in operating grants to universities—$623.54 million; the phased abolition of the Commonwealth industry places scheme—$67.4 million; abolition of the Merit Based Equity Scholarships scheme—$38.9 million; and a reduction in the Higher Education Innovation Program—$16 million.With regard to HECS, there have been increased charges in the differential rates, removal of $313 million of federal funding and the lowering of the repayment threshold again, taking away $817 million from students—a total of $1,130.41 million. Other cuts include: vocational education and training—$242.47 million; student assistance in a range of measures that were previously in place—$536 million; the cessation of case management of secondary students on the homeless rate of Austudy and Abstudy—$14½ million in 1996; cessation of the schools incidental allowance for secondary students on the homeless rate of Austudy and Abstudy—$11 million in 1997; raising the age of independence for Austudy from 1 January 1997, which cut out $241 million; tightening of the means test, further reducing funding by $185 million; introduction of a two-year waiting period for Austudy for newly arrived migrants—$43.95 million; reduction in the maximum rent assistance payable to singles in shared accommodation, which took effect from 1 July 1997—$730,000; and a further saving in improved targeting. It is called improved targeting, but that is a matter for debate.Against that, we know that this government, having slashed some $2 billion in funding for education, has a plan to further slash funding. We know that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, proposed to do a range of things in his cabinet submission, including the deregulation of fees in universities. We know what that would have cost because we have already seen the example of a Melbourne university that is already charging around $72,000 for degrees. We know that he proposed to introduce vouchers for use in public and private institutions and a loan scheme with commercial interest rates. We know the government was planning to do those things. The Prime Minister tried to say that was simply not true, but the fact of the matter is that a cabinet minister does not prepare a submission to cabinet without some discussion with his cabinet colleagues. He has apparently gone through a process where there have been a number of discussions to develop this submission to the point where it would have become reality. The very reason the Australian public should not trust the government is that we have seen on a number of occasions already when they have said they would not do certain things—we had the never-ever GST but we have got that, and that is a further impost for people in the education system—they have turned around and done exactly the opposite. This submission to cabinet is a plain example of that.The minister, Dr Kemp, would also have us believe that, somehow, he discovered literacy and numeracy; nobody else had ever done anything about that before he arrived on the scene—he is the sole crusader for literacy in Australia. The fact of the matter is that in 1994 Labor in government set up a literacy survey under the Working Nation plan. That was the first national survey in schools to collect data on how children in years 3 and 5 were performing in the key areas of reading and writing. The study was called the National Schools English Literacy Survey. We provided some $17 million in 1995-96 for the Early Literacy program.The states have also undertaken their own initiatives both individually and collectively to provide for adequate literacy levels among schoolchildren. The Commonwealth, state and territory education ministers agreed to a national literacy goal in March 1997. The goal was to ensure that appropriate steps were taken to provide every child leaving primary school with adequate numeracy and literacy levels. The interesting thing about this is that the minister's own state colleagues did not include him in the process. His own state Liberal colleagues—and this is back in 1997—in Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland went out of their way to distance themselves and called on him to cease his political stunt. His comments on 60 Minutes, even though they were in 1997, showed that he tried to score a political point from the work of others. Anyone who follows this issue would know about Dr Kemp's attempts to mislead Australian parents about literacy levels by shamelessly manipulating the results of the National Schools English Literacy Survey. Of course, this was recently covered by Four Corners. On that program, the now former minister for education in Victoria, Mr Phil Gude, said of Dr Kemp that he was deliberately and mischievously `manipulating data to portray literacy levels at a perilous level'.One of the other measures in this bill is the extension of funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategies. This was one of our initiatives when we were in government. This is a program that we instigated, and this minister is trying to take the credit for it. Again, we support the measures proposed in the bill, because it is a very small improvement in terms of funding for education. But, as I said before, this government has severely slashed funding over the course of its almost four years in government and had planned to do that even further.I suppose when you analyse that in terms of a commitment to education, we really need to look at what we are actually spending on education in terms of a percentage of gross domestic product. Since this government has been in power it has declined. When we were last in government, spending on education was around three per cent of GDP; it is now down to 2.3 per cent. Of course, the government would try to convince us that, somehow, it has provided for more university places and that things are all rosy and are being improved, but the reality is entirely different. I suspect the minister and the Prime Minister certainly saw that with the reaction they got when the leaked cabinet submission hit the deck. The students, the parents of students and the parents of potential students are certainly not very happy, and I guess that that is the only reason the Prime Minister, being the person that he is, said that Dr Kemp's cabinet submission was not going to become a reality.But the leopard never changes his spots. This Prime Minister gave commitments to the public of Australia about other things and then turned around after elections and did exactly the opposite. This is not unlike what we have seen in another area, where we have a minister in this place dealing with welfare issues who also does not have a cabinet submission, I do not think—although we may find that out ultimately—but at least has some hidden green paper about welfare. I suspect what they plan to do for the future. That should be of great concern to the Australian public, because they have done nothing really to develop initiatives to help either poor people or improve the education standards of this country.Whilst we get all of the rhetoric from the Prime Minister—and it is rhetoric that should be backed up by action and support—it is important to this country that education is supported, because it is from that base that we provide for the future. We do have to be a smarter country, and therefore it is important that we have the right sort of investment and the right levels of investment in education in the future to ensure that we stay ahead of the game. As we go down the road of globalisation of the economies of various countries and we move into the era of a greater and freer trade system, it is important, because we are a small country in terms of population, to maximise the opportunities that we have. Education and the provision of education services is one of them.In developing our technologies, et cetera, we need to ensure that the people who go through the education system have the right support and the right opportunities provided to them. We cannot continue to rely on the things that we have in the past. That is a fact. We have to be smarter. We have to go more into manufacturing and, again, this is another area where this government has failed dismally. We just have not had the right initiative and the right drive from this government in heading the country in the direction it ought to be going, in terms of the population size that we have to compete in the world marketplace. If we do not do that, if we do not see some turnaround in that, then we are going to confront major problems.As I said, despite the claims of the government, expenditure on education is now down to 2.3 per cent and going down—and the plan was to make it go down even further. How does that sit with the need for us to improve our education system? If we look at some of the other areas in the government's 1999-2000 budget, there is an equity issue in the funding for public schools—the schools that cater for the less well off—versus the funding for private schools. The government increased funding for private schools, and there is nothing wrong with that, but they gave nothing to the schools that almost 70 per cent of children attend. That is the problem. If you are going to give funding for schools, then you ought to give it equitably. Private schools received an increase of $210 a year per student, which is 21 times greater than what is received per student by public schools. As I said before, the 1999 budget abolished the merit based equity scholarships for university students from poorer families, rural families and families of non-English speaking backgrounds. Where do we stand in providing opportunities to go to university for those people who are less well off or who are isolated?In May this year, just before the budget, the Prime Minister did an interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW. He was asked, `What sort of budget will it be?' and the Prime Minister answered:I think very much a budget about the education future of this country. I think you will find quite a bit in it about education.We did, but it was not good for education. He went on to say:I think it will be a theme that will be very good for education and what I might call the future intellectual capital of this country.If that is the sort of investment you are going to make in the future intellectual capital of this country, you would not want the Prime Minister making other investments for you, because you would not do too well.Then we come back to Dr Kemp's cabinet submission. That really points out what sort of investment we are going to make in the future intellectual capital of this country. We are going to make it even tougher for people, particularly those who are less well off, to get an education. For example, the American universities Yale and Stanford charge fees of around $A37,000 a year, while a private university in Melbourne has just announced the introduction of a two-year post-graduate law course at a cost of $72,000. That is just a forerunner to what we could expect to see under Dr Kemp's new regime—the education reform that he says is essential. It is very clear from the leaked cabinet submission what Dr Kemp intended for education in the future of this country. Under the heading `Imperatives for Reform' it states:The government has committed itself to education being a major theme of its second term.It states further:Good education policies will have major benefits in terms of jobs, wealth creation, social inclusion, cultural dynamism and intellectual creativity.I do not know how we are going to get that if we are talking about a significant further reduction in funding—and that is on top of the $2 billion that we have already had.While we are supporting some of the measures in this bill, we condemn the government very seriously for the cuts they have made to the education system of this country. They have made it more difficult for people to get an education, and it is going be more difficult in the future for people to get an education and to assist this country to become the smarter nation we need to be to compete in world terms.10:35:0010005Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I would like to make a couple of comments about literacy, but, before I do, I want to say that I think the argument about who is getting what in terms of the education cake is an important one and it needs to by fully investigated. It is an argument where the various competing influences in the private and state school systems can argue with each other and through government for adequate resources to perform the jobs they do in the mixed education community that we have.Some people might say that I come to this with either clean hands or dirty hands, depending on which side you come from, having taught in both state and private school systems for 13½ years—and I spent a bit of time in the TAFE system too.AW5CARRSenator Carr—A very good system.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I do not know whether I have told Senator Carr that, but any time he has interjected about TAFE I have supported him fully.But I have to say this: in essence, one of the problems with Australian education and the provision of education in this country is that the outcome at the other end sometimes is disappointing. I think it is disappointing because what you find is that governments are prepared to fund education to a certain level. They will fund 80 or 90 per cent of that education budget, but they will not fund what is necessary to address some of the obvious problems, and those are, primarily, literacy and numeracy.I send my kids to state schools. I must say they get a good education; I am satisfied with the school they go to. One is in kindy and next year will go to the same school that the other two go to. The school provides a good balanced educational service. The problem is that, when it comes down to actually finding the dollars to help with some of the literacy issues, that school unfortunately is reduced to the level of being a pauper. It is in a basically poor area and, as a consequence of that, it needs added resources.The way this is done in my state, and I am sure it is the same in most other states, is that schools go out and, through various fundraising activities and other sometimes more entrepreneurial activities, raise several thousands of dollars every couple of months. In some instances, some of the state schools in the more affluent suburbs raise tens of thousands of dollars every couple of months, and in fact add to whatever the education program is by soaking the parents and the local community out of moneys. Really, in essence, we are paying our taxes to achieve these outcomes and using these resources so that our kids can get the necessary programs.In the school that my kids go to, there is firm competition amongst a lot of students for very meagre resources. Those resources are provided by the state and the school. They are provided to teach kids better literacy, to bring in programs and to provide teacher time—sometimes one on one, sometimes one to a group of kids. For a child to actually get onto this program, a whole number of steps have to be gone through. It is the case that, at the end of all these steps, the funding is not necessarily secure. There are a few other problems which have nothing to do with this minister and this government. They are to do with the state government in South Australia—and I am sure it is the same in some of the other states—and how they address these problems or, in fact, do not address these problems.Senator Murphy said that the first national literacy standard in this country was carried out in 1994. If that is correct—and I am sure Senator Murphy is right—then I am absolutely shocked at that. If I went to similar OECD countries, I would find that we are 20 years or more behind on that particular issue. I think if we were to assess adequately the outcome at the end of primary school, we would find that we would be lagging well behind other OECD countries. I think one of the problems with this is that it is a bit like going down to the car yard and buying a nice new car without a radio, a heater, doorhandles or anything else. We provide a large amount of money for education, but then we do not take the extra couple of steps to provide a bit more to help in some of the areas, particularly in respect of some of the students who need that assistance.I know that about six years ago in South Australia schools in Elizabeth—we called it the peachy road belt—raised by their own voluntary means about $1,800 a year. That is all they could raise from parents and friends who would come to the many gala days and whatever other activities they held in their communities. In the area that I represented at that time, as the state member for Playford, the average amount raised was somewhere between $6,000 and $8,000, so it was a more affluent area. But when I then went into the eastern suburbs, I found that some of the schools there were getting $50,000, and that was not an unrealistic figure at all. So, naturally, in the eastern suburbs, where literacy was less of a problem because of the educational level of parents, I found that the bulk of the resources that was being raised voluntarily was going in precisely the areas where it should not have been going.Governments, both state and federal, will probably come back to me and say that they had the PEP program, this program or that program, but at the end of the day they only ever covered a small proportion of what the real need was. So far I have talked only about primary education; I am going to talk about secondary education in just a minute. I think what is required is an adequate level of funding to take us to the next step. One would suggest that some of the private schools already have an adequate level of funding to achieve this and other goals. It is certainly true that in South Australia, the Pulteney Grammar School, in particular, has an excellent program for the first couple years of schooling to make sure that those children who are not picking up the literacy and numeracy standards are identified and in fact catered for and the outcomes are very good.Of course, Pulteney Grammar is one of Adelaide's best schools; it is also one of the most expensive. I see the Acting Deputy President disagrees with me; I know he is an old Scotch boy. I do not know very much about Scotch but, having being a graduate of Elizabeth High School, I must say that what I know about these schools is what I have picked up over the years both since I left teaching and professionally when I did teach in both systems. But not every private school is in the same category as Pulteney Grammar School. There are a large number of private schools—I think in my day when the funding formula was different to what it is today they were category D and E schools—at least in South Australia. That meant there was a struggle: a struggle for parents to meet those fees and a struggle for the school to even survive. In fact, in many of these schools the class sizes were actually larger than they were in the state schools further down the road and the level of resources was considerably less.The level of education and what we achieve are going to determine what we will be in the 21st century. It is a national problem. It needs to be addressed not only at the state government level but at the national government level. We need to make sure that we get the best possible outcomes for our money and that they match those of our OECD partners.We need to make sure that two premises are followed in respect of primary school literacy, numeracy and other programs. The first is that we have an adequate level of funding to address the problem. That certainly is not the case anymore. If it ever was the case—and I doubt that—it certainly is not now. The other very important premise is that we need to put the money where the problems are. I suspect that has been poorly directed. Despite all of the equity programs that I have seen, very few of them seem to work very well. Very few of them seem to target real need because, in essence, not only do you have very poor schools but you also have some very poor students in some of the more affluent areas, particularly in some of the more affluent areas that I could name here now in the capital cities and in regional Australia as well. As a consequence of that, an adequate level and support of resources for literacy and numeracy programs in particular in our schools is long overdue.I want to make a point in terms of secondary education. I will not take long on this because I have raised this matter here before. In my home state there is talk of actually bringing back the teaching of history in schools. It disappeared because education departments and their bureaucracies found it easier to use words such as `society and environment', `social sciences' and `social studies'. Many years ago a bureaucrat said to me, `Look, John, it is like this: you can call it that and then you can shove up any teacher you have got spare at that time who has done anything in that area—who has done anything at all, even a science graduate—and they can entertain the masses for the necessary 40-minute lesson block.' That is what has happened and we have paid a price for that.We have also paid a price for the fact that we do not concentrate on English and some of the humanities that require accurate language skills. That accuracy of language skills traverses the whole range of professional development in this country. If people cannot read and write properly or at a sufficiently adequate level to enable them to carry out their jobs, then it impacts on their particular life and, more importantly, it takes from the skills that are desperately required in a whole range of different endeavours in our economy. Obviously, a person with ability to write good, precise English argument is an essential person in a whole range of different profes sions in this country. That is never more so than in the 21st century. Yet, in secondary schools there was a greater concentration 20 years ago than there is today on courses which taught those disciplines in my home state, and I know it is the same in other states.The sequential development of literacy skills in secondary education is essential. The teaching of English, the teaching of history and even the teaching of other related disciplines that require precise written argumentation and the development of that skill have been under assault over about the last 20 years. I would hope that that is reversed. That is also a national problem that needs to be addressed and needs resources to address it. It also requires education authorities to see the problems and do something about them, and not just go along with fashionable developments that may suit them in the short run.This States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 is about satisfying the government's desire to put a level of resource that they feel comfortable with into primary and secondary education in this country. It is not enough. The measurement of outcomes is not adequate and I think some national priorities and some national perspectives on this need to be discussed with the various state education agencies. Even with just some discussion we could get some better outcomes than we have had. This bill is an admission in a sense that we are making very slow progress. We need to make much more dramatic progress into the next century. In particular, the minister has made a number of comments particularly about literacy in this country. If he is serious, he has to see that as a whole-of-school education problem. He has to put the resources in there. He has to achieve some of the goals that I think are necessary to establish some of the benchmarks and to go out there and make sure that we are getting the very best for the dollars that we are spending.Amendment (by Senator Allison) proposed:At the end of the amendment, add:"; and (c) selectively applying its new funding formula for non-government schools with the result that the wealthiest private schools will be quarantined from any reduction in Commonwealth funding".10:52:0010008Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—We cannot support the amendment that the Democrats have moved to my second reading amendment. I indicate to the Senate that the opposition has expressed its very grave concern about the declining level of real funding support going to public education in this country. We have said that the brochures that were distributed by Dr Kemp this year to every school in this country—which claimed that direct funding for government schools between 1996-2000 has risen by 25 per cent or $382 million—were completely untrue.What we said was that, if you consider the effect of cost increases since 1996, cost increases have been in the order of 12 per cent, and enrolments in schools have increased. So if you consider the amount of money that is spent against the number of people it is spent on and the effect that that money actually has in the marketplace given the rising cost of schooling, you find that the increase in government expenditure is about 100th of what Dr Kemp was claiming in the letters he sent to parents in this country. I have indicated in my second reading contribution that I will expect an explanation from the government as to how much money was actually spent on those propaganda brochures.Dr Kemp's claim, when examined closely, indicates that only $1.50 extra is being spent on students. But if you look at it in real terms—that is, what the money actually does—then the Commonwealth funding per government school student has declined. The calculations that I have presented to the Senate suggest to me that the funding has fallen from $606 per student in 1996 to less than $598 four years later. When you look at the government's figures and get away from the glossy propaganda efforts of this government, you see that the real situation is very different for ordinary Australians, for parents who are trying to meet the costs of educating their children at government schools. The government talks about the moneys it pays to the states, and when we look at the amount of money paid in general assistance grants, here too there are no real increases in funding. The government's propaganda efforts should be exposed for the sham that they are.Senator Allison's amendment, however, does not fix that problem. What Senator Allison's amendment relates to is a detail of a bill that is in fact not before the parliament. When we do see that bill, we will of course give a full- throated response. I see that Mr Evans is in the advisers' box today; I look forward to discussing these matters in detail with him at the estimates hearings.In the meantime, we simply make the point that the government should be condemned for not providing an increase in government school funding which actually corresponds with the increases that they have made to the non-government sector. On the information that is in fact available to us, it probably will not be until April next year that we will see this bill that is implementing the government's major changes to school funding. So I think there is a need to examine the changes that are supposed to begin in 2001. I can guarantee the minister right now that, when he does introduce that bill, there will be a major Senate inquiry into such a fundamental change. I notice that the department officials are obviously looking forward to the prospect. I am sure that we will be able to provide them with plenty of opportunity to justify this government's decisions and to explain the gross inadequacies and inequities of this government's policies.Schools will need time to adjust to the new arrangements. In that context, funding stability is important to them. The current funding quadrennium ends in December next year, so now that five months have passed since the budget announcement, the minister should seek to stop working on this ideological agenda in terms of higher education that has been handled so appallingly, and he should now start to focus on the more practical issues of getting the schools legislation into the parliament in time for this chamber to consider the government's proposals seriously and allow us to debate them fully.10:57:0010009Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes this further amendment to the second reading motion. It does so on the basis that this amendment moved by the Democrats talks about the new method of funding for non-government schools. The government has not yet introduced legislation which deals with this, and it is I think more appropriate that any debate in the Senate be dealt with once the government's legislation is known.I point out to the Senate that this new method of funding—the SES method of funding, as it is commonly known—will not take effect until 2001. That is some two years away. I am not saying that there should not be public debate about it. What I am saying is that this amendment is really focusing on the bill which we are dealing with today—the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 —which has nothing to do with that proposed method of funding for non-government schools. Therefore, the amendment is really out of place. It is premature, it is irrelevant to this bill, and I will also say that the content of it is incorrect. There is no selective applying of funding with the result that the wealthiest private schools will be quarantined from any reduction as such. The method of funding is a much broader proposal than that. I think that for the Democrats to put it that way is really quite misleading. The government opposes this amendment for all those reasons—AW5CARRSenator Carr—So you support mine?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I might add that we do not support Senator Carr's amendment. Having dealt with the amendment by the Democrats, I will now respond to speeches made during the second reading debate. I thank senators for their contributions and will perhaps refer to Senator Quirke's contribution first. Senator Quirke said that he came to this chamber with clean or dirty hands depending on which side you came from, indicating that he had taught in both the non-government and government sectors. The government does not accept that you would have dirty hands teaching in either of those sectors. The government would say that Senator Quirke, having been a teacher in either of those sectors, comes to the Senate with clean hands.I have met many teachers in both the government and non-government sectors who are very good teachers. Those two sectors the government supports. The government wants a strong government sector and a strong non-government sector. We do not look upon it as being one versus the other, although there are some in the opposition who no doubt do. Senator Carr might advance that argument in the committee stage. The government certainly does not look upon those two sectors as being adverse to each other or in competition with each other or that one is right and one is wrong. Both are essential to the furtherance of good education in this country and the government supports both of those sectors strongly.In relation to Senator Quirke's concerns about how Australian students achieve satisfactory outcomes, the Commonwealth government, with state governments, has agreed to participate in the OECD program of international student assessment, where there will be international comparisons in relation to the outcome of students in such things as literacy and numeracy. That is a very important step. For those senators who criticise the government's proposals and reforms in relation to literacy can I say this: never before in the history of this country has there been such an advance in the areas of literacy and numeracy as there has been in the last three years. We have seen for the first time ever in the history of Australia the implementation of national benchmarks in years 3 and 5 for literacy. We are looking at a completely cooperative approach from state, territory and federal governments to the question of literacy.A survey was conducted which revealed that there was an unacceptably high level of Australian students who did not have appropriate skills in literacy and numeracy. When travelling around Australia visiting schools when I was the minister responsible for schools, the government's efforts in relation to literacy were endorsed overwhelmingly wherever I went. You need go no further than Australian parents to realise how high a value they place on Australian students having high levels of literacy. I say that to those senators who criticise the government's approach to the question of literacy.Senator Allison mentioned that we needed to equip teachers with the skills to carry out the government's programs and that the government had in some way neglected teachers. The government in its quality teacher program has committed to $77.7 million over four years for professional development. The appropriation of that is being dealt with in the same way as the previous Labor government, that is, by virtue of an appropriation bill which, as I understand it, has some $15 million set aside. But that does not mean that we are stepping back from the promise that we made to the people of Australia when we went to the federal election last year. What we are appropriating is entirely in accordance with our program of over $77 million over four years for the professional development of teachers.This is a very important point. Whilst we as a government have introduced these reforms, at the same time we have to equip Australian teachers with the ability, with the professional development, to deliver on those reforms and to assist them in how they go about their professional duties. I reject emphatically that in any way we have stepped back from that undertaking, that commitment. This $15 million is just a step forward in the overall funding of over $77 million in that regard.Senator Carr criticised the government's method of funding. I reiterate that the way we are doing this is no different to how the Labor government appropriated moneys in relation to a similar program. There has been criticism of the amounts of funding in these bills. I think it was Senator Allison who said that the amounts referred to were less than in the budget. What we have here is $38.3 million for the year 2000 to increase funding under the literacy and numeracy programs. We will introduce supplementation subsequent to these bills which will take that to the figures mentioned in the budget. Similarly, we have $27.9 million for NALSAS, National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools, and again there will be supplementation in relation to that.What the government is saying is that there is no diminution of funding here. We have simply got these amounts that we have mentioned in these bills and then supplementation will be forthcoming which will take those amounts to the levels that were mentioned in the budget. There is really nothing untoward in that. There is a process which has been used by this and other governments and it is entirely in accordance with standing practice. I just want to make that very clear for the record.Senator Crossin mentioned the proposed funding model for non-government schools. Again I would say to the Senate that Senator Crossin is talking about a program which, as I mentioned earlier in relation to Senator Allison's amendment, is going to come into play in the year 2001. The government is yet to introduce legislation in relation to that. There has been widespread public debate and consultation on that funding proposal and no doubt there will be further public debate, especially when the government's legislation comes forward, but this is not the bill which is relevant to that. This bill does not deal with that SES funding model. Senator Crossin's comments are in the same category as the amendment pressed for by Senator Allison—that is, irrelevant to this bill and somewhat premature.The question of funding has been raised by senators in the chamber. The government stands by its statement that between the years 1996 and 2000 there has been a 25 per cent increase in direct funding to government schools. This equates to some $382 million. Senator Carr continues to disregard the additional moneys provided through enrolment growth and the payment of supplementation on grants and which represents significant extra funding for government schools each year. In 1999, Commonwealth recurrent supplementation to government schools will increase by 5.5 per cent. This is a very important figure to remember. This supplementation in 1999 will increase by 5.5 per cent. This is well ahead of the CPI which, in 1998-99, was only 1.2 per cent. That reveals an excess in supplementation of 4.3 per cent, which Senator Carr fails to recognise.It is also important for the record that we clarify the real situation in relation to our financial assistance grants. Senator Carr disputes a reference in the government schools flyers, which he mentioned earlier, to a three per cent real increase in these grants to state schools and the capacity they have to apply some of this increase to government schools. In 1996, state and territory governments agreed to enter into state fiscal contribution agreements with the Commonwealth for a period of three years. Some states contributed from their financial assistance grants payments while other states contributed through a reduction in a variety of non-educational programs or through their own revenue raising. There is no evidence to suggest that any state reduced funding to education and training as a result of these agreements.In 1998-99, we saw the final year that the states were required to repay the state fiscal contribution. When this is taken into account, there is a three per cent real increase in financial assistance grants between the years 1998 and 2000. That might seem somewhat complex but it has an important effect, and the important effect is a three per cent increase in those financial assistance grants which are so important to the various state governments. That entirely negates the point that Senator Carr tries to make in relation to any reduction in funding by this government. This government has an excellent record on education funding. As I mentioned earlier, this government has seen reforms in education—literacy and numeracy being two of a few.In this bill we see further funding for National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools—something which I found to be very popular in all the schools that I visited. As we know, Australia is situated in South-East Asia. This is a very important program for the future of the up-and-coming generation of Australians and also for Australia. Asian languages and studies not only promote harmony within Australia in terms of our diverse cultural background but also, importantly, give Australian students, Australian leaders of the future, an ability to communicate with our Asian neighbours in their own language and to develop an understanding of their customs and cultures.Turning to literacy: as I mentioned earlier, we have seen unprecedented cooperation between the various governments of the states and territories and the Commonwealth. This has led to a situation where, at long last, we have a standard gauge across Australia on literacy. It is now the foundation for this country to go forward in building a program for the future for the development of literacy across the nation. We are also doing the same with numeracy. The opposition and other senators might want to pick up on what various state ministers have said about the Commonwealth's reforms, but I would ask the Senate and the community at large: if these governments are so critical of us, why did they adopt our proposals? Why did they join with the Commonwealth government in advancing literacy and numeracy in Australian schools? They did that because they could see there was a need for it and the community wanted it done. That is what we have seen happen.The second reading amendment moved by Senator Carr is one which completely misunderstands the Commonwealth's reforms in relation to literacy. It attempts to make a political point where none is really worth while. It cheapens, or attempts to cheapen, something that is a thoroughly worthwhile program for Australian students. To suggest that this government has pursued literacy in a cynical fashion is to cheapen the reform which has been adopted across Australia by parents, teachers, government and non-government sectors and also state and territory governments.The second part of the motion talks about failing to provide government schools with additional resources. I stand by my previous comments in relation to the increase in funding by this government. This government stands on its record of having increased opportunities and funding for government schools. That is on the record, and Senator Carr cannot run away from it. All the amendments he might want to move in this chamber will not change the good work the government has done in relation to education.Amendment (Senator Allison's) not agreed to.UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The question is now that the amendment moved by Senator Carr on behalf of the opposition be agreed to.11:20:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harris, L. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. *Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W.Conroy, S. Vanstone, A. E.Faulkner, J. P. Heffernan, W.Hutchins, S. P. Tambling, G. E. J.Quirke, J. A. Boswell, R. L. D.Ray, R. F. Calvert, P. H.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10013The bill.11:24:0010013Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I have a few questions to the minister. What was the cost of the government's propaganda brochures forwarded to all schools by Dr Kemp outlining the government's claims on education expenditure?11:25:0010013Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am not aware of a propaganda pamphlet. Perhaps Senator Carr might give me some better description.11:25:0010013Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Dr Kemp distributed a brochure to all government school parents earlier this year where he claimed that the direct funding for government schools had risen by 25 per cent. What was the cost of that brochure, and could I have that broken down into its various components?11:25:0010013Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am aware of that brochure, which Senator Carr has described more accurately. I think I can answer his question. The cost of printing, packaging and postage to government schools was $199,931.54. This equates to some 9c per government student, which the government believes is quite a modest amount in view of the advice and information it was giving to parents in relation to education matters.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Is that the total cost, that is, the cost of production as well?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Yes, that was the total cost in relation to—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Production and distribution, was it?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Production and distribution to the government sector, yes.11:27:0010013Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I want to ask the minister about the moneys allocated for the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation. I understand that that appropriation is made under this bill. Is that the case?11:27:0010013Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—No, not this bill. But what is your question in relation to the ASTF?11:27:0010013Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—What are the forward estimates on that program for this year and the next two years?11:27:0010013Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is part of another piece of legislation which really deals with the vocational education and training sector. There are no officials from that section of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs here who can answer that question. Senator Carr should perhaps put that question in another forum or in another way. That is really in a different sector from this one.11:28:0010013Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I am interested particularly in the expenditure the government claims for vocational education and training in schools, and the growth in traineeships that the government is claiming will result from expenditure by this parliament. You are saying that I should ask those questions presumably in the estimates and that it is not covered at all in this legislation. So VET in schools has no relationship to this legislation whatsoever, even though it is a schools bill?11:28:0010013Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—VET in schools is a schools issue but this bill does not deal with all schools issues. This bill deals with those issues which are stated in the bill, and the explanatory memorandum mentions them in the outline. This bill does not deal with VET in schools, and therefore these questions by Senator Carr should be put in another forum.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Another forum?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Another forum, or by placing them on notice.11:29:0010014Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—What I would be interested to know, if the government would take on notice at this point the forward estimates for the ASTF program, is specifically whether there has been forecast a drop of 25 per cent in the appropriations for that program in the year 2000 or any other of the forward estimate years and whether it is the intention of the government to maintain funding at the current levels throughout the duration of that program.11:30:0010014Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that on notice.11:30:0010014Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Thank you very much, Minister. Can I ask the minister about retention rates in schools. Given that the annual report has been released to us only today, I have not had an opportunity to peruse it in detail, but I am concerned about the question of student retention rates. I notice that in estimates answer No. E8 you said the report will be available in October, and I presume this is the same report that was referred to in that answer. On page 43 of the annual report we have revealed to us today for the first time, as I understand it, that student retention rates in the last three years have in fact dropped. What is the government's explanation for that decline?11:31:0010014Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam Temporary Chairman, I do not have that answer at hand for Senator Carr and, whilst not conceding in any way that there has necessarily been a decline, I will take that question on notice.11:31:0010014Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Given that there has been a decline in funding in real terms for government schools, would there not be a correlation between the decline in public support by this government and the decline in retention rates of students? I notice that there has been, as I say, a significant decline, given the number of students leaving school early. That has come from a high of a 77 per cent retention rate in 1991 down to—and these figures are slightly different from the ones that DETYA has produced—71.8 per cent in 1997. I understand the figure has been given by DETYA as 72 per cent in 1998, but my understanding is that the later figures demonstrate a continuing decline in the numbers of students completing school.I understand the retention rates are well below the national average in a number of states; that just 66 per cent of male students are completing school at year 12, which compares with 78 per cent for females; and that the retention rate is down to 66 per cent in the government school sector compared with 84 per cent in the non-government school sector. Is it the case, Minister, that the figures that I have indicated to you can be confirmed? Would you also be able to advise me whether or not these are well below the international education benchmarks and whether Australia lags behind many other OECD countries in terms of the overall level of educational attainment, not just for persons under the age of 21 but for the adult population at large?Given that is the case, what is the impact that the declining level of public support, as a result of cuts to government expenditure in real terms to public schools, has had on those figures? Would the minister agree that there are substantial costs to this country as a result of early school leaving? Would he concur that early school leavers do not enjoy a number of the benefits that those who complete their schooling do? Would he concur that there is a massive cost to individuals in terms of decreased opportunities for job mobility and training, lower levels of personal health, decreased financial security and of course lower levels of non-wage benefits?Would he concur that for the country this has very serious impacts in terms of decreased social cohesion, higher costs associated with health care, higher costs associated with crime prevention and higher costs associated with various social security measures? So I would ask: Minister, would you further agree that, because of our low levels of secondary school completion, Australia has been placed at a severe disadvantage when compared with our international competitors and that the decline of one year's early school leaving, as the Dusseldorp Skills Forum has recently re vealed, has an overall cost to this country of some $2.6 billion?I understand that these may not be questions that the minister has responses to immediately, but I do seek from the government a response to these propositions. I would also ask: is it reasonable to conclude that costs of that magnitude are involved in the decline in retention rates? Further, is this not a direct consequence of the failure of government to meet its responsibilities to ensure that there are growing levels of support for schooling in this country? Minister, I ask you about those points at this stage and I will move on to another issue in a moment.11:36:0010015Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—We will take those questions on notice as there are a number of them dealing broadly with the complex question of reduced retention rates in schools. But can I just say to the chamber and to those listening that the question of how retention rates in school relate to the economy of the times is a complex one, because you might have a reduction in retention rates from students leaving school to enter the work force or, more importantly, to take up training.We have a record number of people in training in Australia at the moment. The figure, as I recall, is about 230,000, which is a record for this country. That would indicate that people are going into training, especially young people, and it could well be the case that some people are leaving school earlier to take up apprenticeships. That is a good outcome because that particular student has made a decision and said, `I think I have done enough schooling. I can now go into a worthwhile apprenticeship and forge a career somewhere in the trades or elsewhere.'It is trite and also misleading to say that it is simply a question of resources that leads to a reduction in the retention rates. A booming economy could result in students leaving school earlier to take up training or work. It does not indicate per se that there is an insufficient amount of funding from government. But there are a number of questions that Senator Carr has indicated there, and we will take those on notice.11:38:0010015Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, you would be well aware that there is a growing body of evidence that, for persons aged between 15 and 20, access to a formal structure of training opportunities is actually declining. You would be well aware that the number of students involved in TAFE colleges in that age group is declining. Actual enrolments are declining, as I understand it. You would also be aware that it has been revealed in this Dusseldorp study that 35,000 students will not complete their secondary schooling and will—and I emphasise this—subsequently obtain no further formal education or training qualifications. The response that these students are being transferred to new apprenticeships is quite clearly not the case. The empirical evidence shows this is not the case.Furthermore, I take the opportunity to draw to the minister's attention—since he has already indicated to me that this a schools bill and not a VET bill—that the number of non-completions, or the failure rate for new apprenticeships, is actually increasing quite dramatically. In some of the estimates I have seen there is as much as a 40 per cent increase in the failure rate. So there are a number of problems for young people in terms of the services being made available by government. The real opportunities, the evidence would suggest to me, are declining.I come back to this proposition, Minister: what responsibilities do governments have for this? What responsibility does this federal government have? I note, in an answer to a question during estimates which was drawn to my attention, that the forward estimates for the year 2003 involve a reduction of 5.4 per cent in the government school share of total recurrent funding. It stands now at 31.6 per cent of overall recurrent expenditure. Government schools stand to receive just 29.9 per cent of recurrent funding in 2003 as opposed to 31.6 per cent in 1999. Can you confirm those figures, Minister?Can you also confirm that non-government schools share the growth as estimated at 58.4 per cent to 62 per cent? Is it not the case that those figures are accurate? Is it not the case that your answer No. E3 on a chart that was attached to that on page 7 demonstrates that the level of Commonwealth support to government schools is actually declining and the level of support to non-government schools is growing and that, as a consequence, the level of opportunities for young people is falling in this country as a direct result of this government's negligence?11:41:0010016Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—What Senator Carr is failing to remember here is that you have a very important player in this—the state governments. They are primarily responsible for the non-government sector. I would cite the `Federal assistance for government schools' pamphlet, which was sent to assist parents in understanding the arguments. There was a question entitled, `Aren't government schools being underfunded compared to private schools?' There it was stated:The two million government school students in this country are supported by an annual budget from Commonwealth and state governments of $13 billion. One million non-government school students are supported by public funding of about $3 billion. Public spending per student is, on average, $5,600 for a government school student. The same figure, on average, for a non-government student is $3,750. For students at wealthier schools, this figure can be as low as $1,500 per student.So it is $1,500 compared to $5,600. It is a fractional amount of what is being provided to government school students, if I can put it in that context. What Senator Carr is failing to realise is that it is the state governments that receive these financial assistance grants from the Commonwealth. The application of those funds is the responsibility of the state governments for the government school sector. As to the specific figures Senator Carr mentions, I will take them on notice and we will see if they are correct.11:43:0010016Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, I think you have already demonstrated in the answers that you have given today that the level of support for the FAGs program by this government is not going to increase. This is despite the claims that this government has made about the introduction of a GST, which will see no real increase in the amounts of money going to the states. I would suggest that, despite the claims being made about the impact of the GST on the actual cost of schooling, costs to parents will increase quite substantially but there will be no real increases through the state governments or by the Commonwealth.Minister, if you say resources are not the issue, particularly when we talk specifically on the question of retention rates, is the government not concerned with the impending end of the Jobs Pathway program and the end of $20 million a year that ANTA has allocated for VET in schools? Is the government relaxed and comfortable about such developments? Aren't you concerned that the end of these programs will impact on VET in schools and particularly on the access and equity components of such programs? What do you say to those propositions, Minister?11:45:0010016Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Firstly, Senator Carr misquoted me when he said that I said bluntly that it is not a question of resources. The level of retention of students at school is not purely a question of resources; you have to look at the economy, employment and how many students are entering training. Senator Carr needs to be careful. I mentioned that qualification of resources only in relation to retention levels. It was not stated as some across-the-board proposal that resources would not matter in the education sector. Far from it. I reiterated that we have increased funding for government schools between 1996 and the year 2000 by 25 per cent.Senator Carr mentioned the Jobs Pathway program. This is a worthwhile program and will be reviewed when the time comes for it to be assessed by the government. It is a program which is more in the VET sector, but I appreciate that Senator Carr refers to this during the schools debate because it is a program which builds a bridge from schools to work and assists those students in need. That program will be assessed on its merits when the time comes for review.11:46:0010016Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, on the question of resources and the figures that you have already provided to me, I want to confirm that I have understood the import of what I have been told. In the period from 1999 to 2003, the average per capita funding will drop for government schools from 38.3 per cent to 35.3 per cent. At the same time, the average per capita funding for non-government schools will increase from 61.7 per cent to 64.7 per cent in the year 2003. Minister, if those figures are accurate, based on the answers you have given me in previous estimates, how can you maintain that the government's policies are fair? How can you maintain that there is equality of opportunities for students across both sectors? Is it not the case that the government's policies are deliberately designed to reduce opportunities for government schooling and to channel enrolments into the private sector? What does the government believe this involves or implies for Australian families who want to see their children educated in government schools?I have talked about the general, and now I will deal with the specifics of targeted assistance programs. Is it not the case that there will be a projected drop in the period 1999-2003 from 6.7 per cent of total recurrent expenditure to just 5.4 per cent? Will there also be a drop in the non-government area from 3.3 per cent to 2.7 per cent? Given the nature of the debate about the impact of the GST and the capacity of the states to meet their obligations, and given the context in which the minister answered the previous question, how can he possibly say that there will be an increase in real terms—real dollars—to Australian families so as to allow them to get a better quality of education for their children under this government's policies? What is the government's intention with regard to targeted assistance? Is it the government's intention to genuinely improve the opportunities for Australians to enjoy the benefits of a quality education in the public sector?11:49:0010017Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Through the national goals process, we are working towards greater outcomes for Australian students. In relation to those targeted programs that Senator Carr has mentioned, we have not determined the level of funding for those out years because—as Senator Carr knows, this is how it has been done in the past—targeted programs have specific funding for the initial year, and the out years are determined when they arise. That is an absolutely appropriate way to do things, because you look at the need at the time. To say what a targeted program will need specifically in the future can sometimes be fraught with difficulty.Senator Carr mentioned as an example a targeted program like NALSAS. I will not go over what I have said previously about Asian languages and studies. Suffice it to say, the government have supported that program with further funding and did so when Senator Carr and others were raising a scare campaign that we would not. We stand on our record in relation to these various programs. In relation to the funding per capita for government and non-government students, Senator Carr has failed to tell the people of Australia that there will be a shift in enrolment. To date we have seen a shift in enrolment patterns. There tends to be a greater growth in the non-government sector, so when he cites projection of funding figures for funding per student, he is not taking into account any possible shift in enrolments. As Senator Carr knows, this is a complex area. To use a second-rate crystal ball to see how the funding will go in the future will only mislead people. Senator Carr should be very careful when he makes the sorts of statements that funding per student will necessarily fall or grow in relation to either the government or non-government sector.11:51:0010017Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The minister suggests that I am using a second-rate crystal ball—the sort of description I could have enjoyed using myself, I think; I give him credit for that. Minister, there are many points of argument now developing and an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests that the opportunities for young people—and I think this is a critical issue in a schools-education debate—are in fact declining under this government, that the real options available are actually not meeting the needs of many hundreds of thousands of Australians, that there is an increasing level of numbers of students who are dropping out of school and that the retention rates are falling—which is the clearest evidence of that—and that the opportunities in other sectors are not being made available for those students. As a consequence, there is a growing crisis for young adults.I would suggest, though, that there are many others in the community who share this view and that they might not have a description such as a `second-rate crystal ball' applied to them. I have already referred to the Dusseldorp Skills Forum and the research they have undertaken, which is in cooperation with the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, the Australian Council for Education Research, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Centre for Applied Social Research at the RMIT, Monash University's ACR, Monash University's Faculty of Education, the National Business and Education Centre, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research and the National Institute of Labour Studies. They say in the report that I have before me, entitled Australia's young adults: the deepening divide, published in April of this year, that there are in fact growing problems that the government's policies are not addressing. I ask you quite specifically, Minister: is it the case that, despite a number of programs aimed at young adults, there is no overall policy statement by the Commonwealth government about youth? Is it the case that there is no overall set of performance outcomes identified for existing programs? Is it the case that this lack of strategic focus has been a stimulus for the reality and risk and deepening divide that the collaborations in the Dusseldorp report of the date that I have referred to outlined?11:54:0010018Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Carr knows that in December there is to be the Senate estimates process, when the education portfolio is subject to a great deal of scrutiny not only by Senator Carr but also by others and that the various performance measures we have in relation to the various programs are placed under scrutiny. I reject totally that the government lacks any accountability or direction in its policies in relation to young people. In that, I refer to such things as training, education and other areas.The government have increased opportunities for young people since we came to power. I point out that it is all very well for the opposition to ask, `Where are your nice warm statements? Where are your nice glowing references? You must have them.' What we are about is outcomes. What we are about is runs on the board. What we are about is reducing youth unemployment, increasing the numbers of young people in training and increasing levels of literacy and numeracy for young Australian students. They are real outcomes. They are not just warm and fuzzy statements. They are runs on the board and they are what we are achieving.Recently, we had a further meeting of the Youth Roundtable, which Dr Kemp set up. The Youth Roundtable, I believe, is a great success. I have been a participant in a number of its functions. Talking to these young people, who represent all walks of life of young people across Australia, I get the feedback that it is a great step forward and that it is a forum where young people can express views for government to take on board. Some of those views are not always in accordance with policy or what the government are doing, but that is why we have the forum: so that they can say these things to us. So we not only have the outcomes; we also have a means by which young people can be heard.11:57:0010018Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Finally, I would like to repeat that this is not a question about `second-rate crystal balls'. This is not a question about warm and fuzzy statements. The evidence is growing from a range of organisations, which I have cited. I refer to a further study by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum, which arrived at all our offices just a couple of days ago. This study was undertaken on behalf of the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra and is dated October 1999. They have indicated that `Australia still has relatively low levels of secondary school completion'.These are not warm and fuzzy figures; these are not abstract concepts. These are facts, Minister. I put to you that it is estimated that, for each year of students going through school, 35,000 students will not complete their secondary schooling and will subsequently obtain no further formal educational or training qualifications. That is fact, Minister. I ask you: if that is not the case, why is it not? Is it the case that the estimated lifetime cost, discounted to 1999 in real terms, to students in the country is in fact around $74,000 per student? Is it also the case that half this cost is a direct monetary cost borne partly by the individual and partly by government, that the remaining half is the social cost which falls across the individual, the government and the whole community, that the overall cost to Australia of one year's early school leavers is estimated to be $2.6 billion, and that reducing the number of early school leavers would be a very sound basis for investment for the individuals concerned, for the government and for this community as a whole? I ask, Minister, whether, just on that monetary basis, it would yield an estimate of something like a 12.5 per cent rate of return?These are the sorts of facts that this particular government understands—these sorts of equations based on rates of return. I ask, Minister: is it not the case that retention rates are falling under this government and that as a direct consequence the country is suffering greatly? I put those propositions to the minister in concluding this committee stage of this bill.11:59:0010019Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—What Senator Carr fails to remember is that not everybody goes to school, finishes high school and goes on to university. In fact, only 30 per cent of all students go on to tertiary education. This government has been mindful of the 70 per cent of students who do not see themselves going on to tertiary education. Of course, of the 70 per cent there are a number who will not see their way through secondary schooling because they will leave to go into training, or they might take up work. Senator Carr fails to realise that unemployment under this government has fallen greatly. We are now looking at unemployment of just over seven per cent compared with just over 11 per cent under the previous government. Where you have got higher employment obviously there is going to be an attraction for some students to enter the work force. I will not go over that; I have dealt with it before.As for the other questions that Senator Carr raises, we will look at the $35,000 figure. I do not concede that that is necessarily correct, but we will have a look at it. We have taken questions about cost on notice. I say again that the question of retention rates for students at school is a complex one, but it has a primary relevance to opportunities of training outside school and also employment, and these are factors Senator Carr should remember.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.10019Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills10019r87910019Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Senator Herron:That this bill be now read a second time.12:03:0010019Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I table a correction to the revised explanatory memorandum relating to this bill.12:03:0010019Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate: (a) notes that the quality of Australian education institutions is of prime importance to our future, both economically and culturally; and (b) condemns the Government for damaging the quality of Australian education by: (i) punitive cuts to universities; (ii) a lack of commitment to equity issues; and (iii) mismanagement of the education export industry".This bill sets the maximum amounts for operating and other grants to the higher education institutions by varying the amounts already legislated under the Higher Education Funding Act 1998 for 1999-2000 and inserts an amount for 2001. It sets the maximum funding level for expenditure on international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International for the 2001 funding year. It seeks to amend HEFA to make provision for funding 60 medical places at James Cook University for 2001, and it seeks to provide funding for science lectureships of $14.7 million and research infrastructure of $73.6 million. These are initiatives which were announced in the budget.The debate on this bill could not have been more timely. I have no doubt that the minister welcomes the opportunity to canvass these issues this particular week. Last week, Dr Kemp's true agenda was made public. Stripped of its rhetoric, doubletalk and all the spin doctoring that one has come to expect from Dr Kemp, a pattern of deceit has emerged from the propaganda machine that he has developed. Dr Kemp's submission was revealed last week, bare for all to see, and what an ugly sight it was.Having starved universities of funds since the savage $840 million cuts in 1996—and of course all the additional cuts, which I will deal with later on—Dr Kemp's ideological plan is to deregulate the system and to turn higher education in this country into a commercially-driven market free-for-all. Dr Kemp has been obliged to admit in that submission that he and his policies have led to a crisis in higher education—a crisis very much of his own creation. What he has been obliged to admit, but what he will not say publicly, is that `demand for higher education in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria is unlikely to be met'. That is a direct quote from the submission. The submission also states that there is `no capacity to reduce huge regional disparities in . . . participation', and that people from `affluent capital city suburbs are five times more likely to go to university' than people from the least affluent areas. It states that `universities are currently in a difficult financial position.'His own cabinet submission admits that `already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at risk'. He indicates that there are `higher student-staff ratios and less frequent lecture and tutorial contact'. He says that universities have outdated technology and, as a result, universities are `progressively less capable of delivering what government wants, industry needs and the community expects'. As a result of this, Dr Kemp, in his own words, tells us that `there is a perception of declining quality'.I expect, when the government have read this submission again and refreshed their memories of what their minister was saying, that they will be only too happy to vote for our second reading amendment. I expect every member of the government to rush over here and support that amendment because they know the truth of it. The truth of it is demonstrated by the fact that the government minister, Dr Kemp, has revealed the truth in his own cabinet submission.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—We'll join you over there.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I see Senator Abetz is here yet again. I would have thought that Senator Abetz would have learned something from his recent performances in this chamber and have been obliged to keep himself a little under control. I expect Senator Abetz to join with the opposition and support us in our second reading amendment.What we see is a dismal list of woes. We note from Dr Kemp's own documents that there is a perception of declining quality. There is no clearer indication of the truth of this than that he presents this information to his colleagues, presumably in secret—he had no expectation that such opinions would be revealed. What he seeks to do after creating a crisis is to exploit that crisis, and he then suggests that the solution is deregulation of fees. He seeks to propose a university tuition subsidy which follows the student—by any other name, a voucher. He seeks that there be no guaranteed minimum amount of funding for institutions. He also seeks to have another bash at universities, which are struggling thanks to his own starvation policies, and he seeks to propose a student loan scheme with a real rate of interest.Of course, the government claims that all that is off the agenda: `No, sorry. Sorry, we didn't mean any of that. Having been caught red-handed, we don't really mean it any more.' This is despite the fact that this is the second time that such propositions have been before the cabinet this year. So how could anyone possibly believe the denials that this government issues on a regular basis? From what we have before us, it is clear that this government's interest in education—particularly the sorts of policies that Dr Kemp has been pursuing—is predicated on assumptions which will see a return to policies of the 1950s. He sees this as a modernising process: his idea of modernisation is to return to the fifties. We will see a situation where fewer and fewer people of modest backgrounds will be able to attend university, and universities will be places for the wealthy and the privileged. He seeks to establish a new set of arrangements which return to a system of administration in universities for the privileged few. The big eight universities will do very well; the rest of the universities will be reduced in status and some may not be able to continue at all.We see that those who thought that John Howard's code of ministerial conduct was meant to mean something can now see for themselves that it means very little indeed. We were told that governments were supposed to be frank and honest. But we have noticed that there can be no frankness and no honesty from this government when we see the propositions revealed in that cabinet submission, which demonstrate that what they are saying in private and what they are saying in public are two different things altogether. So when Dr Kemp says that there will be no vouchers—yet he uses the terms that are used in that cabinet submission—you can clearly see that this is a situation in which, to quote the Bard, `a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. I would say that a `universal subsidy which follows the student' smells just as bad as a voucher.That is the government's policy, despite the claims that are made when they are caught. That has been the government's secret policy since their election. I have absolutely no doubt that they will pursue that policy because it is predicated on an ideological obsession—an ideological obsession that Dr Kemp and the Prime Minister happen to have. They happen to believe that, if you have a position of privilege and power, you should be able to exploit the resources available in this country to entrench that privilege and power. We see that Dr Kemp and the Prime Minister are chained together by what I regard as a bond of mutual deceit and dishonesty. The true intent of the government has been revealed to the public. Of course, the government has sought to rule out these various scams once they are revealed, but the truth remains that this government developed a cabinet submission on the direction of cabinet itself. As it was with the GST and as we have seen with Senator Newman and her changes to the social security system, when governments claim they are not doing things, you cannot for a moment believe them under this regime.What we see before us is that the government have presented a whole series of problems but would appear to have no solutions for them. That is what we are expected to take on face value—that the government acknowledge that there is a crisis but they do not have any solution to that crisis. We see, however, one final thing remaining of that original package, one final thing remaining in terms of their public admissions: that is, they plan to introduce sweeping industrial relations reforms to the higher education sector to do over the workers in universities in order to balance the books. So what we have noticed is a re-run; the proposal is a re-run of the waterfront dispute, but this time with the universities instead of the docks. This is a plan to make workers in universities pay and pay and then pay some more for the government's policy disaster. They seek to predicate this on the fundamental premise of coercion—which, of course, we were told was illegal under their Workplace Relations Act. They are seeking legal advice to get around their own act—and that is revealed in clause 32 of the cabinet submission. We are looking forward to seeing that legal advice, because I am sure it will be contested in the courts as the government seeks to pursue this policy, this ideological obsession.In the past the government have said that their concerns are demonstrated by their merit based equity scholarship scheme—which the government are now seeking to remove. After cutting six per cent from the universities' operating grants, increasing HECS charges by up to 125 per cent, lowering the repayments threshold to around $21,000, abolishing the Commonwealth-industry places scheme and slashing half a billion dollars from student assistance, any reasonable person would say that the Commonwealth education ministers might not be able to sustain a case that they are interested in equity. Any reasonable person would suggest that enough damage has already been inflicted in this portfolio. Any reasonable person would also suggest that it is time for Dr Kemp to go. They would suggest that his slashing of a further $39 million by the abolition of the merit based equity scholarship scheme is totally unjustified.I would suggest that this government is predicating its education policies on a premise that it can in fact proceed to produce fewer opportunities for young Australians. The opportunities that remain will of course go to those with the greatest capacity to pay. That is what they mean by user pays: if you have got enough money, you take advantage of opportunities that are presented.The merit based scholarship scheme was only a tiny token offered by the government in its 1996 cuts to the higher education budgets. This minor concession to the needs of students who were locked out of the university as a result of its changes to HECS is now being withdrawn as well. This government constantly talks about increased moneys available for higher education. Yet again we have the pea and thimble trick being presented by this minister. We have seen student income support cut by $500 million. We have seen HECS payments charges increased by $313 million. We have seen the lowering of the repayment threshold to many thousands of dollars below average weekly earnings, taking a further $817 million from students and graduates. When Senator Vanstone announced the merit based equity scholarship scheme, she told us:The facts are that if you come from a socio-economically disadvantaged background or a rural or geographically remote area, your chances of going to university are less than if you come from a high status background and live in an urban area . . . These measures are aimed at bringing higher education within the reach of ordinary Australians. They are a practical demonstration of the Government's real commitment to fairness and equity in higher education.What a joke. What a complete joke. One thousand scholarships were offered in 1997, building to a pool of 4,000 in 1999. The scheme has scarcely begun and we now see it being axed. This followed the so-called sounding out of the effectiveness of the scheme which was carried out by DETYA in what can only be described as another bodgie survey. They involved university equity officers being asked via email for their views on the scheme, in such a way that it could be easily assumed that the government was seeking to improve and enhance the scheme rather than axe it.This is the whole problem when you are dealing with this government. You have to be very careful in appreciating what the intention of the government really is, because it is usually not the intention that they say. There were 19 equity officers who responded to the suggestion that by providing a grant at the time of the study rather than a HECS exemption the scheme could be improved and financially disadvantaged students could be retained in the universities. Instead of using this amount of money in the ways suggested by the survey, the government has used the findings to abolish the scheme. This is a further demonstration of the government's lack of any real commitment to equity. Opportunity and access are the casualties along the Howard government's road to user pays in education.Let me turn to Australian Education International. I am sure that this will be a matter that I will have to pursue in the committee stage of the bill. It is a matter of great con cern to me. This bill provides funding to the end of 2001 for Australian Education International, whose job is to promote Australian education world wide. It was originally set up in 1994 under the name of the Australian International Education Foundation. The AEI is fully funded by government and it represents all sections of the industry—schools, ELICOS, TAFE, and private training providers in the higher education institutions. The government's management—and I say there is very strong evidence of mismanagement—of our education export industry has been the focus of a good deal of attention in recent times and I can assure this government it will be the focus of a great deal more attention in the times ahead.We have seen this government being obliged to move back onto the back foot because it is quite clearly unable to react effectively to the developments that are occurring within this industry. It should be anticipating them. It should not be forced to respond to the opposition in the way it is. It should be ahead of the game. Given the resources that are available to government, one could expect it to at least have some knowledge of the developments in this industry and be able to move ahead to anticipate actions rather than being forced by the opposition to take up various inquiries. Take the Greenwich University, for instance. The government has apparently had ample warning of the plans to establish this institution of very doubtful provenance. What it was obliged to do was to establish an inquiry into the bona fides of the institution, its management and its courses. It was not until these issues were pursued by the opposition that such action was taken.The AEI, which has been spending a great deal of time promoting Australian education, has not taken sufficient care to protect our reputation in that promotion effort. It has not been paying sufficient attention to protecting our reputation for quality and integrity, which are the fundamental ingredients in the success of this industry. It is appropriate that we ask the government to give some thought to the way in which it is sorting out the issues that have been presented, particularly in view of the impact of the advances in the technologi cal delivery of education. We have seen what has happened with Greenwich. At the end of the review process we will see new criteria established. I trust that these will be rigorous criteria; that they will be criteria from which we can genuinely measure the quality of educational institutions such as Greenwich.I would ask the government: what avenues are open to the government to fix up the problems—problems of its own creation, brought about as a result of the incompetence of the minister for territories in not being able to respond to the blindly obvious problems that presented themselves and in signing off on a proposition to grant the authority to establish a university effectively under Australian law through the territory of Norfolk Island in such away as to allow that institution to exploit the reputation of this country?I might take the opportunity in the committee stage to discuss the review of the ESOS Act, particularly the question of the massive abuses that are appearing with regard to international students by a number of bogus colleges and shysters that are currently operating in this country. This review, which the government has again sought as a means of silencing the opposition, does not address the fact that this government has enormous powers available to clean up the industry but has not used those powers. This is a bill which the opposition is, of course, obliged to support. We ask, however, that it be amended in the terms of the amendment that I have circulated. (Time expired)12:23:0010023Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats are in a similar position in that we have to support the funding bill before us, and indeed we will. I also put on the record now that the Democrats will be supporting the second reading amendment that has been circulated in the name of Senator Kim Carr on behalf of the Labor Party. The Democrats will be moving a further amendment to that second reading amendment, which I believe will be circulated shortly.The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 sets out funding for the higher education sector in 2001 and varies the amounts for 1999 and 2000 already provided for in the Higher Education Funding Act 1998. It also sets out a number of funding priorities announced in the 1999-2000 federal budget. Some of these are to be welcomed, such as the money—$14.7 million—that has been put aside for science lectureships. I think we have all been alarmed at the declining enrolments in science courses around the country, and we would be the first to suggest that more needs to be done to encourage participation in those particular fields.I might add that this is a very similar debate to that that we were having back in 1996 with the then science minister, Minister Peter McGauran, who acknowledged that there was some concern—indeed, his higher education minister at the time, Senator Amanda Vanstone, acknowledged that there was some concern—about a lack of participation in science and science based courses around the country. The answer from this government of course was to put up the rate that students pay in the Higher Education Contribution Scheme for science and some science based courses, so much so that students who commenced their studies after 1 January 1997 would be paying $4,855 per annum for HECS. If you round that out, in three or four years you are looking at a debt of at least $20,000. I hardly think that is a financial incentive to enrol in a science course. Nonetheless, the science lectureships is a program we support. We also welcome the so-called commitment to regional education through the funding of 60 additional places in the medical faculty of James Cook University—although I would also add that recent events have led all in the sector and many outside it too, I suppose, to question the government's real commitment to regional and rural campuses.However, this bill also contains a number of regressive proposals. Foremost among them is, of course, the defunding of the Higher Education Equity Merits Scholarships Scheme, which Senator Carr referred to in the debate. This was a scheme introduced, I guess, as a buffer to the quite deleterious funding cuts and deleterious changes that were introduced under the former minister for higher education, Senator Amanda Vanstone, back in 1996. Clearly, the justification or the rationale behind the introduction of the scholarships was to address the significant equity and access concerns in the higher education sector—that is, the idea was to grant HECS exemptions to students facing barriers to accessing higher education. Figures regarding access to education by specific equity groups show that, while women and students from non-English speaking backgrounds have greatly increased their participation in higher education, much needs to be done to achieve similar results within the indigenous population and for potential students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.When these exemption scholarships were introduced, the Democrats raised a number of concerns about their inadequacy in actually addressing some of the real barriers that exist to entering higher education, especially for disadvantaged groups. We highlighted not only the current disincentives, fees and charges, et cetera that are barriers to access but also the measly amount put aside. Four thousand scholarships over four years was never going to address the significant barriers that so many students face. We found it difficult to believe at the time that this scheme was ever going to overcome many of the disincentives imposed by this and previous governments in the years since the introduction of the scheme.You have to remember that these barriers in many ways have been compounded by not only university funding cuts but also HECS hikes, changes to student financial assistance with the introduction of the common youth allowance with the higher age of independence, the changes to the differential levels of HECS, the percentile increase on the repayment of HECS as well as the reduction of the threshold to unrealistic levels—the threshold at which graduates begin to repay their debts—and the up-front undergraduate fees in some cases. So we were always concerned that these scholarships were not going to address the significant access and equity concerns that existed. Nonetheless, though they were measly, they were some buffer against some of the radical and regressive changes that were introduced by the government in 1996.I note that Senator Carr referred to Senator Vanstone's comments and rationale at the time. I notice that even Dr David Kemp in a speech two years ago to the lower house actually said:As higher education numbers expand we must make sure that opportunities to participate are widespread.Indeed, Dr Kemp. He went on:People with disabilities, people from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, women in non-traditional areas of study, people from rural and isolated areas, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslanders are all beneficiaries of the merit scholarships introduced in 1997.He went on:These scholarships provide exemption from the HECS charge to an additional1,000 effective full-time student units each year. By the year 2000 the scholarships will provide exemptions of 4,000 equivalent full-time student units, which means that well over 4,000 students will benefit each year.I ask the minister now: does he see no reason for these scholarships to continue? Does he genuinely believe that as a consequence of the government's changes to higher education students from those very disadvantaged backgrounds whom he describes no longer need some form of assistance? I guess at least the pretence is gone. There is no suggestion now by this government that it is even going to pretend in some token way to assist those students who are disadvantaged in the sector.Indeed, Senator Vanstone in this chamber, in this very place, back in August 1996 in response to a dorothy dixer from Senator O'Chee—no doubt exercising some seriously needed damage control on the issue of the 1996 budget changes and so-called reforms to higher education—boasted proudly:We are introducing 4,000 equity and merit based scholarships. If, by returning to universities the HECS contributions for students, they over-enrol we are, in fact, encouraging universities to provide more places.She went on to talk about the impact of free education and how she believed access was greater for wealthier students at that time. She justified the merit equity scholarships, suggesting that this would overcome some of the disadvantages and the barriers that some students face. Obviously, those words do not mean anything more to this government, certainly not to the current minister David Kemp. He sees no need to provide such opportunities about which he boasted quite strongly in 1997, and no doubt even more recently.Generally it must seem for many in the sector that every time we debate a higher education funding amendment bill in this place it is a bit like Ground Hog Day. There always seems to be some upheaval, some turbulence in the sector, usually created by the government of the day. In 1996 we saw a raft of broken promises, not the least of which was the government backing down on its so-called election manifesto promise that it would not cut operating grants. Since then we have seen increases to fees and charges, deregulation of some undergraduate places and cuts to student financial assistance. The list goes on.Only this week, as Senator Carr has said, we have seen the expose, if you like, of the government's true agenda, or more specifically Dr David Kemp's agenda, for higher education in this country. I note that in his speech to the House of Representatives on the very bill before us, Minister Kemp makes no secret of his agenda—the fact that `universities must take principal responsibility for increasing their income'. He acknowledges that they have made substantial efforts in that direction, not because they necessarily want to be more `entrepreneurial', to use the minister's word, but they have had no choice. How ironic it is that this government could suggest that the higher education sector as a whole is greatly in need of assistance and then fail to acknowledge that most of the problems have been created by this government as a consequence of funding and other cuts that it has made in the last few years.He went on in his second reading speech to the House to suggest that universities will, including money collected from students via the HECS system, receive almost $5.6 billion from the government. This is the crucial point. A lot of the money that is now being directed to universities is money that is being recouped from the students themselves. Never before in this country have we seen such a high contribution from individual students. The government cannot afford to claim some kind of credit for increasing funds and funding allocations to universities when a lot of this money is coming from the steep fees and charges that the government has imposed on students.He goes on to boast about the fact that the government has allowed universities to offer full fee paying undergraduate courses, enabling students to do the course of their first choice. What rubbish! It enables those students who have money, those students who have wealth, those students who can get loans or who have rich parents and friends, to get the course of their first choice. It certainly does nothing for those disadvantaged students whom Dr Kemp and Minister Vanstone were quite happy to refer to when they were boasting about the merit equity scholarships.Dr David Kemp does not end there. He goes on to talk about the assistance being provided to James Cook University and the so-called government commitment to regional universities. I think everybody has recognised what a complete myth that is. That lie has been completely exposed as a consequence of the leaked cabinet submission which targets regional institutions. It acknowledges the difficult financial status that some of those institutions are in—about eight of them, as I recall. So it is acknowledged by this government that they are already facing financial hardship. We had the rescue package introduced by Senator Vanstone a couple of years ago—again an attempt at damage control as a consequence of the 1996 reforms. But that rescue package was specifically targeted at regional and remote universities because the government was starting to understand then that their cuts were going to result in campus closures and indeed—and I will not be surprised if this happens—in institutions shutting down.The minister concludes his comments to the House by referring to the merit based equity scholarships scheme. The government should hang its head in shame or at least have the guts to admit that it never really cared about providing access and equity in the first place. If it really did believe its own rhetoric in relation to the scholarships, at a minimum it would be continuing them and not using them as a blatant savings measure under this budget.We have seen student-staff ratios up; we have seen fees and charges up, we have seen salaries at a low point due to this government's and the previous government's unwillingness to meet long overdue wage claims by general and academic staff in our higher education institutions. We have seen HECS up, we have seen decline in government funding and we have seen operating grants cuts. It is a sad, sad time for the sector. The only offers of support that David Kemp can come up with include the proposed introduction of vouchers and of fixed interest rates for HECS, or the abolition of HECS or blatant deregulation of fee charging arrangements in the sector when we already have up-front fees for some undergraduate courses and, as a consequence of the reforms of the Labor government, deregulation of the postgraduate sector.So this government's agenda is quite clear. It is a narrow vision for higher education. If you couple that with Dr Kemp's almost religious pursuit of his voluntary student unionism legislation—which I recognise is on the Notice Paper, so I won't reflect on that—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Hear, hear!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I acknowledge Senator Abetz's interjection. As everybody knows, he is a champion of voluntary student unionism.Honourable senators interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I acknowledge the much louder interjection suggesting shame. Those people yelling shame in the chamber understand that it is a misnomer, that voluntary student unionism is not about greater choice for students. It is not about individual choice and responsibility; it is about emasculating those services that are provided on campus that assist all students, but primarily those students who do not necessarily have the same wads of cash as some members in this place, in order to finance their own education, whether that means paying up-front fees and charges, paying for child care or coping with catering, shelter, housing and welfare.These services mean that campus life is a holistic experience. They mean that people can participate in sport, in recreational facilities, or they can choose not to. In fact, in most cases on campus they can exercise their own conscience. They can make a conscientious objection and not be a joined-up, fully paid-up member of the union. I put it on the record that the Democrats strongly support the conscientious objection clauses which I understand operate in a majority of student union constitutions now and hopefully 100 per cent soon. We recognise that there are some students who need the vital services that are provided by a student organisation on campus. For that reason, the Democrats will continue our long and proud record not only in relation to universal membership of student organisations but also of continuing to vote down any attempt to introduce and increase fees and charges which we see as a psychological and financial disincentive to enter into and participate in higher education in this country.We find the reforms that were outlined in the cabinet-in-confidence submission by Dr David Kemp incredibly alarming, and one of the most alarming is the prospect of student loans. This, as callously acknowledged by the minister in his discussion paper, is one of the most contentious elements of the proposed package. We still do not place a lot of faith in the arguments, claims or pledges by the minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in this place—or indeed Dr David Kemp, or indeed the Prime Minister—that they will not introduce these things, because they said the same thing in 1996. At that time they promised they would leave operating grants untampered with.Senator Crossin interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President: I hear your comments, Senator Crossin, about `never ever'. It is no wonder the community is often distrustful of politicians. In this case students will make it clear tomorrow. Students, staff and the community will make it clear to this government that they should not even countenance any of these proposals, that they should not consider any of the suggestions put forward by Dr David Kemp. I believe the students say it best when they say, `Hey, hey, ho, ho: David Kemp has got to go.' The resignation of that minister is long overdue. You need a minister for education who actually believes in the concept of education, who believes that education is an investment in this nation's future, that it is not simply a budget measure from which you can recoup savings but a way of ensuring that all Australians have the opportunity to further their skills and knowledge and participate in a democratic and enlightened society.Even Roderick West, the author of the West report that Dr David Kemp conveniently buried some time last year—the report contained a number of recommendations which I believe have been resurrected in the cabinet-in-confidence submission—does not support the loan proposal outlined in Dr Kemp's paper. These proposals will subject young Australians to crippling debt burdens just as they are leaving school. We are condemning young people in our nation to debt. In every policy debate that I see taking place in OECD nations, such as the US, France and the UK, policy makers in government are discussing proposals like giving 18-year-olds grants to give them a strong start in their adult life. Yet this government is going in the exact opposite direction by proposing to give young people debts of up to $120,000. That is what we are talking about if we abolish the HECS system. That is what we are talking about if people have to have top-up vouchers or make up some kind of gap payment. That is what we are talking about if people are paying fixed interest rates on their fees and charges. It is extraordinary and disgusting beyond belief that these proposals even made it to paper. The minister should go.These proposals are being advanced at a time when access to education by those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds is declining. This government wants to place disincentives, like a debt of $100,000, in the way of Australians. It is even more ironic, and a little disgusting, when you look at some of the education backgrounds of people sitting in this government, indeed on the frontbench. I do not begrudge them their publicly funded higher education. In fact, I think that is the way it should be. But it is interesting to look at a piece in the Daily Telegraph, I believe by Malcolm Farr, which listed a number of members who received their education for free. It listed Peter Costello, the Treasurer; the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Michael Wooldridge; the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Joe Hockey; the Leader of the National Party of Australia, John Anderson; and of course the Minister for Justice and Customs, Amanda Vanstone. Let us not forget that she was the woman who was wielding the knife in 1996. Larry Anthony would have left the University of New South Wales debt-free. Lucky Mr Anthony. According to this article, the Special Minister of State, who now joins us in the chamber, would also have received a `free ride at the University of Western Australia'. I do not begrudge these people their education, but how dare they begrudge the education of other Australians—not just young people, school leavers, but mature age Australians—whose income, whose lifestyle, whose health and futures, and their children's futures, depend on access to education. I move:At the end of the amendment, add: "; and (c) opposes: (i) the introduction of vouchers, real interest rates for HECS and cuts to operating grants; and (ii) deregulation of the higher education sector".Debate interrupted.Matters of Public Interest1002810028The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)10000PON/A10— Order! It being almost 12.45 p.m., I call on matters of public interest. 1002812:44:0010028Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Last week at this time, I made some remarks in regard to the referendum to be held on 6 November for the proposed republic. Today I would like to make some further remarks on this most important issue. The situation is becoming more and more clear each day that those who are advocating a no vote, particularly those associated with Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, are intent upon resorting to any sort of scaremongering and, indeed, I would say deliberately misleading and downright false assertions in order to try to ensure that the vote for an Australian head of state does not succeed.As we know from past referenda, it is often very easy to simply sit on the sidelines, throw in bombs or hand grenades, and thereby scare the Australian public into voting against reasonable and sensible change. That is what I believe is happening on this occasion. For instance, I read an article by Geoffrey Blainey, who referred to the case being put forward by the pro-republicans as similar to Waltzing Matilda. He made references to the swagman, the jumbuck and so on.As I have listened to many of the false arguments from the monarchist cause—and I will come to some of those in a moment—I was reminded of an episode in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn when Huck and Jim were on the raft and their serenely idyllic world was invaded by two scoundrels. Those two scoundrels claimed that they were descendants of royalty. One of them claimed he was the descendant of the Duke of Bilgewater who had been deprived of his title. The other, not to be outdone, claimed he was the dauphin, the son of Louis XVI and the rightful heir to the throne of France. Huck, of course, saw through these scoundrels and in a rather memorable phrase said:It didn't take me long to make up my mind that these liars weren't no kings nor dukes at all but just low-down humbugs and frauds.I would never make that suggestion in respect of the monarchy, but I do make it in respect of those who are out there propagating the cause to retain Queen Elizabeth and her heirs and successors as our head of state. Many of their arguments are fraudulent, and they are nothing more than humbugs.Let me turn to some of those arguments. I have already addressed some, as I said, in my speech last week, but let me turn to a few others. One of the arguments that has been advanced is that a constitutional monarchy is inherently better than a republic. That of course is just a completely false assertion. Among stable democracies in the world there are both constitutional monarchies and republics. There is nothing inherently more stable about a constitutional monarchy than there is about a republic. Indeed, we have seen in this century quite a number of monarchies cease to exist because of the despotic and aristocratic nature of their regimes.The fact that Australia is a constitutional monarchy does not mean in itself that it is more democratic or more stable. It is a completely false argument to assert that our democracy and stability stem from the simple fact that we are a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as our head of state. Rather I would submit that the fact that we are a stable democratic country that has enjoyed relative peace for 200 years is due more to our geographical position in the world than to the fact that the Queen of England is our head of state.Further, the monarchists cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand say that our very essence of stable democracy is due to having the Queen, the monarch of the United Kingdom, as our head of state, and yet on the other hand argue that she has really nothing at all to do with the running of this country. Of course, that argument is also being advanced. It is being advanced particularly and continuously by people like Sir David Smith, who argues that in reality the Governor-General is our head of state and the Queen is largely irrelevant. We would submit that she is largely irrelevant to the continued functioning of this stable democratic country. If we move to a system where we have an Australian as our own head of state—someone who lives here, is an Australian citizen, identifies with Australia, is proud of Australia and is able to stand up both within Australia and overseas as a representative of Australia—then we will be just as democratic, just as peace loving and just as stable on 7 November as we are today or on the day before the referendum. So that is a complete furphy.The other argument that is advanced—I heard the Prime Minister putting this again this morning—is that the system ain't broke and therefore why change it? I make the point, firstly, that the system is broken. It is not broken in any substantial way that threatens our way of life or our democratic system, but it is broken to the extent that we are one of the few nations on earth that does not have one of its own citizens as the head of state. If it is good enough for the Prime Minister to be an Australian citizen—in fact, it is mandatory for the Prime Minister to be an Australian citizen, as the High Court has found—and if it is important enough for the captain of our cricket team, our Wallaby team or any other group that represents Australia to be an Australian citizen, then why can't an Australian citizen be our head of state? What is so particular and peculiar about that position that it should be reserved exclusively for members of a royal family resident in and ruling the United Kingdom? It is fairly fundamental, I would think, to a nation's stature, to its destiny, to its pride in its history and to its confidence for the future to have one of its own citizens as the head of state. At no stage have those who support the no case from the monarchist cause been able to answer that fundamental question as to why it is that no Australian is worthy enough to hold that position.What we have seen in the other great lie is that those from the monarchist cause, such as Kerry Jones, Sir David Smith, Dame Leonie Kramer and others, have been supporting an argument that tries to cash in on the other group opposing the yes campaign, that is, the direct electionists. They, the monarchists, are so bereft of arguments to try and sustain the proposition that the Queen of England should be our head of state that they have jumped onto the direct election bandwagon. So we have Kerry Jones out there promoting a no case on the basis that this model is not the republic we should have—as if somehow she supports some other republican model. When put to the test, she has had to admit that she does not really support any republican model. But if she can, by way of subterfuge or sophistry, win the day and convince people to vote no, she will stoop to any argument. There is no honesty or integrity in that argument at all. Indeed, that has been proved by the fact that the advertisement that was put forward by the monarchist cause, by the no campaign, has actually had to be withdrawn. This is the monarchist anthem, as sung by James Blundell.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Are you going to sing it?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—No, I cannot sing it. The first verse says:There's a baker in his kitchenThere's an old bloke on the landThere's a grocer at the marketThere's the guy who lends a hand.I will not dwell on the fact that this is somewhat sexist. What I will focus on is the fact that, whether it is the baker in the kitchen, the old bloke on the land, the grocer down at the market or the guy, the mate, who lends a hand, the fact of the matter is that none of those people can ever be an Australian head of state under our current system. That is the hypocrisy in that anthem: that none of those people who have built this great country can ever aspire to be the head of state.The other point I wanted to make in my remarks today is that Australians are not afraid of change. Indeed, we have seen substantial change over the years and, despite the doomsayers, it has not led to the breakdown of the fabric of our society or of our democracy. It was Robert Menzies who in World War II announced that we were at war as a consequence of Great Britain being at war. That was in 1939. Just two years later John Curtin, the then Prime Minister, stated:Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.We had to cope with change then. We had to cope with a change in our relationship with the United Kingdom in order to save this country. Change has continued. We introduced decimal currency and moved away from the system of pounds, shillings and pence, which was the English system. Prime Minister Menzies did that. He actually wanted to call the currency the royal, but we settled for the dollars and cents terminology. We were able to cope with that change, which was a huge change to this economy and an expensive change, but one which represented a break from our imperial past. It was a similar situation when we changed to the metric system rather than having the old inches, feet, yards and miles. Those of us who are old enough remember how hard it was to try and learn that system and to learn our arithmetic. It was another substantial change in this country achieved without any difficulty. We changed our national anthem. It took a number of years, but we changed the anthem. Interestingly enough, we still have God Save the Queen as the royal anthem of Australia. Not many people would realise that, if the Queen were opening the Olympic Games, as she is supposed to be entitled to as our head of state, the national anthem to be played when she was opening the Olympic Games would not be Advance Australia Fair but would be God Save the Queen.There have been other changes, including abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, abolition of the imperial honours and so on. The Australian people are able to cope with change, and I believe that we will be able to do so again on 6 November. (Time expired)1003012:59:0010030Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Today I would like to talk about an issue which is of great interest to me and to Australians as a whole, that is, tourism and tourist development. The tourist industry as a whole provides a significant source of expenditure to the economy and in so doing develops a lot of add-on advantages to regions, such as job creation, regional support and small business growth. Through the regional tourism strategy, the Howard government is making a major contribution to the further development of regional tourism in Australia. The challenge to all states in Australia is not only to meet the demand of the domestic and international markets but also to rise to the challenge of creating new ways of attracting the tourist dollar as we move into the 21st century.As our Minister for Sport and Tourism said earlier in the year, the reality is that domestic tourism rather than international tourism remains the backbone of our tourist industry. Attracting Australians to travel around this country has to be the most productive focus of our tourist industry, because the domestic sector represents about 75 per cent of Australian tourism and is currently worth about $43 billion a year to our economy.The industry also represents a significant source of employment, especially for younger Australians and those living in regional areas. In 1995-96 tourism was directly responsible for the employment of around 694,000 people, equivalent to 8.4 per cent of the work force, and a further 334,000 people were also indirectly employed by the tourist industry.It is in recognition of the value, both economically and in creating jobs in the tourist industry, that the coalition government has continued to inject significant funds to encourage growth and further development of the tourist industry. This has been particularly so in regional Australia. The coalition government is developing regional initiatives to improve tourist services in terms of diversity, quality and accessibility for the Australian tourist in the regions of this country. The Regional Tourism Program and the domestic tourism campaign received funding totalling $6.1 million in the 1999-2000 budget. The Regional Tourism Program aims to improve the capability of organisations, businesses and individuals to develop and deliver quality tourism products and services in regional Australia.Tourism facilities which will benefit from the allocation of this money include visitor information and interpretation centres, tourist attractions and regional signage, projects to raise industry standards, industry leadership initiatives, projects that can be applied across the sector or regions and the development of regional niche markets and tourist attractions. Within this program, the government has also committed funds to be used to establish web sites for regional tourism organisations. Of course, the Internet is the most significant technological advance in our world and the online tourism scoping study of 1999 reported the number of people using the Internet worldwide was somewhere around 151 million. So the use of the Internet as a tool to promote regional tourism is very relevant and important in today's world and something which our government is seeking to encourage.The domestic tourism campaign is industry led and aims to encourage more Australians to holiday in Australia rather than going overseas. This measure delivers on the coalition's election commitment for an $8 million contribution towards a joint domestic tourism attitudinal change campaign in which it is the objective to encourage people to see Australia first.I would like to focus on the experience of Western Australia, and more particularly regional Western Australia, in discussing the impact of the government's regional tourism program. The Regional Tourism Program is a highly competitive program and I believe that Western Australia has attracted a considerable amount of funding to regional projects from this program to support regional initiatives. The Mid-West Tourist Development Commission, for example, was awarded $100,000 to assist the Batavia Coast Interpretive Centre in Geraldton to establish a stateof-the-art interactive information centre to educate tourists on the rich cultural and maritime history of the mid-west region, including, of course, the history of the Abrolhos Islands and the Batavia wreck and the events that went with that colourful event in Western Australia's maritime history.The Kimberley Land Council, which, of course, is the Aboriginal Land Council in the far north of the state, was awarded $70,000 to assist indigenous landowners in the Kimberley to create a new tourist enterprise. This was the Mimbi Caves tourism infrastructure, which will make a substantial contribution to developing indigenous tourism in the area around Fitzroy Crossing. The Mimbi Caves are an enormous system of caves in that area which have not been developed in the past and yet are indeed one of Australia's greatest potential tourist attractions because of their extent and beauty and, of course, because of their indigenous significance.In the most recent budget the Regional Tourism Program was allocated $16 million over four years and the applications for grants closed this week. I am very pleased to note that a number of excellent applications were received from Western Australia. Western Australia has a very well organised tourist industry with 10 separate regional development organisations covering the entire state from the far north to the south-west. Each of these regional organisations was developed because it was realised that the pooled resources of local tourist bureaus would be much more effective in promoting tourist development in a regional area than the individual tourist bureaus.The first such region to organise itself on a regional basis was the Kimberley, which founded the Kimberley Travel Association in the early 1990s. The KTA, as it has come to be known, has been very successful in promoting the Kimberley as the ultimate outback Australia ecotourism destination and has worked with the Northern Territory tourism authority in particular to promote Northern Australia. Regions such as Esperance, the Kimberley and the Pilbara, which are a significant distance away from the Perth metropolitan area, have the problem of accessibility as a deterrent to tourists coming to those regions—or so it would seem on the face of it. But what seems to be on the face of things is not always the reality. Basic research about the tourists who actually visit an area may sometimes produce unexpected information resulting in the complete reorganisation of the focus of regional tourism promotion.For example, the assumption in the north of Western Australia was always that the tourists who came to the Pilbara and Kimberley were largely from the southern areas of Western Australia and, accordingly, promotional advertising was concentrated on the south west. However, in 1994 the Pilbara Devel opment Commission, researching the economic potential of the tourist industry in the area, discovered that in reality a majority of the tourists in the north of Western Australia were from the eastern states, particularly Victoria and New South Wales.The reason for this is that most tourists were road-borne retirees and others caravanning around the country, particularly in the warmer winter months. Armed with this basic information, the major focus of the Kimberley and Pilbara Travel Association switched to providing facilities for land-borne tourists and the promotional focus became enticing more caravan tourists who went only as far as Darwin or Alice Springs to cross the border into Western Australia.This promotion was successful and had a major flow-on effect for tourism in regions further south in Western Australia because the road-borne tourists were then encouraged to remain in the state and go down to the Gascoyne and mid-west for the wildflower season, explore the attractions of the south-west and exit Western Australia via the Eyre Highway, thus promoting tourism in the Kalgoorlie and Esperance regions.Different markets, of course, need different modes of transport and in the Esperance region, for example, the Regional Tourist Authority has produced a regional strategy, funded by the federal government, in association with the Esperance Shire Council, which has resulted in a southern discovery path being developed to provide tourists with an enriched experience of the south-west, Esperance and goldfields area, where the tourists are able to get cheaper access to attractions in those areas.To overcome the long distance between attractions in the Kimberley, the Kimberley Travel Association developed an air package, known as the Ibis air pass, which enabled people who purchased the pass to be flown out to major centres, out of the major centres to the more remote destinations in the Kimberley and thus have a broad experience of what the Kimberley had to offer in a short time.Infrastructure is a very important factor in tourism development. For example, it can be argued that the tourist potential of roads should be considered when planning where roads should go. Two very good examples of such planning bearing fruit in terms of tourist development are the decisions of the Main Roads Department in Western Australia to build a road from the town of Tom Price to Newman, across the back of the Hamersley Ranges, so giving tourists access to Karijini National Park; and the decision to fund the new location of the Great Northern Highway through the Hamersley Ranges, providing a beautiful scenic drive through that rugged and incredibly impressive scenery for tourists to the area.In conclusion, I think the Senate can acknowledge the importance of the tourist industry to Australia and acknowledge also the important contribution the coalition government is making to the development of regional tourism through its regional tourist strategy.Australia is a brilliant tourist destination for its citizens and overseas travellers and offers a wealth of experience. The economic flow through to the Australian community by the development of the tourist industry is potentially huge, both in dollar terms and in terms of the employment potential of that industry.1003313:14:0010033O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In the adjournment debate on Monday night I outlined the selection process that led to the selection of Mr Laurie Foley to the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance, in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and a report by Mr Stephen Skehill on that process. Specifically I was commenting on the performance of the executive recruitment firm, Spencer Stuart, and the fact that a candidate for the abovementioned position, Mr X, was not included by Mr Wheatley, a company principal, in the list of candidates provided to the authority. This omission by Mr Wheatley meant that the board and Mr Toller did not even know that Mr X, who at the time was a senior authority employee acting in a position that involved a number of the functions to be undertaken by the Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Com pliance, was a candidate for the job. Mr X was also a candidate who, as it transpires, appeared to have a number of supporters on the CASA board. Mr Skehill stated that Mr Pike, the then Acting Director of CASA, said that those on the board best qualified to judge would have regarded Mr X as having performed at a high level in difficult circumstances.To sum up the performance of Spencer Stuart, Mr Wheatley failed to even tell his client, Mr Toller, about Mr X. He simply did not include him in any list. Mr Wheatley wrote to Mr Toller on 1 June advising on the recruitment progress and attaching a list of `All the contenders'. But Mr Wheatley now cannot find that list.In his report to the authority Mr Wheatley used an old report on Mr Y, written in relation to Mr Y's application for the position of CASA Director, not based on his interview with Mr Y for the assistant director position held on 11 May.He submitted his final report on applicants 12 and 33 before he had interviewed them. It also appears he failed to provide two negative references on Mr Foley. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to see how Mr Skehill came to the conclusion he did. Mr Skehill found—I say despite the evidence—that there was no basis for criticism of the performance of Spencer Stuart. If I were a member of the CASA board, I would have expected quite a bit more for the board's $250,000.I now want to look at the performance of some of the members of the CASA board in this recruitment process. At its meeting on 17 April last year the board approved a new management structure for the authority. That new structure involved the replacement of the deputy director and a number of general manager positions with four assistant director positions, including aviation safety compliance. Mr Skehill concluded that Mr Foley had advised the CASA chair, Mr Dick Smith, of his interest in the position some time after 11 May. Mr Foley and Mr Smith discussed Mr Foley's interest in the job on 14 May and again the following day. Mr Smith claimed to Mr Skehill that, having heard of Mr Foley's interest, he spoke informally to every board member about the matter before the meeting of the CASA board on 15 May. However, Mr Smith's claim to Mr Skehill was wrong. Mr Skehill states in his report:I do not accept that he did so, at least at this time.And Mr Skehill found that no member of the board recalls Mr Smith advising them. Mr Skehill states:A number of them were quite sure that they only became aware of Mr Foley's interest much later.Mr Smith and Mr Foley should have formally advised the board of Mr Foley's intentions at that meeting.Mr Byron, another member of the board, recollects that he did not know Mr Foley was a candidate until 19 June at the earliest. The CASA board meeting on 5 May was held at Tullamarine airport. That meeting considered the new management structure but the minutes make no reference to the assistant director positions. The only record appears to be a note for file prepared by Mr Willoughby, a board consultant, on 25 May, some 10 days later. According to Mr Willoughby's notes, it appears the board set up a number of panels to interview candidates for the assistant director positions at that meeting. Mr Pyne, a member of the board, nominated for the panel that was to interview candidates for the safety compliance position. There was no reference to Mr Foley's interest in the safety compliance job in either the board minutes or Mr Willoughby's file note. Nor is there any record that Mr Foley absented himself from that part of the board meeting that involved discussion of the position for which he was an applicant.Mr Skehill found, however, that some secretariat staff recalled that Mr Foley was absent from that board meeting for a period. It is not clear what period. It appears that Mr Pyne became aware of Mr Foley's application for the job almost by accident as a result of a conversation with Mr Willoughby, the board consultant, on 28 May. According to Mr Skehill, Mr Pyne then sought legal advice on two matters. First, whether Mr Foley was required to resign from the CASA board and, second, whether Mr Pyne could sit on any interview panel where Mr Foley was a candidate. He was advised that there was no legal requirement for Mr Foley to resign and he, Mr Pyne, could legally sit on that assessment panel.In a letter to Mr Smith, the chairman, dated 4 June, Mr Foley confirmed he was a candidate for the job. On 16 June, the CASA board met with the minister in Sydney. The structure of CASA management was on the list for discussion. However, Mr Skehill could not find any record of Mr Foley's application for one of the senior positions being discussed.The following day Mr Willoughby prepared two documents for the board meeting scheduled for 19 June. The first paper was entitled `The rationale for the organisational structure of the aviation safety compliance division'. The second paper was a summary report on the recruitment process for the four assistant director positions. That report referred to Mr Foley's declaring an interest in the position to the chair. It stated `copy circulated to all board members'. I assume the reference is to the 4 June letter from Mr Foley to Mr Smith. Mr Skehill found that that letter had not been circulated. Mr Skehill checked with all board members and no-one had seen the letter referred to in the Willoughby paper.Sometime between 12 June and 19 June it appears that Mr Smith discussed Mr Foley's application with Dr Skully-Power, another member of the board. Dr Skully-Power told Mr Skehill that, until that time, he was not aware that Mr Foley had an interest in that position. In his report Mr Skehill states:Dr Skully-Power pressed the view that Mr Foley should resign from the Board before his application was further considered.Mr Foley told the CASA board at its 19 June meeting that he planned to resign. He then wrote to the minister to that effect on 22 June. In his report, Mr Skehill further referred to a statutory function of the CASA board being `to ensure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.' He further says:To attempt to undertake this function without assessing the reliability of staff of the authority would be a folly.He is absolutely correct. In relation to the processes surrounding the recruitment of Mr Foley, the evidence contained in Mr Skehill's report clearly shows that the board failed to properly perform that statutory function that I have just mentioned. However, it is also clear that some board members are innocent victims of that flawed process.The process as far as the CASA board was concerned was initially quite proper. There was a selection process to engage a recruitment firm. I said on Monday night and I will say it again, that was despite Mr Willoughby's attempt to avoid that proper process. The board set up a number of panels to assess the applicants for the four assistant director positions. However, beyond that point, the process broke down badly. Mr Foley told Mr Skehill that he advised Mr Smith, the chairman, of his interest in the safety compliance position on 14 May, but at the board meeting the following day neither Mr Smith nor Mr Foley told fellow board members of Mr Foley's intentions.The board became a party to what was clearly a highly unsatisfactory and flawed selection process. If the board had known of Mr Foley's intentions at the beginning of its meeting on 15 May, there would be no doubt about whether Mr Foley absented himself from part of that meeting. It appears that he was absent from that meeting for a period but it is not clear what was considered by the board in his absence. I am confident the board would have dealt properly with this matter if it had been properly advised by Mr Smith and Mr Foley, because of the evidence to Mr Skehill from board members Mr Pyne and Dr Skully-Power. The evidence is that Mr Pyne sought legal advice on his own position immediately he became aware of Mr Foley's application for the assistant director position. When Mr Smith told Dr Skully-Power about Mr Foley's application, Dr Skully-Power immediately pressed the view that Mr Foley should resign before his application was further considered.I would hope that if Mr Smith and Mr Foley had told that board meeting on 15 May that Mr Foley was a candidate, the interview panel for the safety compliance position would have been constructed quite differently. It appears that at the board meeting on 19 June, the board may have contemplated aban doning the panel arrangements for interviews for the Foley position but, again, that is not clear. It is clear that after that board meeting Mr Smith, Mr Toller and Mr Willoughby decided that the panel interview structure had to be abandoned for Mr Foley for obvious reasons—that panel structure involved board members. This selection process also highlighted the fact that the records of the CASA board were nothing short of a shambles and that the whole board must be held accountable for that important failing.When I was pursuing this matter through the estimates process, that fact became very clear to me. There are now on the record a number of different answers to the same questions. That is, questions that I asked at estimates received certain answers, those answers are in substantial part different from answers which Mr Skehill received and which he has published in his report, and he has noted the deficiency in the answers given to the Senate through the estimates process. That matter itself is one that I intend to pursue further, and I do not think I need to tell senators why. It is pretty clear that where an authority gives incorrect answers and then knows them to be incorrect, they have an obligation to correct them. They have not done so.I must also advise the Senate that there is in existence an inquiry which, in general terms, goes to the question of the administration of aviation safety. At a meeting of the committee this morning I inquired as to whether it was proper for this matter to be considered in the context of that Senate inquiry. I have been advised by the secretariat that it is consistent with the terms of reference of that inquiry that this matter be so considered. I have advised the committee that it is my wish that interested parties who wish to present material to the committee on that matter should be advised to do so. So far as I am able to do that now, I encourage those people who have information to come forward. I suppose, in particular, Mr X, who came into the Skehill inquiry process only two days before his report was handed down, might care to approach the committee on the matters that are clearly before it.There are other matters which I will put before the Senate at another time in relation to this matter. This is the third occasion on which I have presented information on this matter. I am sorry to say that there is a lot more that has to be said about this matter because it is an absolute shambles.1003613:29:0010036Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I wish to speak about an issue in my own state that relates to the import of salmon and some statements made by the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on this issue in respect of the action that the government of Tasmania has taken. That government has issued a declaration which would ban the import of salmon products from New Zealand and, indeed, anywhere else while it undertakes a risk analysis in accordance with the requirements of the World Trade Organisation.It was somewhat disturbing to see the minister almost threaten the state with High Court action. The state has a right under the Constitution to take the course of action that it has taken, and it has that right to proceed to conduct the risk analysis as is allowed for under WTO rules. What is even more disturbing about Minister Truss's statements is where he said:The action was political grandstanding because all the scientific evidence indicated New Zealand salmon had a very similar health status to Australian salmon.That is just patently wrong.I would have thought a minister of the Commonwealth government—this being such a significant issue that has been to the WTO now on at least three occasions—at least ought to have been briefed to a degree of understanding about the issue, because the New Zealand salmon do not have the same health status. There is a disease known as whirling disease, which is found in New Zealand and not found in Australia.With regard to the whole process of this issue, which is also now the subject of a Senate inquiry, what has been completely overlooked by the government in threatening the state of Tasmania is that, first, it has a right under the constitution to proceed that way; and, secondly, it would seem that the minister is totally unaware of the circumstances that surround some of these diseases.I would be very interested to hear whether the minister would have the same view if it came down to an issue that related to cattle or sheep diseases or, indeed, wheat diseases. I would be very interested to hear from the government as to whether or not they would take the same view if the states of Western Australia and New South Wales took it upon themselves to, say, ban the importation of beef, lamb, wheat, or rice from somewhere else on the basis that they had a concern about a disease. I suspect not. I suspect the government would not threaten those states.I say to the government on this occasion that it has a department that has monumentally stuffed up this issue in respect of salmon imports—and that is recognised and acknowledged even by the WTO's own panel of experts. It really begs the question how the department, the body that is charged with the responsibility for monitoring and applying quarantine measures in this country and making determinations on quarantine measures in this country, arrived at the decision that it did, and secondly got itself into the position that it did in the WTO. On the basis of this, we were one of the principal architects and negotiators involved in the development of the sanitary and phyto-sanitary agreement that now has application through the WTO.Coming back to the specific case of salmon imports: following an application to the WTO by Canada first, followed and joined by the US, to have removed the restrictions on salmon imports that had been in place since 1975, AQIS in 1995 prepared a draft risk analysis. This was on the basis that the application from Canada was for wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon—not farm salmon.AQIS prepared a risk analysis in respect of 24 diseases that those fish could be subject to and found that, while the restrictions should not be totally lifted, they should be changed so as to allow fresh and/or frozen ocean-caught Pacific salmon to be imported into Australia. In 1996, AQIS presented a final report. That final report was on much the same basis of the application of Canada and joined by the US, but on this occasion it brought down findings that said the restrictions should be kept in place. An interesting part about that was that it would appear that the scientific information did not change. Given that the draft risk analysis was provided to Canada and to the US and subsequently they got the final risk analysis, I am not surprised that they would be a little curious that a country that in the first instance does a risk analysis and says, `Oh, well, we think it is okay,' secondly, not even 12 months later, just some months later, comes out with a conclusion that says, `No, it is not okay.' I can understand Canada and the US saying, `What are these people on about? They seem to be somewhat inconsistent.'Of course, fish importation issues have been around for some time because governments of both political persuasions have looked at and had inquiries into the practices relating to fish imports and, of course, the import of other products as well. There was the Nairn report that made various recommendations and, in part, we in government started to proceed down the track to do something about that and it was overtaken by the 1996 election. When this government came in we had very strong statements from the minister then, following the 1996 report, that the restrictions would stay in place.We did all of this—and AQIS did this—in the full knowledge of the WTO requirements, the requirements of an agreement of which we were one of the principal architects. I am at a loss to understand how the body responsible for the application of, the decision-making of, quarantine restriction measures in this country got it so terribly wrong. It has been implied by the Prime Minister that this is about trade, but this is not a trade issue. The 75 restrictions were put in place not to protect the salmon industry of Tasmania—or anywhere else, albeit it principally operates in Tasmania—because it did not exist then. They were put in place to protect the recreational trout fisheries of this country, which has applica tion in a number of states, not just Tasmania. That is why they were put in place.So we proceed to look at the problems associated with the diseases. We are told by the WTO, using an agreement and aspects of the sanitary and phyto-sanitary agreement that we were the principal architects of, that we must conduct a comprehensive risk analysis. They give us a very short period of time to do it. In this instance it does not have application only to wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon. It has application to all salmonid product from anywhere in the world. So we conduct that risk analysis.One very important disease is included in the process, the disease known as infectious salmon anaemia. It has been found in Norway since 1984. It has spread throughout northern Europe and into Canada and maybe in parts of the US. There is some scientific opinion as to how it is spread, but there is no conclusive proof. There is also scientific opinion that the disease spread as a result of trade in fish product. That is a fact. I find it amazing that there is no clinical test available to identify infected fish, unless they show clinical signs of infection—that is, they have blotches and appear very sick. At this point in time, unless the fish show signs of the disease and can be visibly identified to have it, no other test is available to identify which infected fish have the disease.I am quite amazed that we failed to argue this case very strongly. The general public of Australia should know that in Norway nowadays salmon farming is very significant, in Australia it is very small. We represent just a drop in the ocean in respect of salmon farming in the world. But in Norway salmon farming is a big industry and a very powerful lobbier of government. When Norway gets an outbreak of infectious salmon anaemia in any of the waterways, what do they do? They use a poison called rotenol and they poison the rivers and waterways, no matter how big, and they kill everything. They do that for at least three years.As someone who has a recreational interest in fishing, I know that if you go to Norway, the only fish you can catch nowadays are those that are released by farms. You cannot catch any wild fish because they have basically wiped them out. The same thing is happening elsewhere.We know that there is a major problem in net caged salmon farming in many parts of the world with regard to wild fish stocks. We know that it has been scientifically proven that wild fish stocks are declining at such a rate that it is likely that in most of the northern hemisphere wild salmonids will not exist in the next 10 to 15 years.In Canada, the wild Atlantic salmon stocks have reached such a level—this is what I find very interesting—that the United Nations has taken steps to stop commercial fishing of wild Atlantic salmon. That means no commercial fishing. In places like Newfoundland there is no commercial fishing. The United Nations knew that if it did not take those steps the genetics of wild Atlantic salmon could not continue. In fact, it believes at the moment that it is highly likely that there are sufficient stocks for them to continue.I say to the government and to AQIS, who have bungled this monumentally, that they have an opportunity to right the wrong. They should do it and, most of all, they should not threaten the state that is actually trying to do the right thing. Tasmania should be joined by other state Premiers in fighting this battle because right now the Commonwealth is incapable of doing so on the basis that it has no interest in the fresh water environs of this country. I suggest to the government that they listen long and hard about that. (Time expired) Sitting suspended from 1.44 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice100381003810038Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity of representing the minister for health. Is the minister aware that the minister for health has publicly asserted that he has acted quickly in responding to concerns about the MRI scandal, despite being warned on 5 May 1998 by the department that there may be a problem, being told in August 1998 by the department that there was a problem and the concerns raised publicly by Labor since February 1999? Can the minister explain why the minister for health acted to close off applications for eligible MRI machines only in October 1999, some 18 months after first being warned of the problem? Why did the minister for health then express astonishment that radiologists were still submitting applications, when he left open that massive window of opportunity for them? If it takes 18 months for the minister for health to act quickly in responding to concerns, how does he react slowly?10038Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, you can always count on the Labor Party for one thing: the conspiracy theory. As I said yesterday, the minister has answered questions in the other chamber. There were questions asked in the estimates committee as well and those matters have been raised in the other chamber. He has provided detailed answers to those matters and has made a number of statements on the public record. If there is anything further that needs to be added to that, I am happy to get back to Senator Evans with an answer from the minister.10038Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister would be aware that I asked these questions at estimates some months ago, because he was at the table at the time. But I asked a very specific question which I think the parliament deserves an answer to, and that is: why did the minister for health take 18 months to close off applications for eligible MRI machines when concerns were raised with him by the department in May 1998? They were supposed to have signed the contract by then. Why did he wait 18 months before he closed off their ability to claim for that eligibility?10038Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Evans's estimate is that it was 18 months. The minister took appropriate action. As Senator Evans would recall, at the Senate estimates committee there was discussion of this matter and there were investigations proceeding. Undertakings were given at that time that certain information should not be divulged because it may prejudice those investigations. If there is anything further that the minister wishes me to give to Senator Evans, I am happy to approach him about that.1003910039Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. The minister will be aware of the need for an open, honest and accountable approach to policy formulation. Will the minister inform the Senate of the government's approach to the privatisation of government assets? Is he aware of any alternative policy approaches and can he inform the Senate of the impact if these approaches were adopted?10039Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is a very important question that Senator Parer asks because it really goes to the heart of the approach that ought to be adopted by all political parties in this country, and that is openness and transparency in policy formulation and policy statement. We have always been up-front about our intentions in relation to Telstra and I think the public have respected us for that. We made it clear, we took the risks, we accepted that there were significant segments of the population who either were opposed to it or had been persuaded that they should be opposed to it. Nonetheless, we were able to demonstrate that there were very significant benefits that would flow, not just in terms of reducing public sector debt but in ensuring that the money was used for sensible capital works programs. And, of course, the billion dollar social bonus package that we took to the last election I think went a long way towards alleviating a lot of concerns in rural areas about the quality of telecommunications services.What I suppose really sticks in the craw of all those who are interested in this debate is that, when in government, you had Mr Beazley—now the Leader of the Opposition but at various stages in a crucial position to affect privatisation—being the great privatiser himself. He was the finance minister when the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas were sold off, after, of course, the government had given an ironclad guarantee that they would not—that they had no intention whatever to—further reduce their shareholding. Mr Beazley, in fact—as we all know—went to the Press Club and trenchantly justified the whole notion of privatisation. He said it did not result in a loss of infrastructure; it was merely a transfer of ownership—and, of course, he has argued the case long and hard in government.What do we now find? Of course, he is the strongest opponent of privatisation. Why? Obviously for purely tactical reasons, and yet again today we have him being exposed by Mr Blount, the former CEO of Telstra, saying yesterday that a senior Hawke government minister had told him that the Labor Party were committed to privatisation. He said he was told about the plan during a confidential meeting before his appointment to head Telstra was known. In other words, the only reason he came out here was that he was on a promise. What happened, of course, was that he was well and truly conned: he was brought out here under false pretences because they reneged on the deal.Who was involved in that? Who made that promise? We know one thing for sure: Mr Beazley was the minister for communications at the time. And what Mr Blount says is that the whole purpose of his trip was to see if it was really doable to be the CEO of a company owned 100 per cent by the government; it was all about trying to explore this with the government and with the minister of the day. Well, who was the minister of the day? So it is quite clear that Mr Beazley has a lot of explaining to do. He has put out a statement today saying:I have never suggested to Mr Blount that I was in favour of Telstra privatisation, and Mr Blount said that I had made no such suggestion to him.The alternative explanation is that he was actually present when other ministers argued in favour of privatisation but, unfortunately, he did not quite have the ticker to express a private reservation. That is highly unlikely, I have to say, because he privatised everything else he could get his hands on. Let us just assume that, for some reason, he did not quite want to go that far—mainly because the unions would not let him and all of the rest. So he just sat there quietly. He let Mr Blount believe that the Labor Party was in favour of privatisation and that they did want to see Telstra in private hands. He said nothing. That is the alternative explanation.It is a very tragic state of affairs that you cannot have someone come clean on one of the biggest policy issues of the moment—in fact, of the decade. Mr Beazley's weasel words on this subject do him no credit at all. It ought to be clear to anyone who looks at what Mr Blount has had to say that he does not contradict Mr Beazley. (Time expired)1004010040Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Ellison, the Special Minister of State. Is the minister aware of yesterday's confirmation by the Minister for Health and Aged Care that certain radiologists who have profited from the MRI Medicare rebate have attended fundraising functions for Dr Wooldridge? Can the minister also confirm that Dr Wooldridge stated yesterday, `Any money that has been raised has been in accordance with the Liberal Party's fundraising guidelines and has been properly disclosed'? Is the minister aware that, as is normal Liberal Party practice for individual members, Dr Wooldridge has filed nil returns with the Australian Electoral Commission? Given that it is Dr Wooldridge himself who claims that these donations have been properly disclosed, has the minister satisfied himself that this is in fact the case?10040Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam President, I am not aware of the details of the question or answer given yesterday in relation to the question that Senator Faulkner raises. I would need to have a look at that and get back to Senator Faulkner. But can I say that, from what I have seen, there has been nothing untoward at all in what Minister Wooldridge has said. In fact, I think he has acted quite honourably in this whole matter. He has taken this whole matter on the—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You are getting yourself into quicksand with this.9X5Senator ELLISON—I hear Senator Schacht interjecting. He could take a leaf or two out of the minister for health's book in the way he has handled this matter. He has referred this to the National Audit Office and is not shying away from any investigation into this matter. In fact, he has been proactive in sorting the matter out. In that way he has acted entirely appropriately.10040Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer again to Dr Wooldridge's statement that, `Any money that has been raised has been properly disclosed.' I ask the minister, given that he is responsible for the law governing election campaign disclosures, why he has not satisfied himself that Dr Wooldridge was correct in this statement. I am surprised that the minister is not aware of the statement. But if he has not satisfied himself and he is not aware of the statement, which I think most senators and the public would find extraordinary, will he undertake to do so now—he has indicated he will—as a matter of urgency and report back to the Senate before we rise tonight?10040Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam President, I will treat Senator Faulkner's request as I do any other request that I receive in relation to matters under the Electoral Act and deal with them in an appropriate manner. If there is anything to be brought back to the Senate, then I will.1004010040Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam President, my question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate how the government's reform of business taxation will encourage higher investment and greater productivity in the Australian economy?10040Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Chapman, for that very important question. The government's reform of business taxation is designed to encourage business investment, to create jobs and to strengthen Australia's economic potential. I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Senate about a statement made by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry released earlier this week regarding the Ralph report. This is what the chamber said:Reforming business taxation to make Australia more internationally competitive, more attractive to foreign capital inflow and more rewarding to investment and innovation must be seen as one of Australia's highest priorities. The Ralph report has provided this country with a blueprint for business tax reform which has the overwhelming support of the business community.It is clear that there is overwhelming support for the Ralph report, support that extends from accountants to the Institute of Company Directors, the National Farmers Federation and the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. There is broad support for a package that fundamentally improves the structure of business tax laws in this country.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Not too much support among the poor, though.WW4Senator KEMP—These reforms will provide greater certainty for business and make the system simpler, particularly for small business. Senator Murphy calls out but my understanding is that the Labor Party admittedly flip-flops on this as on so many other issues. If you read the general thrust of the shadow Treasurer's comments, he is purporting to be broadly supportive of these reforms. If that is the case—if that is true—we welcome that.In a revenue neutral manner, these reforms will cut the tax rate for companies and make Australia internationally competitive through lower capital gains tax rates. Let me remind the Senate—and I think this is a very important figure—that 77 per cent of taxpayers paying capital gains tax earn under $50,000. Our proposal to cut capital gains tax and introduce rollover relief for scrip for scrip takeovers is very important and will be welcomed by all taxpayers.The Ralph report recommendations will also give Australia a company tax rate that is internationally competitive. At 30 per cent it is lower than in Canada, Japan, the US and many other of our trading partners. It is clear that the Australian economy will be further improved by the reforms that we are bringing down.It was very pleasing today to see the Westpac-Melbourne Institute index, which surveys the Australian economy. It showed a 5.7 per cent growth in August compared with an average growth rate over the last six months of 5.6 per cent. While we treat all figures with some caution, these particular figures are certainly encouraging and show that this government is on track, with a strong reform agenda to further improve the competitiveness of the Australian economy and to create jobs.1004110041Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the supply-side arrangements for Medicare eligibility for MRI machines were just one side of an agreement between the government and radiologists? Isn't it true that, prior to the 1998 budget, radiologists signed up to an agreement that capped the expenditure on radiology? Apparently the government did not disclose its side of the agreement in those negotiations. Does the government seriously expect the Australian public to believe that the radiologists agreed to a limit on expenditure but had no idea which MRI machines would become eligible for millions of dollars in Medicare funding?10041Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Forshaw for the question. The principle of capping was the same as that of the Labor Party's in relation to pathology services, so to imply there is some conspiracy in relation to capping is a criticism of the Labor Party itself. That principle was the same as the one applied to MRI scanning. Obviously I am not aware of the dates that Senator Forshaw has put to the Senate. I will check with the minister to see whether those dates are correct, and I will also check what occurred at the meeting that Senator Forshaw referred to.The important thing is that the action of the government means that MRI scanning has become available to a much larger number of Australians. It is a technology that has been late in coming to Australia. It was the principal type of technology in relation to image scanning in the US. MRI scanning as a part of imaging is four per cent of the total cost of medical imaging in this country. Even though it is only four per cent of the total medical imaging costs, it is important that the government protects taxpayers' money, and that is what it is doing. If I can supply any further information to Senator Forshaw in relation to the question, I will get back to him.10042Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given that you really did not answer the question, I ask you to at least address this supplementary, given that you attended the estimates hearings and so you cannot just refer it on. Can the minister confirm that in estimates hearings departmental officers admitted that one of the three supply-side options discussed with radiologists was the option adopted in the budget? Wasn't the option chosen the only controlled option considered that allowed for some increase in the number of MRI machines as desired by the government?10042Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I can confirm that the supply side was discussed at the estimates committee hearings I attended. Senator Forshaw does not appreciate that the government cannot control the number of people who are getting sick, going to doctors and needing MRI scans. That is the implication of the supplementary. The government provided a Medicare rebate for people who previously did not get one. The supply side is virtually the only thing the government can control.1004210042Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is addressed to Senator Hill, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the minister heard reports that the leaders of the East Timorese people do not want an ASEAN national as leader of the United Nations peacekeeping force in East Timor under phase 3? Has the minister kept himself informed of the wishes of the East Timorese about both the leadership and the composition of that United Nations peacekeeping force? Will the government undertake to abide by the wishes of the East Timorese people in relation to their own future in any future lobbying Australia might do on this issue?10042Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I would have thought that it would come on a recommendation from the Secretary-General to the United Nations, but in relation to any input we might provide to the Secretary-General, I am happy to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there is a view that he is prepared to express publicly and, if so, to inform the Senate.10042Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I thank you for that, Minister. I am aware of course that it does come from the United Nations Secretary-General, but I am also aware that the Australian government is currently lobbying. Can you tell us whether the Australian government is lobbying in accord with the wishes of the East Timorese people? Can you tell us if the Australian government is aware of the wishes of the East Timorese people in this?10042Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I would be very surprised if the East Timorese leadership had not expressed a view to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the matter. Senator Bourne can be assured that the government would take that view into account but, beyond that, I will ask the foreign minister whether there is anything he wants to put on the public record.1004210042Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Can the minister inform the Senate what representation women have on the Howard government's advisory committees on the GST?10042Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, I do not think that is a very helpful question. I do not know which committees she is particularly referring to. I myself am a member of about four committees at cabinet level that are involved in an advisory position to the implementation groups, but I am afraid she will need to be more specific. Which committees were you referring to, Senator?10042Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you provide to the Senate information about the role the Office of the Status of Women has played in ensuring that women are represented on the committees, in accord with the government's goal of equal representation on public committees?10042Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The senator suggests that she is talking about public committees. She still has not been specific and I cannot inform her adequately if I do not know which committees she is talking about.1004310043Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. In relation to yesterday's rally of 3,000 people in Albury protesting against the inadequate flow of water in the Snowy River, and in recognition of the policy of the Snowy River Alliance to restore 28 per cent of the original flow to the Snowy River, will the minister assure the Senate that he will work with the state governments concerned to obtain a fairer allocation of water, taking into account the needs of irrigators and pastoralists and the environmental necessity to increase the flow of water in the Snowy River?10043Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Harris for that question. As I am sure Senator Harris knows, under our great federation the states have primary responsibility for management of our most precious resource—water. In relation to the Murray River, New South Wales, regrettably, manages its water resources so that only a minimum water reserve is carried over into the following year. This is a significant contrast to the state of Victoria, which keeps much more significant volumes of water in reserve for the following season. The fact is that Victorian farmers, therefore, do have a higher level of water security than those in New South Wales. I do think that the New South Wales government does need to come to grips with this issue of effective water management in order to give its own farmers much more water security.New South Wales farmers who rely on the Murray have been experiencing considerable difficulty. There have been drought conditions and they have experienced, regrettably, the failure of the New South Wales government to give them proper water security. The New South Wales government approached the Snowy Mountains Council seeking access to additional water releases. We are, with Victoria and New South Wales, members of that council. I certainly passed on to the Commonwealth representatives on that council, for whom I have responsibility, that I wanted to see a speedy and satisfactory resolution of this. Certainly, my office was in close contact with the office of the then Victorian Premier to ensure that Victoria cooperated fully in this matter, and indeed Victoria did cooperate in ensuring that we got an outcome. The outcome was that, at the Snowy Mountains Council meeting last week, the council agreed to the New South Wales government's request, on behalf of the irrigators, that 300 gigalitres of additional water be made available.I think it is important to remember in the face of the protests from the irrigators that have been going on that the scheme is already committed to supplying some 2,000 gigalitres to the irrigators, which I am advised is the equivalent of four times the volume of Sydney Harbour, and that there is no charge from the Snowy Mountains Council for that release. What is being asked for is water in addition to what is already a very significant allocation from the Snowy Mountains Scheme. What the council is doing is allowing the irrigators to bring forward a portion of next year's allocation to supplement this year's allocation. That is something we support. It is being provided on a quasi-commercial basis and it is in accord with the New South Wales government's request. As I say, and I want to stress, this has been brought about by the inadequacies of the New South Wales government's management of its water resources. It has sought a solution through the release, or the insurance provided by the guarantee of a release, of water from the Snowy scheme. We have responded positively to that.We have supported the New South Wales government's request that water be supplied on that basis, and I am pleased to say it will be. The farmers, of course, are saying that it ought to be provided for free; that was not the original request and it certainly was not the New South Wales government's proposition that it put to the council. We supported the proposition put by the New South Wales government. The water is being provided at rates which I understand are at actually half the rate, half the price, originally proposed. So it is not free, but it is being provided at well below real cost.10044Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Thank you, Senator. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. At the rally yesterday it was clearly indicated that the problem was partly caused by an unusual release of 900,000 megalitres from the Hume Dam and that for the last three years the Snowy Mountains Scheme has each year reduced its output by 200,000 megalitres. Both of those instances now leave the pastoralists and the rice growers in New South Wales receiving only 11 per cent of their allocation. They cannot put in their crops and they cannot provide for their families. Would the minister in his official position consider making an allocation to replace those two volumes of water for those farmers?10044Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—As I say, the responsibility for water management for the New South Wales farmers is a matter for the New South Wales government. I have no direct authority. The matter of releases from the Snowy Mountains Scheme is a matter for the Snowy Mountains Council, on which the Commonwealth has two of the six governmental representatives. The council was approached for this, in effect, insurance scheme by way of a guarantee of 300 gigalitres to be made available if required so that the farmers would be able to plant now, knowing that that water will be available if they need it. We hope they will not need it; we hope there will be sufficient rain so that they will not need it. We have responded positively to that. We are in accord with the New South Wales government. What was sought by the farmers has been guaranteed, albeit that they sought it for free; it will not be for free but at a cost way below the real cost.1004410044Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Is the minister aware that the Australian government did not send a senior official to the follow-up meeting to the Beijing Platform of Action on Women, which was held in the Philippines from 6 to 8 October? Is the minister aware that, of the 24 countries invited, just six failed to send an official: Malaysia, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Australia? Can the minister explain why the government did not bother to send an official to this major international conference on women and work and who made that decision?10044Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have just returned from China, where I met with the All China Women's Federation on Beijing and after, and we talked about the work being done by both our governments towards the meeting in New York in June next year. Next month, the Office of the Status of Women will be represented at a regional meeting in Thailand on Beijing Plus 5.10044Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister, but I did not ask you a question about travels with your diary or those of the Office of the Status of Women next month, but simply: can you inform the Senate why Australia was not represented at the conference that I mentioned—the major conference on women and work? If you cannot give us that reason, could you please take it on notice?10044Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, I do not think Senator Crossin understands. I was not giving her any excuses. I was demonstrating that Australia is actively involved, and continues to be actively involved, at the most senior levels in our region in preparing for Beijing Plus 5. This government has a proud record on the work that has been done since Beijing, and it has been a very important element of the work of the Office of the Status of Women in preparing our report for the UN.1004410044Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. The Australian Federal Police celebrates its 20th anniversary this week with the tabling of its annual report. Will the minister inform the Senate of the challenges for the Australian Federal Police in its next 20 years?10044Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Lightfoot for the question. The creation of a national police force by the Fraser government in 1979 was a response to Australia's developing international links. It was becoming clear that an increasingly mobile world population meant that borders alone were no barrier to serious crime. At the end of the 1990s, we can see new forms of crime and smarter ways of committing old crimes. Crime is now global. The criminals who inflict most damage on our community are sophisticated business people who command criminal enterprises stretching across the globe. They feed off drug smuggling, arms dealing, money laundering, technology based fraud and paedophile networks that span the globe and use the Internet in other ways. It is much more than the old break-and-enter or handling stolen videos. In that context, intelligence needs to guide and shape police operations, strategy and policy rather than simply support isolated investigations.Traditional policing was reactive rather than proactive—a bit like firemen waiting around a station waiting around for someone to yell out that there was some smoke. Intelligence played a part but it did not actually drive or lead police work. Proactive policing means carefully selecting the targets that will maximise the impact on criminal activity. New technologies are providing ever widening opportunities for the development of sophisticated tools to support intelligence analysis. The federal government has ensured that the Australian Federal Police is able to face these challenges and is better funded than ever before. But do not take my word for it alone. Commissioner Palmer had this to say recently:This organisation—that is the Australian Federal Police—has never enjoyed a higher reputation, has never enjoyed better fundingXE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Oh yeah?7E4Senator VANSTONE—And wait for it, Senator Bolkus, because there is more. The AFP is coming out of a number of years of tight fiscal constraint. It has never been more strongly supported by any government in its history. It has never been better funded, and it has never had a brighter future. I did not notice any police commissioner saying that when Labor occupied these benches.In addition, the federal government takes a lead role in supporting all of Australia's police services and law enforcement services such as AUSTRAC and of course Crimtrac. AUSTRAC is the agency that tracks money laundering and which develops some of the most innovative software to track suspect money. It plays a vital role in Australia's criminal investigations and intelligence systems. Crimtrac is a new national police information system which we need to provide the state-of-the-art information systems that are so vital for the support of effective intelligence. It is supported by a $50 million commitment from the federal government.Twenty years ago, the largest seizure in the AFP's annual report was $66,000 worth of LSD. The AFP's annual report this year details seizures including nearly 400 kilos of heroin, worth $400 million, and 225 kilos of cocaine.There is so much to say—I hope Senator Lightfoot takes the opportunity to ask me a supplementary. There is just so much to say about the Federal Police, I do not know which bit to choose. In any event, if I do not get there, Senator Lightfoot, I will not forget you if there is more to ask.I can announce that the AFP in Melbourne has seized 12 kilos of the designer drug ecstasy—that is almost 45,000 tablets—in what is believed to be the largest single seizure of the drug ever in Victoria. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors1004510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of a delegation from the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, led by the Vice-Chairman of the conference, Mr Wang Zhaoguo. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and trust that your visit will be both informative and enjoyable.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice100461004610046Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Can the minister inform the Senate how much of the gold medal disability strategies budget was allocated to the glossy information folder that contained a biro, a copy of the minister's press releases, a notepad and a shiny lapel brooch? What information has been produced for this strategy that refers to the Disability Discrimination Act and the lawful obligations of all proprietors under this act?10046Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I presume that Labor never gave anybody a biro when they came to the launch of a major initiative.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Mackay has asked Senator Newman a question, and Senator Mackay is entitled to hear the answer without her colleagues around her shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I am not really sure whether Senator Mackay is interested in the answer. The focus of the gold medal access strategy was on sensitising business to the needs of people with disabilities for access to premises and services, et cetera, and the opportunities business was losing as a result of people with disabilities not being able to access those goods and services.The total budget for this strategy is $2.1 million over three years; I have answered that in the Senate already. The amount allocated to event management, including the launch, the symposia, the awards, the information and public relations tasks associated with the strategy, is of a maximum of $1.23 million. The balance of $0.87 million is for administrative costs over three years. I do not know if this will help Senator Mackay, but the estimated cost of the symposia series is $430,000 for eight events around Australia, and that figure includes venue hire, invitations, catering, speakers, advertising and fees.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—How much for the biros? BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am sorry, Senator. I have not got the cost of the biros.10046Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Would the minister take the question on notice and also answer the following supplementary question. Can she confirm that the public relations firm that coordinated the strategy tendered the lowest price but has also admitted to having zero knowledge of disability related issues? Does the minister still believe, as she told the Life Matters radio program recently, that this contract provides `a good educational exercise for them'? Why was there no requirement for the firm to have an understanding of disability related access issues given that that is one of the objects of the strategy that they are being paid to promote?10046Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think this is a classic example of how business in Australia does need to be sensitised to these issues. There is one business that has acknowledged that it has been good for them.1004610046Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the minister aware that recently declassified United States documents reveal that the US secretly deployed nuclear weapons in 27 countries and territories, including Pacific nations, during the Cold War? Given Australia's close defence ties with the US throughout this period and up to the present day, can the minister assure the Senate that no nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons material were deployed or stored in Australia or its external territories?10046Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will seek advice and see what the government is able to put on the record as information for the honourable senator. The government does not normally do so in relation to security matters. But I will see what information I can get.10046Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given the increasing concerns at the nuclear arsenals and nuclear policies of Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea and the rejection last week of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty by the US Senate, will the government sup port the forthcoming agenda item 76(R) of the United Nations General Assembly from Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden that calls on nuclear weapons states to discharge their nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations without delay and for all nations that have not done so to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty?10047Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I regret to say that I do not know the full content of proposed resolution 76(R). But, if it is in the terms that the honourable senator outlined to us a moment ago, it would seem to be consistent with Australian government policy.1004710047Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is it true that the government will not be undertaking a normal recruitment process for the now vacant position of Director of the Office of the Status of Women but has instead commissioned a headhunting agency to find a suitable candidate? Can the minister inform the Senate why the government is not itself advertising the position and conducting the recruitment process? Is it that the government does not have confidence in the Prime Minister's department to identify a suitably conservative, pro-business person for the position?10047Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The senator is grievously misinformed. The advertisements for the position of the head of the Office of the Status of Women appeared in newspapers on 15 October. I have a copy of the one from the Financial Review right in front of me now.1004710047Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Now that the Indonesian parliament has voted to remove de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor, will the Australian government finally do the same?10047Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As the honourable senator knows, we had a debate in the Senate on this particular subject some days ago. The tenor of the government's argument was that it was inappropriate at that time because the matter might well be determined within Indonesia within a short period of time. As that matter has now been determined and in effect Indonesia has acknowledged the validity of the vote of self-determination, it might well be that it is now in effect superfluous in relation to Australia's formal position. I will take advice and see if we can get some further assistance for the senator.1004710047Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Does the minister recall that in her speech to the National Press Club on 29 September she said:. . . for some people at least, access to the disability pension is seen as a better alternative to unemployment benefit.Since when did the applicant have a choice as to which support payment they received and how can several hundred thousand people access a benefit to which they are not entitled? Does the minister acknowledge that the majority of people currently receiving the disability support pension who should possibly be receiving an alternative benefit are doing so because of the slashing of Centrelink operating budgets, the culling of staff and the resulting inadequate administrative and assessment procedures?10047Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—That is the silliest question I have heard for a while.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—That is a big statement.BE4Senator NEWMAN—It is a big statement, and we have heard a few today. The situation is that the growth in disability support pension occurred at an exponential rate under the last government. Since this government came in, it has still continued to rise but at a smaller rate of growth than it did under Labor. It is certainly not a question of saving money for anybody. The appropriate eligibility is laid down in the act. We have not changed the eligibility for disability support pension from what we inherited from Labor. People are eligible to be on disability support pension forever, subject to determining that their disability is continuing. Of course people who are eligible should have that safety net.I thought you may be interested, Senator, in an article I was reading today in the October-November edition of Access, which is a disability journal. The Labor government did not take much notice of people with disabilities. In fact, their record was appalling. Under this government, we have been doing things that really can make a difference to the outcomes for people with disabilities. Over 13 years, Labor allowed unmet need for people with disabilities in this country to grow at a disgraceful level. We have now made a contribution of $150 million to help the states do something about it.This article in Access talks about the existing system and the problems there are for people in the existing system; that it gives people a soft landing rather than a bounce back into work; and that it acts like a trapeze net rather than a trampoline. Then it goes on to conclude:Anybody who really cares about the needs of the disadvantaged in our society should not be scared of welfare reform.I would ask opposition members: why is it that they are all running scared?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Don't tell us, tell John Howard.BE4Senator NEWMAN—That is a quote from Mark Latham, who sits languishing on your back bench.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Evans, I call you to order.10048Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. What you have said is very interesting. In light of the Commonwealth's current push to rehabilitate those receiving disability support, will the minister acknowledge the short-sighted nature of efficiency drives and budget cuts of $18.3 million since 1996 inflicted on the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service by the Howard government—a huge amount?10048Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—No. 1004810048Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. Employment and business development are important areas of government policy in encouraging self-empowerment among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Will the minister please outline the latest government initiatives which aim to develop employment and the creation of small businesses for indigenous people?10048Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question and for her continued interest in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. I have a good news story today. I am pleased to be able to inform the Senate that this morning the government launched the $11 million Indigenous Small Business Fund. The fund is another element of the Howard government's $115 million indigenous employment policy, which forms part of our ongoing commitment to creating real employment opportunities for indigenous Australians. I congratulate the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith, and his department for their dedication and hard work in putting this policy together.I am also pleased that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Chairman, Gatjil Djerrkura, has so strongly supported the government's initiatives. Today, Mr Djerrkura said of the fund:It has demonstrated how ATSIC and the government can work together to seek to bring about real progress in bridging the gap of indigenous disadvantage. The government and ATSIC both recognise we must increase the economic independence of our people.Madam President, you would be aware that since taking over this portfolio this has been one of the strengths of what we have contributed over the last 3½ years to Aboriginal people in the sense that we have supported them in their desire for economic independence and real jobs.Under this $11 million Indigenous Small Business Fund, a total of $6 million will be provided by the government and another $5 million in funding will come from ATSIC. The Indigenous Small Business Fund will foster the development of businesses owned, operated and managed by indigenous people and help to promote sustained employment opportunities. Funds will be provided to indigenous organisations to develop services which provide entrepreneurship and business facilitation training. That has been one of the deficiencies up to date. It will also clarify business opportunities, develop business plans and proposals, and provide support and advice services to indigenous small business owner-operators in developing their skills, markets and networks.As I have previously told the Senate, this government has sought to do things differently in indigenous affairs and we are starting to see the results. Three and half years ago I might not have said that I regarded my portfolio with enthusiasm, but what I have seen in the last 3½ years has encouraged me to the extent that I believe there is a sea change occurring in Aboriginal affairs in this country as a direct result of those people who are seeking out business opportunities and looking for education. As I mentioned the other day, we now have 44,000—one in five adult Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—who are going through vocational education and training courses. I have been fortunate to meet many talented, hardworking indigenous Australians with successful business ventures and terrific business ideas.We have sought to foster economic empowerment among indigenous Australians through education, training, the creation of jobs and the development of successful indigenous businesses. I am pleased to say that the government has assisted in the creation of many indigenous enterprises over the past three years, including Queensland Bulk Haulage and, as I mentioned previously, Harbour Dreaming. I had the great pleasure recently of being part of the official launch of both those businesses which are providing indigenous Australians with jobs, income and a future. Queensland Bulk Haulage is but one. If Senator Ferris wishes to ask me about other businesses, I would be happy to provide her with further information, because there are so many.Queensland Bulk Haulage at Cloncurry in north-western Queensland has just opened a new transport depot and was awarded the road haulage contract by Ernest Henry Mining to transport copper-gold concentrate. Queensland Bulk Haulage is a joint venture partnership between Koutha Aboriginal Development Corporation, McIver Transport and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation. Harbour Dreaming is an indigenous tourist venture on Sydney Harbour which is operated by the Redfern Aboriginal Corporation, and I congratulate Lee Silva. (Time expired)10049Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I would be very interested in hearing any further information that the minister could provide to the Senate about indigenous businesses and the prosperity they bring to Aboriginal communities.10049Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the supplementary question, because I also wanted to mention Gumala Enterprises and Charlie Smith at Mount Tom Price, where three separate enterprises are occurring. Harbour Dreaming offers cruises and charters to around 40 people and is well placed to take advantage of the great demand for indigenous culture during the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.The Indigenous Small Business Fund is an example of the genuine partnerships being fostered between the government and indigenous people for the betterment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There is a great untapped potential within indigenous communities, and I encourage business operators to employ indigenous Australians or go into partnership with them because the benefits can be very rewarding. It is all there. It is happening. I think the good news about what is happening should overcome the bad image that appears to be present in the community about the wonderful indigenous people of this country. (Time expired)1004910049Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer to the earlier question asked in question time today by Senator Gibbs which Senator Newman either did not hear or did not understand.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for Senator Faulkner to use the question to abuse Senator Newman in respect of an earlier answer?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There ought not to be preliminary comments on any question on either side, but we have got into the rather bad habit of having preamble. Senator Faulkner, ask your question.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Thank you Madam President. I ask the minister: in relation to the position of the Director of the Office of the Status of Women, why are Morgan and Banks advertising the position and why are Morgan and Banks organising the recruitment, as opposed to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which would usually be the case?10050Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet decide how they are going to employ people, and they decided on Morgan and Banks to provide the advertisements.10050Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister was unable to advise the Senate previously that a headhunting agency was in fact chosen to undertake this task, I now ask the minister: how much will that headhunting agency be charging for this task?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.5K4Senator FAULKNER—I ask the minister: what selection criteria has this headhunting agency been given for this job? I also ask the minister: when does she plan finally to fill the position after receiving advice from Morgan and Banks?10050Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—This position is regarded by the Howard government as a very significant and important position. Therefore, we are not trying to do anything tucked away in a corner; we want to encourage the very best women in Australia to apply for this position. We do not believe that advertisements always get to the people we might most want to hear from. In fact, when you look at the record of some of Pru Goward's predecessors, I would say that Labor was not as well served as they might have been either. Pru has done an excellent job, and we want to make sure that somebody just as good follows on—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. In my supplementary question I asked a number of specific questions in relation to the cost of Morgan and Banks undertaking this task, the selection criteria and when the minister finally plans to fill the position. Could the minister answer the supplementary question which was directed to her?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister is relevant to the answer.BE4Senator NEWMAN—As you would realise, this is an appointment in the Prime Minister's department and it is done through the Public Service. It is the decision of that department to advertise, and they will conduct the panel and the normal Public Service processes.1005010050Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. The coalition government has been very active in helping the circumstances of older Australians. I invite the minister to advise the Senate of trends in the take-up by older Australians of income stream products such as annuities and how this builds on earlier initiatives of this government.10050Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—What a delight to get an intelligent question that goes to policy.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—There are so few of them around these days.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Certainly there are very few around in this chamber today.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—An intelligent senator.BE4Senator NEWMAN—A very intelligent senator and a colleague and a friend. I am delighted. Madam President, retirees have been recognised by and been given priority under this government with tax reform and earlier initiatives of this government, and that has been recognised by retiree organisations. There has been a very favourable response from both customers and industry to the introduction of the new income stream rules.Since 20 September last year, changes to means testing rules for the pension have seen the sales of long-term income stream products increase significantly. For instance, the sales of lifetime and term annuities have increased 46 per cent in the year to June. Similarly, the sales of short-term products have declined. This is the behaviour the legislation was intended to encourage. These developments are welcomed by the government as they help to ensure that retired Australians are receiving regular secure income throughout their retirement years. The long-term security of these products is an attractive feature to many retirees, and the government welcomes the large scale take-up of the products.Since September 1998, figures have shown that the sales of long-term assets test complying products have increased markedly over the previous year. The coalition has a solid record in support of pensioners and seniors generally. The linking of pensions to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings has meant that the maximum partnered rate has increased by $11 a fortnight for each person, more than would have applied with the cost of living increases alone. Expanding the entitlement for the Commonwealth seniors health card has meant that up to 220,000 self-funded retirees are now eligible for that card for the first time.We have expanded carers' initiatives. We have introduced the pension bonus scheme. Taxpayers are able to contribute to their spouses' superannuation—which is terribly important for women in caring roles, for example. The provision of retirement savings accounts has provided flexibility for people. The health insurance rebate helps 850,000 over-65-year-olds and over 700,000 low income families. The pension payday is giving people choice and flexibility and there are now free annual health check-ups for over-75 year-olds, the majority of whom are women.A prime concern of our government is that pensioners and retirees receive their fair share of the benefits of tax reform. Pensioners and seniors will greatly benefit under tax reform from lower income tax rates and a higher tax threshold. We have abolished provisional tax, which was a Labor tax. We have abolished sales tax, another Labor tax, financial institutions duty and the bank accounts debits tax. Pensioners and low income retirees will not pay a cent of taxation until their income reaches $14,500 for a single person or $24,500 for a couple. Pensioners and retirees may be eligible for bonus payments of up to $1,000 or $3,000 respectively, depending on their income and savings.An additional 45,000 current self-funded retirees will become eligible for age pensions due to the relaxation of the pension income assets test. That gives them access to pensioner concession cards and all the associated benefits. Pensioners will be able to keep up to 60c in the dollar from their private income—that is up by 10c in the dollar. When selling that business to retire it will be free of capital gains tax—once again, Labor's tax. That all contrasts with Labor's recent appalling record and the `l-a-w law' tax cuts, which were not delivered. In fact, Labor increased taxes and older Australians will never forget it.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous100511005115:03:0010051Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have some further information for Senator Allison, who put a question to me about a proposed resolution before the General Assembly. The advice I can give her is that Australia is still considering the resolution. It includes many elements, including the proposal that states ratify the CTBT. The government can support many elements in the treaty but needs to consider the resolution as a whole. I hope the honourable senator finds the additional information helpful.1005215:03:0010052Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have some additional information for Senator West on the extension of the contract between the Commonwealth and PQ Lifestyles for the provision of CAAS. I seek leave to incorporate the information in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—The contract between the Commonwealth and the national provider of the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme (CAAS) PQ Lifestyles, which has existed since 1997, has been extended for one year until 30 June 2000.The contract with PQ Lifestyles was extended to allow the Department to conduct an evaluation of the administration of the Scheme, and to ensure that the findings of the evaluation are incorporated into the new tender requirements.The evaluation is to commence very shortly.Contractor performance prior to the decision to extend the contract was very good. The issues which arose in July this year have not been typical of previous years. I understand that they were due to high demand being exacerbated by changed subcontracting arrangements. They will be examined as part of the evaluation.A competitive tender process will be conducted prior to the expiry of the current contract with PQ Lifestyles.1005215:04:0010052Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday Senator Faulkner asked a question about magnetic resonance imaging. I have an answer for him. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—SENATOR FAULKNER asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, without notice, on 19 October 1999: 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?SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:Prior to MRI being included on the Medicare Benefits Schedule on 1 September last year, the Minister for Health and Aged Care agreed to include a series of restrictions and controls to ensure that the supply of MRI could be managed.The detail of these proposed requirements was provided to Dr Wooldridge by his Department on 7 August 1998 so that the regulations relating to the introduction of MRI could be completed.It was at this stage that the Department advised the Minister of rumours relating to speculative orders being placed prior to the Budget.It was made very clear that there were no allegations of substance, but there was a degree of rumour and innuendo.The Department advised that if a process was put into place whereby statutory declarations were required of providers, this would be one way in which to ensure only genuine orders would be eligible for rebates.The Minister agreed to implementation of such a process in order to ensure that the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) would be able to follow up any non-genuine orders.On 19 August 1998, Dr Wooldridge signed the regulations relating to the introduction of MRI, and including a requirement for the submission of statutory declarations in relation to the eligibility of equipment.This regulation set the framework allowing the HIC to review each application for eligibility and investigate where they had doubtsAs a result the HIC was in a position to follow up information they received in December 1998, and commence investigations by the HIC's investigation unit.The December anonymous information alluded to lodgement of false documents.In July of this year, the HIC advised that they had encountered difficulties relating to the procurement of evidence in respect of their investigations. Their powers under Part IID of the Health Insurance Commission Act were invoked, which means that they are able to summons information where that information is not being readily provided.The important point is that when Dr Wooldridge agreed to the implementation of the new MRI arrangements, he was determined to ensure that the HIC would be in a position to follow up any wrongdoing on the part of providers.1005315:04:0010053Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman), to questions without notice asked today.The first thing I would like to do is go to the answer that Senator Newman provided to Senator Lundy. Senator Lundy asked a pretty simple question: what was the number of women on the Howard government's advisory committees on the GST and what was the role that OSW played in relation to the ANTS package, and GST in particular? It came as no surprise to people on this side of the chamber that the minister did not know. Why would the minister not know? It is because the minister does not go to OSW estimates. In fact, in the three years that I have been in the Senate since this government has been in power, I do not think the minister has ever gone to an OSW estimates. She is always represented by Senator Hill, who I suspect does a better job than Senator Newman would.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I find it a learning experience.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—It would be more of a learning experience for Senator Newman, I suspect. That is why she didn't know. If she had gone to the estimates, what she would have known was that we asked Ms Goward, the head of OSW, precisely what involvement the OSW had with GST. Ms Goward confirmed that OSW was not formally consulted in relation to the ANTS package and GST in particular. To their credit, off their own bat, they put a submission to the government in relation to the ANTS package but they were not formally consulted. This is in relation to a piece of legislation that is probably one of the most significant over the last couple of decades.One may say, looking at the record of this government in relation to women: why would the government bother asking the OSW in relation to the ANTS package? They probably would not want to hear it. Given their record on women, why would they bother with the consultation? There is a very good reason, and that is that the Prime Minister himself issued an edict that all legislation had to be considered by the Office of the Status of Women. On the ANTS package the OSW was not given the opportunity to be consulted in relation to it or to provide feedback. I wonder why. Is it because they would not have liked what they heard or is it more the case that they forgot? I suspect they forgot to consult the Office of the Status of Women.This is extraordinary. Even some of the most unreconstructed ministers on the other side of the chamber in estimates are aware of the Prime Minister's edict that the OSW needs to be consulted. Even some of the most thin-skinned ministers are aware of it. Even Senator Macdonald was aware of it when I asked him about it in estimates.Senator Faulkner interjecting—9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I thought that was extraordinary, Senator Faulkner. However, he thought it was quite hilarious that we asked a number of questions about women in his department, including how many women there are in the SES, how many women there are on overseas trips and so on. Then we go to the fairly bizarre answer to Senator Gibbs. Clearly, Senator Newman either completely misunderstood or did not know—I am not sure—but it was clarified.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It was probably deliberate.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Probably she deliberately obfuscated, I would suggest. However, it was clarified for her by Senator Faulkner in the final question. The bottom line is that Senator Newman indicated that the ads were placed on 15 October. We knew that. But they were not placed in the newspapers by the department: they were not put in the newspapers by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They were put in by the headhunters—Morgan and Banks. Senator Newman says, `We're not about putting appointments in the back pocket. We're not about secrecy.' But I have one piece of advice for anybody who is applying for this position: don't put down that you are a member of the Women's Electoral Lobby; don't put down that you are a feminist; don't put down that you are an activist in relation to the women's movement—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Or a girl guide.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Don't put down that you're a girl guide; don't put down that you are an older woman; don't put down that your sexuality may be more out of the mainstream than the rest of society's; and don't put down that you disagree with the government. More particularly, don't put down in your CV that you disagree with this minister, because that is the ultimate sin. Senator Newman ought to start coming to OSW estimates. She ought to start getting across the issues. Senator Hill does a very adequate job, I have to say—and I would like to congratulate him—but we would like to see the minister there.It is about time there was this much-vaunted reshuffle of the frontbench that was reported in the newspapers today. I can say that there would not be many that ought to survive. There is some very good talent—again, in my view, mainly women—on the backbench of the Liberal Party. I would like to see some of them coming forward to the frontbench and pushing some of these issues for women in Australia. (Time expired)15:09:0010054Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I really feel like saying, `Phone New York and bring Robert Ray back,' because since he has been gone the questions from the rabble on the other side have deteriorated to the point where they are absolutely hopeless. There is no structure, there is nothing about policy; there is just nitpicking at the edges. That is all they can do.Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I can do without the interjections. I would ask Senator Patterson to be careful with the language she uses in describing honourable senators.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Mackay said that Senator Newman did not go to estimates. People listening would need to understand that Senator Newman is not required to be at those estimates. Senator Hill attends those estimates as the minister representing the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. But let me remind people that, when Dr Lawrence was minister for women's affairs and she had women's roundtables, she would float in at the beginning, say a few words to people and float out again. When Senator Newman became the minister for women's affairs, the roundtable commented on the fact that she stayed for the whole time. She actually stays and listens. In fact, the roundtables were set up as a mechanism for consulting in the states.Senator Newman was asked by the other side about a Beijing Plus 5 preparatory meeting in the Philippines. After the question was asked, Senator Newman received advice from DFAT that no meeting on Beijing Plus 5 was held in the Philippines that they were aware of. There was an NGO meeting on Beijing Plus 5 in Bangkok at that time. Let us ask the opposition to go back, start again, get a new questions committee and get Senator Conroy to ring Uncle Robert—Senator Ray—in New York to get his advice on questions, because the opposition has been doing abysmally since he has been away.Senator Newman was also asked a question about advertising in the disability area. We need to go back and remind the Labor Party—they need to be reminded constantly of what they did in government—that their policy was to close down what were then called sheltered workshops because they had the view that every single person in a sheltered workshop—now called a business enterprise—was capable of open employment. We had one of the most moving times in the Senate when people spoke about some of the problems associated with employing people with disabilities. Former Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen spoke about her role as patron of an organisation that runs a large number of sheltered workshops. Senator Herron got up and made a most profound speech as the father then of a young woman with a severe disability who was in a sheltered workshop.That speech shamed the Labor Party and shamed Senator Tate into demanding that the then minister, Mr Howe, do something about it. The road we were on was one of closing down sheltered workshops. It was an absolutely appalling policy. That is the sort of thing Labor did for people with disabilities. That is the sort of record they had. They had to back off and change because they were made aware by the people running what are now called business enterprises and by the parents that there was a place for employing young people with profound disabilities in an environment where they were safe and secure and could be trained and that, hopefully, some of them would move into open employment.The other thing the opposition did when it was advertising the disability reform package—and Senator Newman has been criticised about advertising on disability issues—was to give a $5 million contract to a company called Corporate Impacts. That company was balance sheet insolvent when it got the contract, but nobody did a Dun and Bradstreet check on the company. So what happened? It was a contract that was let with no lead department—Social Security, Education and Health were involved in it. It went down the drain. One of the outcomes was that little companies that employed people with disabilities did not get their money. Not only did the advertising project fail but also people with disabilities were left without money, and the information was not passed on. That is the opposition's record in government. So to come in here and criticise Senator Newman is absolutely over the top. The opposition needs to be doing something about getting some policies of its own, getting on with it, and being a decent opposition. (Time expired)15:14:0010055Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Senator Newman has well deserved the criticism after today. Today was a perfect example: a number of questions were asked of Senator Newman, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, and when she did not have a brief, she could not answer the question. When she did have a brief, she just read it off, like anyone can do when reading a speech. She was asked a number of questions today and she floundered. To a question I specifically asked her in relation to a meeting that was held overseas in the Philippines, she talked about how she had just returned from China. She told us about the Office of the Status of Women and what activities they have planned for next month. That had nothing at all to do with the question that I had asked. The question she was asked was: why did we fail to send an official to that meeting overseas? Not only that—why did we not send a female representative, as we saw with the delegation that went to the ILO conference? Who else did not send any representation to that meeting overseas? Malaysia, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Islamic Republic of Iran—not countries, with all due respect, that you would hold up on a pedestal as having an astounding record in relation to what they do for women. So we have now joined that category, have we? In relation to this minister and her portfolio, that would be right.Let us move on to Ms Goward leaving the Office of the Status of Women. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is not dealing with that recruitment; Morgan & Banks are. Let us ask ourselves this: why has Ms Goward chosen to go? Is it because the Prime Minister desperately needs a spokesperson on the Olympics? No, he has got that—he has a minister for sport. Or is it because Ms Goward said, `I'm pretty tired of the fact that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet keep changing my briefs and changing my letters, won't allow me to invite who I want to invite to the roundtable, won't allow me to have the consultations that I want to have with women in the community and won't allow me to put in place the initiatives that I want'?Is it not a fact—and members of the public may want to consider this—that in whatever Ms Goward has tried to do over the course of her employment, she has been stopped time and time again by particular people in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Is it not a last resort that—instead of resigning and causing Senator Newman the ultimate embarrassment—she has been offered another sweetener by the Prime Minister? So I dangle that idea for people of the public and for people in the press gallery to contemplate. She is a strong person—why has she not been able to have the influence that the head of the Office of the Status of Women ought to have?Why do we not have a Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women who is able to represent women across the board? How do women from a non-English speaking background now feed in their concerns to this government? They do not get funding; they have not been invited to the roundtable. How do people from the Justice Coalition or from women's legal centres survive? How do people who are running community based organisations such as the Girl Guides, who have had their funding reduced from $50,000 to $20,000, feel? In the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which was tabled last week, we saw that around 50 to 60 organisations were invited to the roundtable last year, and this year we see that there are only going to be 20 and a certain number of individuals. Hand-picked by whom? By Jocelyn Newman? By the Prime Minister? By the Office of the Status of Women? That is yet to be revealed, and we may never know the answer to that.In closing, one thing I want to say in relation to the performance of this minister is that the National Council of Women was one of the three organisations that received funding to establish a secretariat, but it does not have a presence in the Northern Territory, the electorate which I represent. What kind of research was undertaken to ensure that women right around this country—not just those on the eastern seaboard—are represented and share in the money that is dished out to women's organisations? The YWCA and the BPW in the Northern Territory have a base in Darwin only. So rural and remote women of this country miss out once more, but it is not surprising under this minister. It is what women of Australia have come to expect, and they do not like it. They do not like the fact that they are being marginalised, being si lenced and do not have the opportunity to be listened to by this government.15:19:0010056Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—In rising to speak on this taking note of answers, I want to refer briefly to the comments made by those on the other side in relation to Senator Newman's participation, particularly in the estimates on the Office of the Status of Women. As a member, for example, of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I spend—as Madam Deputy President West does—hours and hours in those estimates hearings, more often than not with Senator Newman in her capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Any suggestion whatsoever that she does not do her job, that she does not fulfil her role in that regard, is one which I would absolutely reject and which should be rejected. It is a very unfortunate reflection on the minister and on my colleague the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, who does an extraordinarily good job in that role in the Office of the Status of Women estimates, in particular in his capacity as a former shadow minister in that very portfolio. So it cannot be said that he is without skills or experience in that regard.Speakers opposite have addressed this afternoon the role of the Office of the Status of Women. There are a couple of points that I want to make in relation to this government's achievements and initiatives for women—in which the OSW has played a significant role—and I think it is important that those are on the record. Let us talk very briefly about those in the general economic area first. There is no regard whatsoever paid to the $13 billion of income tax cuts, and increased assistance to families to the extent of $2½ billion is completely ignored. That benefit to women is completely ignored by those opposite.Let me refer briefly to some health measures which I have spoken about in this chamber before. What about the special measures for women's health which have included $8.2 million for a fly-in-fly-out female general practitioner service for rural Australia—for some of the very areas that Senator Crossin was just referring to? There is also an extra $4.1 million for specialised health care for women diagnosed with breast cancer and a further $8.1 million for the National Breast Cancer Centre—in fact, I think next week is National Breast Cancer Week. These are achievements and initiatives of this government for Australian women which are worth recording and noting for the record.Under this government, women's participation in paid work is recognised as vital to their economic security. Around 64 per cent of working age women participate in the paid labour force. Since the government took office in 1996, employment for women has increased by almost 260,000 from March of that year, an increase of 7.2 per cent. In August of this year, just a couple of months ago, the unemployment rate for women reached seven per cent, its lowest level since 1990. These are figures which ought to be on the record and should be recognised by those opposite as important figures for women in the community.One of the programs that I have referred to previously in the chamber is the $22.4 million for the Return to Work Program for people—mainly women in this particular component—who are seeking to return to the work force after an absence for two or more years due to parenting or caring responsibilities. This is an important support initiative. It recognises that people who are out of the work force for a particular period of time may need some support at re-entry, whether it is in training or in development of skills to actually go through the job interview process. All of those elements are there and are being supported by the government in the Return to Work Program. But is there any acknowledgment of that from the other side? None whatsoever.The Work and family state of play report has provided more solid evidence of the success of the government's efforts in promoting more family friendly workplaces. About 67 per cent of certified agreements and 79 per cent of AWAs approved under the Workplace Relations Act now include one or more family friendly measures. We have recently reviewed the operation of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act to ensure that it operates more effectively for both women and business. In relation to search issues, which have been raised in the chamber today, the government remains committed to increasing diversity amongst Australian decision makers. We have extended the Executive Search Pilot Program and what is known as the early warning system initiatives for Commonwealth boards and provided funding towards the National Women's Leadership Project to promote women onto private sector boards. These are all important initiatives and these are all components of the government's efforts in relation to our achievements and initiatives for women, and all should have greater recognition than they have received from those opposite.15:24:0010057Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Senator Gibbs asked perhaps the most significant question asked today in this debate, and it was later followed up by Senator Faulkner. Both those people asked about the basis upon which the person who will run the Office of the Status of Women is going to be chosen. Clearly, this side of the chamber is very concerned to ensure that that person is chosen according to criteria that will best serve not only the women of Australia but people in Australia generally. You have to understand that when we talk about women of Australia we are talking about citizens, and very vital citizens, whether they be women in their nineties who live alone, who have raised a family and who have now become great-grandmothers; whether they be women who have raised a family but are still working hard in various professions and in various jobs and professions, performing well in those roles; or whether they be younger women who adorn our sports fields or work in offices or run companies.There is a whole spread of women, and I would have thought that the person who is going to fill the office that looks after that range of people is very important and that the selection should not be left to Morgan and Banks. I am not big on people who specialise in getting people employed. It seems extraordinary to me that a government is not in a position to know exactly what it wants in terms of the person who is going to look after the interests of women. Why would you go off to a firm like Morgan and Banks? Who are Morgan and Banks? What are the criteria that have been given to Morgan and Banks for them to test? I have always had great problems with getting people selected to positions by some company that holds out an expertise. For example, Senator Susan Ryan adorned the Senate when we were down the hill. Senator Hill will remember Senate Ryan well. If Senator Ryan were still here, this is a job she would undertake personally because she would attach a great deal of importance to it.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I thought that for an ALP minister she was very able.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator Hill said she was able. I think he might have put a condition on that, but I am sure he does not mean the condition to be in any way derogatory, because she was an outstanding member of this chamber and I think among the first women in this country to be a minister.In any event, the point I want to make is this. The government should have gone about the choice of this office as an exercise of the greatest importance. Senator Faulkner would bear this out, and so would Senator Hill. I do not think for one moment that the Prime Minister when he is choosing his cabinet goes off to Morgan and Banks. Perhaps he does. Perhaps the people in the party room are interviewed by Morgan and Banks to see whether or not they should have a ministry! If the Prime Minister and his office do not go off to Morgan and Banks to choose the ministry, why does the Prime Minister go off there to choose a person of almost equal importance, I would suggest, that is, the person who is going to look after the various concerns that women may have? As I say, there is such a wide range of women who work hard trying to bring up their children, whether they be women on the factory floor, women who work in the shop or professional women. Across that broad range of people, they need to be properly cared for, and the person who is going to be in charge of the Prime Minister's concern for them should be chosen according to proper criteria and should be chosen by the Prime Minister and by the cabinet itself. That is what should happen. I think Morgan and Banks should butt out and others should come in. (Time expired)15:29:0010058Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—Speaking generally, I believe this government has delivered on its commitments to enhance opportunities for Australian women through strong economic growth, tax reform and better and simpler assistance for families and those in need. As for everyone else in Australia, for women—particularly as they are often the carers for families—it is very important that the economy be strong and doing very well. Senator Payne outlined what this government has done in terms of the economy, tax concessions and an extra $2½ billion in assistance to families. That is very important. I will mention just a couple of other things and then get on to the broader issue. Women also benefit from measures to increase support in relationship education for families.Senator Carr interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr!84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Let me address Senator Carr's problem. Let me do that right now. There is an unfortunate ideological subtext for a lot of what the Australian Labor Party does. Let me get into that. Labor believes that real women are left wing, that real women do not vote Liberal—that's right, isn't it?—and that feminists, you see, have got to vote Labor.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Mason, you might like to address the chair, thank you.Senator Carr interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I will have order.84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Madam Deputy President, that is the unfortunate subliminal, ideological subtext of the Left—absolutely irrelevant. Of course, Labor believes that real women do not believe in equality of opportunity. Real women, according to the ALP, believe in equality of outcomes and quotas, including those for places in parliament. That is right: that is what it believes in. Real women, according to the ALP, believe in quotas. That is what the ALP believes in.Also, apparently, real women do not believe in mutual obligation. Real women, according to the ALP, do not believe in mutual obligation: they simply treat the state as the ever-weaning teat, as I mentioned the other day in taking note. That is what the Labor Party believes: real women have to be left wing. Fortunately, in the history of this Commonwealth most women have voted for the coalition. The women have done very, very well.And the funny thing is that the great keenness with which the Labor Party talk about women is only directed towards women that vote Labor or are in the Labor Party. The greatest female politician of this century in the Western world was a conservative, and they would not acknowledge her: Mrs Thatcher, who changed the—Senator Carr interjecting—84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—That is right: absolutely destroyed the Left and made the Labor Party move to the third way because they were so irrelevant. She did that, and they should be applauding women in politics. You know what: most women vote for the conservative side and most of them represent the conservative side, and that is the difference.Senator Carr interjecting—84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Yes, because remember: real women on your side are left wing. Isn't that right, Senator? Real women are left wing—that is what they believe. The ALP are very big on talk but very poor on outcomes and great on rhetoric but never on anything else. If they really believed in women in politics, they would parade Mrs Thatcher as a marvellous outcome, having thrashed the Left.In addition, the government has also released the national family strategy, which focuses on the need for social coalition, because the Labor Party do not believe in social coalitions; they simply believe in the state providing. The state loves you somehow—that is what they believe, but we do not believe in that. This government has also given around $20 million for respite support for carers of younger people with profound and severe disabilities, and an extra $8.2 million for carers of dementia sufferers. But I would like to conclude on this: the subliminal text of the ALP is that real women vote Labor. Real women vote Liberal and most have in the history of this country, and we support them—as outlined by Senator Payne and Senator Newman.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices1005910059Senator Allison to move, on 23 November 1999:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2000:(a) an examination of current standard setting for telecommunications equipment in Australia, including the role of government, industry, consumers, public health authorities and research;(b) the effectiveness of current standards, public information and product labelling in protecting public health in relation to: (i) electromagnetic emissions (EME) and exposures from electrical power distribution systems in residential areas, and (ii) EME and exposures from telecommunications products, including but not limited to the radiofrequency emissions from mobile phones;(c) the adequacy of current funding for research into EME, possible sources of funding and a review of the Commonwealth's fund of $4.5 million for research and public information;(d) the current status of the World Health Organization examination of studies on health risks associated with exposure to EME;(e) an examination of currently available research into the health risks of EME, with particular reference to whether growing children, the aged, the sick, and the genetically susceptible are threatened by such exposures; and(f) any other associated matters.Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on the operation of the Australian Taxation Office be extended to 25 November 1999.Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the economic, social and political conditions in East Timor be extended to 30 March 2000.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on 25 November 1999:That the amendments to standing orders 76(1) and 67, adopted as temporary orders on 29 April 1999 and as sessional orders on 30 June 1999 and relating to the giving of notices of motion and the postponement of business, be adopted as standing orders with effect from 1 January 2000.15:34:0010060Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move that the following delegated legislation, a list of which I shall hand to the Clerk, be disallowed.The list read as follows—1. Health Insurance Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 5) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 176 and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973 .2. Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 171 and made under the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act 1984 .3. National Health Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 4) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 174 and made under the National Health Act 1953 .2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the Committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Health Insurance Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.5) Statutory Rules 1999 No.176Item 1 of the Schedule adds seven item numbers which, if requested by oral and maxillofacial surgeons, will be within the Medicare Benefits Schedule. These changes take effect from 1 September 1999. The Explanatory Statement, however, suggests that these amendments are the correction of an oversight, which occurred when the Diagnos tic Imaging Services Table was amended from 1 March 1999. It would appear, therefore, that there has been a period of six months when dental practitioners could not claim for such services.National Health Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.4) Statutory Rules 1999 No.174The amendment made by item 3 of the Schedule changes the benefit arrangements for private health insurance funds participating in the South Australian Psychiatric Patient Trial. The Explanatory Statement advises that there will no longer be a minimum benefit payable, but `participating funds and facilities will be able to agree a benefit level which does not exceed the daily fees and charges incurred'. Thus, it would appear that this item replaces a minimum level of benefit with one that is described in terms of the possible maximum level of benefit. This may not be sufficiently precise to ensure that patients are adequately covered for such treatments.Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1) Statutory Rules 1999 No.171The Regulations omit the offices of the Privacy Commissioner and the Director of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and set the annual rate of remuneration for the office of the Australian Electoral Commissioner.The Explanatory Statement advises that the amendment made by item 1 in the Schedule removes the reference to the Privacy Commissioner from the Principal Regulations, as from 11 January 1999. However, that Statement does not explain why the Regulations are no longer to provide for the payment of remuneration of the Privacy Commissioner, nor why the removal of that office from the Regulations was done retrospectively.Senator Chris Evans to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that there are serious concerns about the integrity of the process that led to the decision of the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Dr Wooldridge) to extend Medicare funding to magnetic resonance imaging machines; and(b) requires that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Senator Herron), no later than 3 pm on 22 November 1999, documents containing the following information: (i) the dates on which each contract for a magnetic resonance imaging machine is purported to have been signed prior to the 1998 Budget deadline of 12 May 1998 but, because there is an ongoing Health Insurance Commission investigation, the Senate does not seek any identifying information about these contracts, merely the dates they were claimed to have been signed, (ii) minutes of all meetings between the Department of Health and Aged Care officers and representatives of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists during the period 10 February 1998 to 31 May 1998, and (iii) copies of all advice provided by the department to the Minister on the radiology agreement and the extension of a Medicare rebate for magnetic resonance imaging services.Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the examination of developments in contemporary Japan and the implications for Australia be extended to 30 March 2000.Senator Bourne to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Indonesian Parliament voted on the evening of 19 October 1999 to annul the 1978 decree incorporating East Timor as the 27th province of Indonesia, and (ii) East Timor will now move to become an independent state under the auspices of the United Nations; and(b) congratulates: (i) the East Timorese people on this important step towards a peaceful, prosperous and independent future, and (ii) the new Indonesian Parliament on carrying out its obligations under the 5 May 1999 agreement between the United Nations, Indonesia and Portugal.Senator Chris Evans to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) The following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 1999: Proposals for changes to the welfare system contained in the document referred to in the orders of the Senate of 30 September 1999 and 13 October 1999, and the compilation and treatment of that document, together with the documents referred to in the order of the Senate of 19 October 1999.(2) The Senate directs: (a) the committee to hold a public hearing on 12 November 1999, and on such other days as are necessary to conclude the hearing on this matter; and (b) officers of the Department of Family and Community Services, who appeared at the estimates hearing of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on 2 June 1999 to appear at the hearings of the committee referred to in (a) to give evidence on this matter.(3) For the purpose of the hearings referred to in (2), three members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.Senator Forshaw to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes that:(1) surfing is a recreation and sport enjoyed by and participated in by many thousands of young and not so young Australians;(2) many Australians have been successful in the sport of surfing thus promoting our image and reputation both in Australia and around the world as well as helping to develop a successful surfing industry in Australia;(3) Mark Occhilupo has just won the world professional surfing title; and(4) congratulates Mark Occhilupo on his great achievement, on his personal determination to succeed and his dedication and contribution to surfing for over 20 years.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I would draw senators' attention to the sessional orders in relation to the giving of notices of motion.Notice subsequently ruled out of order by the President pursuant to standing order 76.Committees10061100611006115:38:0010061Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—At the request of Senator Calvert, I present the 18th report of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 18 OF 19991. The Committee met on 19 October 1999.2. The committee resolved to recommend-(a) That the provisions of the following bill be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateAustralian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional6 December 1999(b) That the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateDiesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics30 November 1999Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics30 November 1999(c) That the following bills not be referred to committees:. A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999. Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999. Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999.The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 12 October 1999). A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999. Crimes at Sea Bill 1999. Electoral Amendment (Optional Preferential Voting) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 19 October 1999). Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 10) 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999 . Tradex Duty Imposition (Excise) Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999. Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 [No. 2]4. The committee considered a proposal to refer the Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 (see appendix 4) , agreed to recommend that the bill should be referred to the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services but did not reach a decision on the reporting date.Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration. fundamentally alters the employment regime for the AFP. extensively re-writes the AFP Act—repealing many provisions which set out employment standards and guarantees. principal issues—accountability of Commissioner's decisions; mechanisms for review; repeal of provisions relating to promotions, maternity leave and other standards of employment; unclear operation of Workplace Relations Act.Possible submission or evidence from:Australian Federal Police AssociationCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) :Possible reporting date : 6 December 1999Appendix 2Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill : Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Definition of journeys which qualify for grant; record keeping requirements; new powers for the Tax CommissionerPossible submission or evidence from:Road Transport Forum; Australia Truckers Association; Transport Workers Union; interested businesses operating in the transport industryCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s): 19 November 1999Possible reporting date: 1 December 1999Appendix 3Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill : Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Impact on forestry of government's diesel rebate proposals and arrangements with the Australian Democrats to facilitate passage of the GST legislationPossible submission or evidence from:National Association of Forest Industries; environmental groups; other interested stakeholdersCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s): 19 November 1999 Possible reporting date: 1 December 1999Appendix 4Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill :Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Impact of this bill on consumer protection, disclosures and regulation of superannuation and life insurance products, sellers and advisersPossible submission or evidence from:FPA, ASFA, IFSA, IFS, ASCPA, Life Agents Action Group, AMP, AXA, Colonial Life, Australian Consumers AssociationCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial ServicesPossible hearing date(s): between 15 November 1999 and 26 November 1999Possible reporting date: 9 December 19992M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I move:That the report be adopted.Amendment (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:Add the words "and, in respect of the Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999, the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services report on 22 November 1999.".15:39:0010063O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The opposition does not oppose the amendment moved but I would make the point that it was my understanding that the government would inquire as to the ability of the secretariat of the committee to deal with their duties in relation to the proposed reporting date in conjunction with the other duties which they have.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Senator Ian Campbell interjects across the chamber that that has now been done, but I make the point that I was not aware that that had been done until I heard that interjection. It is noted that the chair and deputy chair of the committee are not available until a date a week before the reporting date, but it is the expectation that a hearing date in that available week will permit the committee to consider the matter and to report on the proposed date. For those reasons, the opposition will be supporting the amendment and, obviously, the motion to adopt the report.15:40:0010064Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I had indirectly presumed that the deputy chairman had informed you. That is just a small breakdown. I think there is goodwill all around on this issue and I thank the opposition for their cooperation.Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Notices1006410064Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 345 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Macdonald), postponed till 21 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 353 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to Kosovars currently in Australia, postponed till 21 October 1999.General business notice of motion no. 359 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, postponed till 21 October 1999.Committees100641006410064Motion (by Senator Coonan, at the request of Senator Crane) agreed to: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. Bills10064s23310064Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901 to prohibit the importation of radioactive substances for storage in Australia.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1006415:43:0010064Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Overwhelmingly, the Australian community and political parties reject proposals to dump the world's nuclear waste in Australia. Yet Pangea Resources—whose dominant shareholder is the British Government-owned British Nuclear Fuels—continues to plan just that.Pangea is targeting South Australia or Western Australia as the site for underground disposal of tens of thousands of tonnes of high and intermediate level waste from nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons around the world. It would be transported by ship and rail to be buried in a network of underground catacombs.This bill will stop Pangea, or any similar proposals.It closes a loophole in the Customs Act which would have allowed a future government to approve imports of nuclear waste from overseas, for disposal in Australia, without reference to parliament. The ban does not apply to waste originating from nuclear activities in Australia, recognising our obligation to dispose of the waste we create ourselves—mostly from the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.Passing this bill will give legislative backing to the community's rejection of the Pangea plan.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Miscellaneous10064Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous10065Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to: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.Committees10065100651006515:44:0010065O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 17th report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 17 of 1999, dated 20 October 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.100651006515:45:0010065Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Calvert and the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present report No. 11 of 1999, entitled Refurbishment of 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report and to incorporate Senator Calvert's tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The statement read as follows—Madam President, the report which I have just tabled concerns the proposed refurbishment of No 4 Treasury Place in Melbourne.4 Treasury Place is a Commonwealth-owned building located on the corner of Treasury Place and Lansdowne Street , Melbourne. It fronts the historic Treasury Gardens to the south and Fitzroy Gardens to the east.The building is part of Melbourne's Treasury Reserve heritage precinct which comprises a group of public buildings, dating from 1858, which are of national significance in their own right.It was the first purpose built Federal building and was designed by the Commonwealth Architect, John Smith Murdoch, who is publicly best known as the designer of the Provisional Parliament House in Canberra.It was constructed in two stages, between 1911 and 1913.Construction materials used in the buildings are also significant. It was one of the first reinforced concrete framed buildings constructed in Melbourne. It has brick walls, finished with stucco externally and plaster internally. The original pitched roofs are clad with slate.The building is also notable for its association with the Offices of the Prime Minister and Governor-General who have been occupants to offices in the building since 1912.Accordingly, both because of its historic role during the early years of Federation and its location in the Treasury Precinct, it is considered by heritage authorities to be one of the most significant heritage properties listed on the Register of the National Estate.The building has been used continuously for Ministerial and Parliamentary office accommodation since 1913.It currently provides office and Cabinet room accommodation for Victorian based Federal Parliamentary tenants. At present there are six Ministers and a Parliamentary Secretary accommodated in the building. There is also accommodation for visiting Ministers including the Prime Minister. The current Governor-General and two former Governors-General, and some departmental staff.The extent of the proposed refurbishment includes repair of the render work and application of new finishes, demolition of the non-original fourth-floor additions, restoration of the slate roofs, replacement of all building services and refurbishment of amenities throughout the building.The aim of the refurbishment is to restore and protect this valuable heritage asset while providing the building tenants with an efficient and safe working environment with reduced building operational costs.The level of disruption associated with the proposed building works necessitates the relocation of tenants to alternative accommodation for the duration of the refurbishment works.The proposed refurbishment works are expected to take about 14 months, and the official opening of the refurbished building will form an important part of the Centenary of Federation celebrations in Melbourne early in the year 2001.When referred to the Committee, the estimated cost of the proposed work was $15.8 million.During the Committee's inquiry, the cost estimate was increased by $2 million. The proposed refurbishment is now estimated to cost $17.8 million.The Committee's report recommends the refurbishment should proceed.The Committee has concluded that: . Whilst the building appears structurally sound, there is a need to refurbish the interior and exterior.. Internally, the building's finishes and services are showing signs of disrepair and have reached the end of their economic lives.. Externally, the building requires extensive restoration and the removal of extensions and roof repairs.. The proposed internal and external works are extensive and can be justified to preserve the building and to provide office accommodation of a suitable standard.Occupation of the building during the refurbishment period is impractical given the extensive nature of the works to be undertaken. Suitable temporary accommodation for existing tenants has been located at Casselden Place, at the corner of Lonsdale and Spring Streets. The cost of this accommodation is included in the project's budget.The proposal includes refurbishment of the basement which contains the first Treasury vault. It is planned to lease the basement as a resource or interpretation centre. The Committee noted the proposed design of emergency evacuation from the basement.The Committee has concluded and recommended that:. The building certifiers have confirmed that emergency egress from the basement will be the subject of a dispensation from the Building Code of Australia. However, the Committee believes that emergency evacuation of basement occupants should be accorded the highest priority and that the suitability of the basement as a public resource or interpretation centre should be investigated further. The views of the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigades should be sought before final plans are developed for the basement.The internal refurbishment of the buildings services and systems will be extensive. The Committee has concluded that:. The scope and design of building services and systems are appropriate for the operation of the building subject to basement emergency evacuation requirements being satisfactorily addressed.The building is listed on the Register of the National Estate,administered by the Australian Heritage Commission, which raised a number of concerns with the Committee. The Committee shares these concerns and has therefore requested that it:. be provided with continuing advice and information about ongoing discussions between the Department of Finance and Administration and the Commission to ensure that all options are properly explored to maintain the heritage aspects of the building.Madam President, I commend the report to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.1006710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Economics Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Allison for the consideration of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 Substitute members: Senator Sherry to replace Senator Murphy from 22 November to 3 December 1999 Senator Greig to replace Senator Murray for the consideration of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999Economics References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Sherry to replace Senator Murphy from 22 November to 3 December 1999Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator MurphyForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee— Participating member: Senator Murphy Substitute member: Senator Murphy to replace Senator West on 25 October 1999 for the committee's inquiry into the proposed sale of Australian Defence Industries Ltd to Transfield Thomson-CSFRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Calvert to replace Senator Ferris for the committee's inquiry into the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmonTreaties—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed: Senator Stott Despoja Discharged: Senator Bourne. Bills10067r854Billsr85310067Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.1006715:47:0010067Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—FEDERAL MAGISTRATES BILL 1999It is with great pleasure that I present the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999. The Bill will establish the Federal Magistrates Court, also to be known as the Federal Magistrates Service, as a court under Chapter III of the Constitution. The Government is committed to providing all Australians with user-friendly, affordable options for resolving their disputes. The Federal Magistrates Service is an important step towards realising that goal. As members would be aware, the High Court of Australia was established by the Constitution in 1901. Since then, the Federal Parliament has established a number of superior courts, including the Family Court and the Federal Court, but it has never created a lower level court.While the Commonwealth judicial structure has served Australia well, the changes that have occurred in Australian society over recent years have lead to an increased range of matters coming before the Commonwealth courts. Many of these matters are not complex and do not need to be dealt with by superior court judges. Federal and Family Court judges are increasingly tied up dealing with matters that could be dealt with more efficiently at a lower level. The need for a court which can handle less complex federal matters more efficiently and effectively is now pressing. It is appropriate that, on the cusp of the new millennium, this Parliament takes the next step of establishing a new, lower level, Commonwealth court.The Federal Magistrates Service will comprise federal magistrates, who will be justices as required under the Constitution. The Federal Magistrates will be selected for their expertise in federal matters, including family law, and will deal with a range of matters of a less complex nature that are currently dealt with by the Federal and Family Courts. The Federal Magistrates Service is intended to provide a quicker, cheaper option for litigants and to ease the workload of both the Federal Court and the Family Court. When fully established, it will free up the Federal and Family Courts to focus on the more complex matters that require the attention of a superior court judge.The Government proposes that the federal magistrates develop a new culture, with an emphasis on user-friendly, streamlined procedures. This will be especially important for litigants who do not have legal representation. The Federal Magistrates Service will be as informal as possible, while remaining consistent with the discharge of judicial functions. This change of culture could not be achieved by appointing more judges to the existing courts. Nor would simply appointing more judges solve the problem of the waste of judicial resources which occurs as a result of superior court judges dealing with less complex maters that could be dealt with efficiently at a lower level.The appointment of more registrars to hear more lower level matters in the Family and Federal Courts has been suggested as a solution to the delays in the courts, and has been adopted as a stop-gap measure in the Family Court. However there are significant limits on the matters which such officers of the courts can handle without running into constitutional problems. In addition, any review of a registrar's decision must involve a full re-hearing of the case before a judge. This significantly adds to the costs for parties and does not promote an efficient use of the court's time. Unlike registrars, federal magistrates will be able to make final decision in all matters within their jurisdiction and appeals against their decisions will not require a full rehearing but rather will focus on questions of law.The Government is keen to ensure that the procedures of the new Federal Magistrates Service are as streamlined and informal as practicable. Obviously, it will be up to the Federal Magistrates Service itself to make its own Rules, which will largely determine issues of practice and procedure. However, the legislation will include provisions designed to assist the Federal Magistrates Service to develop procedures that are as simple and efficient as possible. Under the provisions of this Bill: . the Court will have the power to set time limits for witnesses and to limit the length of both written and oral submissions;. discovery and interrogatories will be permitted only if the Court considers that they are appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice;. the Court can make a decision without an oral hearing with the consent of the parties;. there will be more emphasis on delivering decisions orally in appropriate cases, rather than parties having to wait for reserved judgments; and. there will be a power to make Rules to allow federal magistrates to give reasons in a shortened form in appropriate cases.The Government wishes the Federal Magistrates Service to have the flexibility to tailor its practice and procedures to the particular circumstances before it.Some Federal Magistrates will be permanently located in regional areas. In addition, Federal Magistrates will be able to travel to hear cases in centres other than those in which Federal Magistrates are permanently based, and will have the ability to sit anywhere in Australia. This need not necessarily be in a formal court room. The Federal Magistrates Service will be able to use video and audio conferencing facilities for remote witnesses and parties, and will be able to adapt its procedures to suit the parties and the individual case.There are often cases where parties live in different towns or even different States. Use of video links will alleviate the problem of parties having to travel long distances to attend directions hearings or final hearings of their cases. This will save individuals significant time and money.The Government is concerned that Australians from all walks of life should be able to access the court system when their circumstances require it. Measures such as these should help to facilitate this, particularly for those in regional Australia.In addition to providing greater access to the court for regional Australians, the Federal Magistrates Service will complement the Government's initiatives aimed at encouraging people to resolve disputes through primary dispute resolution, rather than through litigation.The Federal Magistrates Service will able to call on a range of means to resolve disputes. There will be no automatic assumption that every matter will end in a contested hearing, and the use of conciliation, counselling and mediation will be strongly encouraged in appropriate cases. Parties will be encouraged to take responsibility for resolving their dispute themselves, where this is practical. This approach is more likely to result in a more endur ing resolution of a dispute because the parties are more likely to accept agreed outcomes.The Federal Magistrates Service will be able to use community-based counselling and mediation services as well as the existing counselling and mediation services of the Family Court, providing as wide as possible a choice for clients of the Court.Information about a range of dispute resolution options will be available from the Federal Magistrates Service. Parties to a dispute will be able to obtain information about or referral to primary dispute resolution services even before filing an application with the Federal Magistrates Service. It is hoped that this will enable parties to avoid avoiding the need for the court to resolve the dispute. The federal magistrates will also encourage parties who have filed applications to attempt to resolve their dispute using appropriate dispute resolution processes.The National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee has provided advice on use of alternative dispute resolution in the Federal Magistrates Service. Its recommendations have been taken into account in the drafting of the legislation and will be very helpful in assisting the Federal Magistrates Service to develop procedures to make optimum use of primary dispute resolution.As I have said, the Government is concerned to ensure that all Australians have appropriate access to the court system. As well as the measures I have already mentioned, such as video links, the Federal Magistrates Service will improve access through its:. user-friendly procedures and less formal judicial culture; and. lower fees.These measures should help to reduce legal costs and expenses and result in litigants saving both time and money.As I have already indicated, the Federal Magistrates Service is intended to help ease the existing workload of the Family Court and Federal Court. It is not intended to take away federal work currently performed by State and Territory courts. The Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 will give the Federal Magistrates Service its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction will be concurrent with that of the Family Court and the Federal Court—there will not be any jurisdiction which is solely that of the Federal Magistrates Service. Where more complex matters are filed in the Federal Magistrates Service, there will be provisions for enabling them to be transferred to the Federal Court or the Family Court (whichever has jurisdiction). Similarly, there will be provisions for transfer from the superior courts to the Federal Magistrates Service of less complex matters within the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service.It is intended that the Federal Magistrates Service will use the infrastructure of the existing courts to the extent practical in order to minimise costs. This may include accommodation, court rooms, some administrative staff, video conferencing equipment, library and other facilities. It is also planned that the Federal Magistrates Service will use the registry services of Family and Federal Courts whenever practical. This will ensure the most efficient use of resources.The registrars of the existing courts are also likely to be used by the Federal Magistrates Service to perform similar functions to those they presently carry out for the Federal Court and the Family Court.The establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service is an exciting new development, which will provide a cost effective means of helping to ease current delays and enable more effective use of expensive judicial resources. It will provide a more user-friendly option for parties to less complex matters and should also allow the Federal Court and the Family Court to concentrate on more complex cases.It is intended that the Federal Magistrates Service place an emphasis on assisting parties to take responsibility for resolving their own disputes, when this is practicable, using alternative dispute resolution methods such as conciliation, mediation and counselling. Where this is not possible, the Federal Magistrates Service should be able to deal with matters before it with a less formal and more streamlined manner, to ensure that matters are dealt with as expeditiously and cheaply as possible.The Government is keen to ensure that ordinary Australians are provided with suitable access the justice system according to their needs and within their means. The establishment of the new Federal Magistrates Service is an important step towards achieving that goal.FEDERAL MAGISTRATES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1999This Bill is part of a package with the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999, which will establish the Federal Magistrates Court, also to be known as the Federal Magistrates Service. The Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill provides the Federal Magistrates Service with its jurisdiction and makes other minor consequential amendments to a number of Acts. As the lower level of Commonwealth court, the Federal Magistrates Service will take on a range of less complex matters which are currently heard by the Federal and Family Courts. It is not intended that the Federal Magistrates Service will take away federal work currently performed by State and Territory courts.Its jurisdiction will be concurrent with that of the Family Court and the Federal Court—there will not be any jurisdiction which is solely that of the Federal Magistrates Service. Where more complex matters are filed in the Federal Magistrates Service, there will be provisions for enabling them to be transferred to the Federal or Family Court (whichever has jurisdiction). Similarly, there will be provisions for transfer from the superior courts to the Federal Magistrates Service of less complex matters within the Federal Magistrates Service's jurisdiction.Looking first at jurisdiction in matters currently dealt with by the Federal Court, the Federal Magistrates Service will have jurisdiction to hear:. applications under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977;. appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which are transferred by the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Service;. matters arising under the Bankruptcy Act 1966;. applications under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, if and when the Human Rights Amendment Bill (No 1) 1998 is enacted;. matters arising under Divisions 1 and 1A of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974, being the consumer protection provisions; and. matters under s127 and Part XA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996;The main areas of family law in which the Federal Magistrates Service will have jurisdiction are:. applications for dissolution of marriage;. family law property disputes where the property in dispute is worth less than $300,000, or where the property in dispute is worth more than this where all parties consent to the matter being heard by a federal magistrate;. parenting orders providing for the residence of a child, again, where the parties consent to a federal magistrate hearing the matter; and. parenting orders providing for other matters such as contact, maintenance and specific issues, whether or not the parties consent to a federal magistrate hearing the matter.The Federal Magistrates Service will also have jurisdiction under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. The establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service will provide a more user-friendly option for parties to the matters within its jurisdiction and will also allow the Federal Court and the Family Court to concentrate on more complex cases.The establishment of this new lower level Commonwealth court with concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court and the Family Court will provide the Australian community with an affordable and accessible option for resolving disputes and will continue the Government's commitment to encouraging people, where possible, to resolve disputes themselves without resort to costly litigation.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of the summer sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills10070r71710070Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to amendments Nos 1 to 16 and 18 to 27 inclusive made by the Senate and disagreeing with amendment No. 17 and requesting the reconsideration of the amendment disagreed to by the House.Ordered that consideration of the message in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills10070r87910070Debate resumed.15:48:0010070Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The fact that we are debating a further issue in relation to higher education is probably unfortunate for the government this week. The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 places the Labor Party in somewhat of a dilemma. While we need to approve the passage of this bill for the necessary funding it will provide to the universities in the coming 12 months, we are reluctant to support at this stage any view or any action that this government is taking in relation to higher education. The government has been reluctant to put this bill on the Notice Paper for most of the year, and it would be even more reluctant to do so today after the events of the last fortnight.Let me say in my opening remarks that in the last 10 days we have witnessed an outrageous attack on the higher education sector in this country. We have seen attacks on the universities' autonomy and attacks on the relationship between staff and students about who is going to pay for higher education in this country as opposed to it being a public benefit committed to and funded by the federal government. Not only does it reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of higher education by this minister but also the events of the last fortnight have highlighted exactly what path the minister has wanted to take higher education down ever since he took over the reins from the former minister, Senator Vanstone, who did not exactly sprinkle the sector with the wonderful wealth that this country ought to invest in the higher education sector and who was relegated to a less senior position in cabinet. There are probably many people who would join with me in suggesting that that is exactly where Dr Kemp should head after his absolutely outrageous attempt to try to hide his agenda for higher education. But he was caught out.The government are now backing away at 1,000 miles an hour but, like their policy of the `never-ever' GST, this is going to be the `never-ever' policy in respect of higher education—deregulation of fees, vouchers for use in public and private institutions, a universal loans scheme with a real interest rate and an attack on the industrial relations environment, which is still on the agenda. The government are pedalling backwards at 1,000 miles an hour in the media, in the House and in this chamber simply because they have been caught out. If we had not been given the information that was contained in the cabinet submission—a document that was developed at the request of cabinet—it would still be in the government's back pocket. The government would throw it on the table, probably hoping to implement it well before the next federal election.Let us have a look at some of the proposals and myths surrounding what the government are attempting to do. One myth that the government would lay before the community is that the deregulation of fees would have helped to meet the unmet student demand. Dr Kemp, in fact, is saying that the unmet demand will be met by lifting limits on the number of places that the universities can offer. The key is that any extra places will have to be full fee paying places. The government have not proposed to increase the number of publicly subsidised places, you would notice, in the last fortnight, except possibly as a sweetener in the short term. In fact, since the coalition were elected, demand for university places has actually fallen by 4.4 per cent in 1997 and by 4.1 per cent in 1998. The fall in demand among mature age students is around 10 per cent. The reason for the fall in demand is simply the increased cost.The government will probably say that what they have done is throw extra money into the higher education bucket. But the reality is that you lower the threshold for HECS, and that is how that additional money has been made up—students have paid the additional money. It has certainly not come out of the public purse. They will probably say that they are increasing opportunities for students. The only opportunities will be for those who can pay. The coalition have already reduced the number of publicly subsidised places. In 1998 there were 16,500 fewer fully funded places than had been budgeted for in Labor's forward estimates. That is a figure that is obtained from the DETYA Higher education report for the 1999-2001 triennium.I heard Dr Kemp say on the 7.30 Report last week—one of the very few interviews on the 7.30 Report where I have actually seen Kerry O'Brien get fairly cross with the person he was interviewing—that this will not necessarily increase the cost to students. Dr Kemp acknowledges in his paper that in fact some universities will position themselves at the premium end of the market and that cost behaviour is unpredictable. As I mentioned in our censure motion of Dr Kemp last week, we already know that in the US—the system that, really, this government want us to emulate—the costs of higher education tuition have soared. A commission on national investment in higher education in the United States actually recommended that increased public investment was needed to arrest the crisis occurring in higher education in that country. In Canada, students are seeking to declare themselves bankrupt on the basis of soaring student debt.The Association of University Staff of New Zealand, hearing the news of what was happening in this country, last week issued a press release—which I have in front of me—expressing astonishment at the proposals. It says:The Association of University Staff of New Zealand (AUSNZ) today expressed astonishment that the Australian Minister for Education was planning to introduce a funding model along the failed New Zealand lines.So we have a look at what is happening internationally in respect of funding for higher education—we turn to the United States and to New Zealand. We look at what is happening there and cannot learn lessons from increased student debt and the lack of public confidence in their higher education systems. Oh no, we have to try to emulate them here! We have a look at what is happening overseas and disregard the facts, the figures, the opinions, the numbers of staff enrolments and graduates and try to copy what is happening, particularly in New Zealand.The executive director of the university staff association in New Zealand said that the national government—that is, the New Zealand national government—was currently resiling from that funding model. The funding model he is talking about is, of course, the student loan debt at normal interest rates. He went on to say:Student loan debt currently exceeds $NZ3.3 billion and, at present rates of growth, student debt will exceed the nation's public debt by around 2025.So one would have to say that there is a situation in New Zealand that we would never want to copy and never want to have here in Australia—but not this government. This government has decided that it is probably a good thing and it is going to jump on board, except that it has had to pedal backwards very fast in the last fortnight. This government will also probably say that deregulation will give universities greater autonomy. It seems from the cabinet submission that Dr Kemp wants more, not less, control over the universities. He wants to tell universities what they can and cannot do in respect of their enterprise agreements, and I will get back to that in a minute. He wants to make the universities, not the government, responsible for equity, and he will use those threats and has continued to use those threats to withhold funding.There is the ultimate myth being put about by the government that the funding for universities is increasing. The minister claims that income available to universities is increasing, based on projections about the increasing proportion of income that comes via fees and charges. In fact, government income to universities has been steadily decreasing since 1996, as the government's own figures show. They suggest that, under the current arrangements, in the year 2000 government funding to universities will be below 50 per cent of the total operating revenue—around the same level it was in 1990.What was even more amazing were the statements by that minister last week in the House of Representatives, prior to the release of the documentation to cabinet and prior to the Labor Party being prepared to tell the truth about what the government were intending to do in respect of higher education. Dr Kemp was asked a question about taking responsibility for universities and those that have been forced to operate at a deficit. He was in fact asked: `Do you . . . accept that there are regional campuses whose very existence is now at risk as a result of your policies?' This was a question that Michael Lee asked of Dr Kemp last Wednesday, and Dr Kemp's reply, which is in Hansard, was:The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk is absolutely absurd, and I completely reject that.We have actually seen in the cabinet submission an admission by this government that there are regional universities at risk, and they go so far as to say that there are eight of them. They have not identified them, but if anyone has been watching the way some regional universities have been trying to cope with not meeting student demand and not meeting their targets, with the amount of funding that they have been given by this government, as little as it is, it is not too hard to work out which eight universities are working at a deficit and which regional campuses are at risk.In another question last week, Mr Lee asked about higher staff-student ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, outdated technology, and gaps in key areas of professional preparation. He asked the minister how he reconciled those facts with his claim that the government is intending to raise the quality of university education. The answer to that question, surprisingly enough, was:The government's policies for higher education have put the universities in a position where they have greater capacity and autonomy to manage their own affairs.Again, if one looks at the proposed document that went before cabinet, one has to ask: why is it that this cabinet-in-confidence document says that `higher education institutions' capacity to respond flexibly and efficiently to merging student and employer demand is hamstrung' but, in answer to a question, the minister said that his policies were providing them with greater capacity and autonomy to manage their own affairs? Whom are we to believe: the public image of Dr Kemp or the private image with backdoor, in-the-pocket secret documents that are produced only for cabinet?Probably the most outrageous and continued attack that we have seen over the last 10 days in terms of the government's obsession and absolute passion for trying to deregulate the workplace by attacking the trade union movement is their attack on the operations of the National Tertiary Education Union and the Community and Public Sector Union. Why? Because those unions have an increasing membership from the university sector, and because they have, over the last number of years, been as effective as they possibly could in a sector that has been strangled for growth and for efficiencies.In the cabinet document, Dr Kemp says that there are workplace rigidities in universities, and he points the finger at the retention of unwieldy government structures and the persistence of an NTEU-dictated bargaining agenda. It is interesting to note that, since 1996, Dr Kemp has continually refused to meet with officials from the National Tertiary Education Union. They have not been accorded one meeting with this minister, particularly since he took over the reins from Senator Vanstone. He talks about the retention of unwieldy government structures. By that I assume he means inside the university sector, but that is just further evidence of how little he knows or understands about what is happening in the university sector.I want to take senators through some of the impacts that government funding has had on universities and what the union and that sector have tried to do. Since 1996, enrolments have increased by 6.6 per cent, but the average staff equivalent in the general staff area has diminished by 5¼ per cent and academic staff has diminished by 3.5 per cent. So universities have in fact lost 4.55 per cent in their staffing budgets. And why have they done that? Because with a decreasing budget they have had no choice but to put staff off and to offer redundancies. They have had no choice but to offer people either casual or contract work instead of making them permanent employees in the university sector.The staff-student ratio in the higher education sector was 14.5 to one in 1994, and in 1998 it was 17.9 to one. That is a figure you would expect in a senior secondary class of years 11 and 12. So there has been an increase of nearly four students per class in the higher education sector.Let us have a look at salary increases. For the period 1991 to 2000, the NTEU, in consultation with their members, have been able to give their staff a 17.9 per cent wage increase. Let us have a look at that in comparison with other sectors. Engineers in this country have had a 23.4 per cent increase in wages; teachers, on average, have had a 19.8 per cent increase; the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have had a 21.2 per cent increase; and the Australian Public Service have had a 19.4 per cent increase. So in a nine-year period, aca demics and general staff working in universities have had the lowest increases of workers in these sectors.We have a picture here of universities struggling with funds. They are downsizing, they are making staff redundant, they are putting staff on contract or making them casual, and they have had the smallest wage increase in nine years compared with other industries—other scientists, other academics, other engineers. And yet the minister still believes that they have an unwieldy government structure and that they are dominated by the persistence of the NTEU. Clearly his knowledge is out of date.But wait, there is more. They will actually be allowed to get a little bit of funding—a two per cent salary supplementation—if they agree to some of the workplace reforms. Senator Carr mentioned today that this government is off getting legal advice, as it did with the wharfies and the building unions, and now it is going to start its attack on the higher education sector.What an insult to academics and researchers in this country. It is no wonder that they are leaving the university sector in droves when all this government can do, on top of the outrageous policy it has released in the last fortnight, is to now offer them only a two per cent salary increase in relation to what has not been achieved over the last nine years. It is an insult to the higher education sector in this country and to those people who work in that sector. I think it is an absolute abrogation of the higher education sector. This federal government needs to seriously look at its policies in respect of higher education, to take that sector seriously and to fund it seriously for the public good.16:08:0010074West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I rise today to enter this debate as one who lives and works in the rural regions of this country. The government talk about expanding funding to the higher education sector but they fail to tell the general community that the vast majority of this increased funding that they maintain has gone to this sector has resulted from changes that they made to the HECS repayments and, therefore, has been paid for by students who have worked hard to get their degrees and to contribute something to this country.The government does not really seem to care about that particular issue. They are not concerned about what the needs of a student might be, what the needs of the tertiary sector might be and what the needs of this community might be in Australia. We have seen in recent months very strong, very rabid and radical rhetoric and hard-nosed ideology coming to the fore in terms of higher education. We have seen the VSU—the voluntary student union—legislation still hanging out there as a spectre in the mist. It is still hanging out there because there are members of the government who still are ideologically driven to see this introduced.For ages we have argued about the impact that this would have upon education and upon the ability of student unions to provide a range of services to students and people on university campuses. The universities themselves used to provide these services but, because of the tightening of the financial screws by this government, they have had to be paid for by the student unions. We have seen that happen and we know that that spectre is out there in the mist, as I have said. I wonder when the government will reintroduce that legislation. The Senate inquiry that examined the impact of the VSUs was overwhelmed with submissions from regional universities and facilities all expressing grave concerns about the impact of the abolition of student fees upon their students, their campuses and the communities that they support.It is not as if a university in a regional community is totally isolated from the rest of that community. It is an integral part of the community in which they reside. It is an integral part of the life of that town or city. It provides integral employment opportunities for people within that town. It provides a range of jobs from cleaning and menial labouring tasks to the employment of professors, academics and people with PhDs. And it allows people to study for PhDs. That is the value of a regional institution and a regional university. It provides communities and regions not just with a learning place for students to come to but also with an intellec tual pool that enables them to supply consultants if some organisation in the community needs them. A university is able to take part and participate in the activities of the region and have an input and provide expertise in the evolution and the development of proposals, policies and issues. It is able to be involved in the identification and assessment of problems and issues that affect the region and assist in the formulation of responses.This is what universities contribute to regional areas. They contribute far more than just turning out graduates. They are part of our community. They provide their expertise to our community. They also enable research to be undertaken in rural and regional areas. Although sandstone universities in the cities—such as Sydney University, the University of New South Wales, the Australian National University and Melbourne University—get the vast majority of the money, some money does come out to the institutions in the rural and regional areas. This enables very focused research to be carried out that often has more of a bent and direction towards the needs of rural people. This is often research that is rurally oriented and based and, therefore, is of great value to these communities and to Australia because it enables research to be carried out that encompasses the whole of Australia. It also enables people in rural areas to actually undertake research and their PhDs.What does this government want of its community? Does it want all the PhD people to be actually residing on the eastern seaboard with a small pocket around the Swan River, the Torrens River in Adelaide and maybe some in Tasmania? Is that what it wants? Or does it actually want the people in regional areas to have the same resources as people in city areas? One really does have to wonder.In the context of rural and regional institutions and the VSU, one also has to look at the services that were provided to institutions by student unions. Student unions provided things like a free legal service for students. This service was not needed because students are a bunch of rabblerousing delinquents who are always being called up before the courts because they have committed some student prank. Students, like everybody else, have needs that might require some legal advice. On a number of campuses they provided dental and health services. Assistance with financial aid is provided by student unions on a number of campuses. They also provide sporting services and sporting facilities and those facilities are used very often by the whole community. It is not just the university football club or the university cricket club that might play on their grounds. It is often a resource and facility for the whole community. This needs to be remembered and not forgotten.We have had that hard-nosed ideology in recent times. As I say, it is now, like a spectre in the mist, hidden away for the time being. But what have we seen in recent times? Last week a cabinet submission fell off the back of a truck. The contents of that submission must make anybody in any institution or anybody considering higher education shake in their boots. It certainly has shaken the universities in regional areas to their foundations. It has got everybody in rural and regional Australia absolutely furious. It is not very often in education, particularly with universities, that you actually get the academics, the administration and the students—the whole group involved in the university—plus the community in total agreement. But let me tell you that right at present out there in the bush this proposal has the community saying as one, `It is not fair, not right.'We all know the Prime Minister has stepped in and said, `Oh, no. It won't happen.' I am sorry. Most people out there are now very sceptical of those reassurances. They heard those words when Telstra was going to be sold. They heard them when the GST was going to be introduced. Believe me—the people out there are very sceptical and that is reflected in the leader writers' columns of the regional media. The Northern Daily Leader editorial of Friday, 15 October, says very simply:Will this be a kept promise?That is a question that is on the minds of everybody out there. Will this be a kept promise? It says:WE WILL possibly never know if federal Minister for Education, Employment and Youth Affairs David Kemp was seriously floating the concept of a deregulated fee system for university students.. . . . . . . . .. . .. we may never know because Prime Minister John Howard yesterday went on to record that Australia, under his leadership, would never introduce American-style university funding.But it goes on a bit later on to say:It should be remembered that while Prime Minister Howard is an honourable man, there are promises which, once given, must be kept as a matter of honour and there are political promises, which have a tendency to be subject to the winds of convenience and memory loss.What is to say that that is not one of those promises? This government has a history of it. They did it with Telstra. They have done it with the GST. What has happened? With the GST we saw the Democrats cave in. A few minor amendments were made and off we went. We have got it, whether we like it or not.I have grave concerns because it is unfair. What will be the impact upon education of these sorts of fees where people could be paying up to $100,000? People will say, `Oh, no. It couldn't be that much.' But we are talking market rates. We are talking compounding here. We are talking big figures.I have an article from the Central Western Daily which quotes the manager of the Orange Agricultural College Student Union. That is not an institution that would be classified or considered to be a raging red institution. It is part of Sydney University but it is also an old agricultural college and has been steeped in conservatism for most of its life. But they are saying things like `it is unfair, ill conceived and elitist'. When we get organisations and bodies like that using those words, I really think that people need to take account of what they are thinking. Quoting the student union manager, the article goes on to say:"From my perspective it will have an enormous effect on rural universities like ours,—that is the Orange Agricultural College of Sydney University—CSU Bathurst, CSU Riverina and the University of New England. I think if this ever came to fruition, which I hope it doesn't, we would end up having a system like the United States," he said.Mr Redden said the already powerful institutions like Sydney, NSW, Macquarie and Monash universities, which now attract the bulk of research funding and students, would become even more powerful under a pay-to-learn system that excludes poorer students.He said the national workplace was demanding more tertiary qualifications, the government was promoting the smart country yet the Education Minister was placing financial barriers in front of potential students."If this proposal ever saw the light of day, I am not sure that average Australians, whose mum and dad struggled to pay the mortgage and struggled to put them through school, would ever get to university," he said.That is one comment. There is also great concern in Dubbo, because the Charles Sturt University is looking to develop a campus at Dubbo. I would recommend to everybody an article by Professor Cliff Blake, the Vice-Chancellor of Charles Sturt University, entitled `Don't disadvantage the bush', which appears in today's Australian . He argues very cogently the damage this measure will do. He makes this very valid point:Children from isolated and rural families, women, Aborigines and the growing number of people who seek to re-enter education as a second chance opportunity, are all over-represented among students at the newer regional universities. These are the groups least able to afford heavier debt burdens to finance their university education. They would be unable to repay loans at commercial interest rates, especially if the rate of repayment was not income contingent.He also talks about the impact of the GST, which I mentioned a little while ago. He says:Although tuition fees will be exempt, other costs—travel, accommodation, food and textbooks—will be subject to the tax.Regional universities are the principal providers of distance education and are committed to flexible delivery.. . . . . . . . .Many regional universities are also required to operate on more than one campus to enhance access and to service local communities.Because of multiple campuses, these universities are often required to duplicate some services. They do their level best not to duplicate, but it is not possible to not totally duplicate. Professor Blake says further:In a system preoccupied with economic efficiency rather than issues of access and equity, regional universities would find themselves less able to provide trained personnel in areas such as health studies, teacher education and business. They would need to reduce the number of campuses they operate, the number of courses they offer and/or the modes by which those courses are delivered.This is going to cause them problems if they get a reduction in the number of courses and a reduction in the number of new campuses. This is going to downsize their university. It is going to run the risk of impacting upon them financially. So it is a major concern. They are concerned in Dubbo because CSU is looking to establish a campus there; it is in its nurturing stage, its very early stage. They are very concerned, because it has not properly got off the ground yet and this could well nip it in the bud. The Pro Vice-Chancellor of Charles Sturt, Dr Peter Hodgson, is quoted as saying that enrolments at the new campus could be `seriously adversely affected' if country students were unable to access HECS loans which offered minimal interest rates. He is further quoted as saying:Charles Sturt University does not believe there is any need to reform the current HECS system which gives low-income students the opportunity to receive a tertiary education.We do have real concerns that any changes to the system could have serious implications for the Dubbo campus and for country students.I know several students who are undertaking distance education and are using the Dubbo campus. They find that it is a very good option for them. There is a course that enables enrolled nurses to upgrade their qualifications to become registered nurses. Being able to do it by distance education from the campus at Dubbo means that when they have to do their study blocks they do not have to leave town or they do not have so far to travel. These are the sorts of courses that lead to a better skilled work force in the regional and rural areas. Most of the women doing this course are married; they have mortgages; they have families; they have other commitments. If you told them that they had to be charged commercial interest rates to repay or to pay up-front, they would not be able to do it, they would not even consider it, because the commercial interest rates would make the repayment of their fees something that was beyond their wildest expectations.We have a shortage of registered nurses in this state, in this country. When we see this sort of thing happening, when we see these types of proposals being bandied around by the government—although we are now told they have gone into the bottom drawer, one has to wonder how long they will stay there—it is not just for the universities that we have to be concerned. It is for issues like the number of registered nurses in rural and regional areas. Because these people are upgrading their qualifications from enrolled nurses to registered nurses and because they are already established in the rural areas, with family there, they are going to stay there. They are going to become a very important pool of professional resources for us. We need to be able to offer them the full range of facilities so that they can continue to study in their own regions.We do not want this government to have proposals that are going to affect the ability of people who live in the regions to be able to access regional universities. This government has to be condemned for even thinking along these lines. People need to be alert that that bottom drawer can easily be slipped open and that that proposal can resurface. It has happened before: it happened with Telstra, it happened with the GST.16:28:0010077Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I rise to support the second reading amendment moved by Senator Carr this morning. The amendment is very telling in respect of this government's performance. It notes that the quality of Australian education institutions is of prime importance to our future, both economically and culturally, and it condemns the government for damaging the quality of Australian education by its cuts to universities, its lack of commitment to equity issues and its mismanagement of the education export industry. But the government does not stop there, not at all. The higher education report for the 1999-2001 triennium put out by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs provides a damning indictment of this government's performance. In a way it holds the portent of what Dr Kemp recently endeavoured to implement. It is set out in the overview of the report, which states:Each year the minister responsible for higher education announces the details of Commonwealth funding for universities for the coming triennium in a higher education funding report.It then goes on to say:In the past these reports have described developments in the previous years . . . Paraphrasing, it then goes on to say that this year's report has a `wider scope'; I emphasise that. Why? We now know why; Dr Kemp had another agenda. But when we examine the objectives that were put forward in the higher education report the government's objectives for higher education are stated to be to expand opportunity, to assure quality, to improve universities' responsiveness to varying student needs and industry requirements, to advance the knowledge base and contribution to national and global innovation and, continuing the quote from page 1:. . . to ensure public accountability for the cost-effective use of public resources.What have they done? They certainly have not done that. What they have done speaks volumes for what Dr Kemp has outlined. It speaks very loudly indeed for this bill. This bill sets the amounts for grants to higher education institutions for the year 2001 as well as varying the amounts for 1999 and 2000. It also takes the extraordinary step of phasing out the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme. So instead of promoting, it is detracting. I would like to comment on the government's proposal in this area to scrap the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme. If you go to the report that was put out in March 1999 and look at what they have to say about the equity scheme on page 65, you will see that it goes through and sets out the merit based equity scholarship scheme in 1999 and the allocation of the various institutions, of which the total sum, over the page, on 66, is in the order of $3,000. It says:A review of the effectiveness of the scheme has recently been carried out. Options—there is an `s'—for the future are to be considered by the government during 1999.That is code for: `There is only one option—close it down. Let us not look at the objectives that we set ourselves back on page 1 about expanding opportunities; let us look at the objective of closing them down.' You would have to be Nostradamus to be able to read between the lines of the March 1999 higher education report and get to the true meaning. Only with the effluxion of time do these matters get teased out by Dr Kemp, put down and brought out. Only through that process are we able to discover what he has in store for higher education. Page 1 of the higher education March 1990 book states:. . . to provide a wider scope . . . to provide an outline of developments in higher education teaching . . . to provide the objectives . . . This is all set out on page 1, neatly, cleanly and concisely. But none are followed. You have to go to the code and read between the lines to find out, or be Nostradamus—one or the other.This policy they put forward—the option, rather than options—was the only positive policy they had in respect of higher education, and they have scrapped it. The proportion of students from rural, isolated and low socioeconomic status backgrounds declined between 1991 and 1997. These groups remain significantly underrepresented in higher education. It is simply incomprehensible that this government would remove the one incentive given to these people to pursue further education. In my home state of Queensland it is extremely difficult for people in rural areas to attend university without government assistance. These people have already suffered as a result of skyrocketing HECS charges and more restricted access to Austudy. With the scrapping of the scholarship scheme, it just ends up being another kick by this government to these people. Unfortunately, this backward step is not all that surprising. It is symptomatic of this government's user-pays philosophy on education, ensuring that it is only available to those who can afford to pay.This bill also details funding for tertiary education institutions up to the year 2000, as I have earlier stated, which this government proposes will remain at the same level it was 15 years ago. It would be unthinkable that any other government-provided social service of this importance would be expected to operate with the same level of funding that was received earlier last decade. If you go to the report, again you find the code which talks about it. The report talks about emerging issues on page 23. It states:The higher education sector is adjusting to changing circumstances and its financial health is improving.Which is code for: `There is no need for more funding; it is okay. She'll be right, mate.' That is what they are trying to say. The government obviously believe that education is of low priority, that it does not warrant any increase in funding. In fact, they believe that it deserves to lose funding increases won under the former Labor government. Labor continues to believe that not only is it the right of all Australians to access higher education but that the government has an obligation to ensure that quality education is provided through appropriate funding levels. The meagre funding proposals in this bill yet again highlight the Howard government's appalling record on higher education; one which all members of this government should be ashamed of.Since this government came to power in 1996 the HECS charges have increased drastically, the repayment threshold has been lowered to well below average weekly earnings and funding was slashed by over $800 million. This record alone, with the alarming changes recently proposed in a leaked cabinet submission, sends a message to all Australians that this government does not care about your rights to an education unless you can afford to pay for it yourself.At a time when the rest of the world is embracing education as the key to each nation's future, the Australian government is punishing those who want to pursue further education through imposing on them ever increasing debt and substandard learning environments. This government's record looks even worse when compared with the success of former Labor governments. Labor govern ments ensured that tertiary education was within everyone's reach. Under Labor, participation in tertiary education was based on merit, not on your ability to bear a considerable debt.Labor invested heavily in our nation's future by committing just under three per cent of GDP to investment in education, as compared to this government's paltry 2.3 per cent. This government should stand condemned for its lack of planning for the future of this country through the neglect of the education of its people. It is this government's obligation to ensure that our people, particularly young people, are equipped with the skills and knowledge to enable them to contribute to society in the future. Education is a right which should be open to every Australian. An educated population is vital to the growth and advancement of our country. This government should be judged harshly, and will be judged harshly, in years to come for its failure to realise this.16:38:0010079Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank senators for their contributions and reiterate that the government has reaffirmed its previous stance on a number of matters of higher education. Although not relevant to this bill, it is important for the record to reaffirm this once again: fees will not be deregulated, vouchers will not be introduced, HECS will not be charged for TAFE, the current HECS system will remain, there will be no additional loan system or a real interest rate attached to the current HECS system, and the current system of government subsidies and funded places will remain, as will the prohibition on charging fees for HECS liable places. That fairly and squarely meets the second reading amendments which have been proposed by both the opposition and the Australian Democrats and makes it quite clear to the community at large as to where this government stands on those issues.I note that some senators in this debate have mentioned the abolition of the merit based equity scholarships. The equity and access centrepiece of the current higher education system is HECS. The HECS deferred payment arrangements ensure that a student is not prevented from going to university because that particular student cannot afford to pay fees up-front. It allows across-the-board access to higher education. Changes to the HECS system have been ruled out and, as Minister Kemp has said, the current HECS system will remain. I might add that no-one with an existing merit based equity scholarship will lose it. Existing scholarship holders will continue to be HECS exempt for the duration of the scholarship. The status quo in relation to HECS will continue. It is the government's priority that there be access to tertiary education by all Australian students who are willing and able to participate in that sector. The unmet demand for undergraduate places has almost been met.The government believes that there has been an increase in enrolments in the tertiary sector since it has been in office. Minister Kemp announced a sum of money for salary supplementation for individual universities. There is funding of $250 million over three years, which will be made available on the condition that universities undertake workplace reform in the interests of students and academics alike. That spells good news for universities across Australia. I notice that the NTEU has criticised this, but one has to question its motives for doing so, because what we have here is a reform and funding for that reform which are a step forward in terms of salaries and workplace arrangements in universities across Australia.The arrangements for universities in Australia have been that the government has allowed fee paying students domestically and this has made increased revenue available to universities. It has allowed those students who previously were unable to access courses in the tertiary sector to now do so. These are fee paying domestic students. This has increased access and also revenues to universities. The government has also announced tax reform for those areas of the private sector that want to contribute to the tertiary sector, and that has been welcomed as well. The remainder of the points that have been made can be dealt with adequately at the committee stage. I commend the bill to the Senate.Amendment (Senator Stott Despoja's) agreed to.Amendment (Senator Carr's), as amended, agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10080The bill.16:44:0010080Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government request for an amendment to be moved to the bill. The supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 20 October 1999.16:44:0010080Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I draw the committee's attention to some of the problems that are emerging with Australian Education International, which is an integral part of this bill. I indicated in the second reading stage of this discussion that I would want to go to some questions about the review of the ESOS Act, which the government announced on 19 August this year and which I suggest should have begun a great deal earlier. It was not until such time as the opposition raised serious concerns about the operations of a number of colleges—I have indicated some 20 colleges that have not, in my judgment, been able to meet the requirements of a high quality educational service based on integrity—that there has been growing evidence of serious irregularities and, in my judgment, possible serious breaches of the law.Given that ACPET, which is the main organisation covering private providers in this section of the industry, have been seeking an appointment with the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs—he is well aware that I have made inquiries into this matter in question time and on previous occasions—I ask the minister whether or not the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has agreed to an appointment with ACPET. While he is finding the information, I draw to the minister's attention a statement that Mr Clive Graham made to the Australian on 15 September:ACPET has lobbied hard to clean up the post-secondary vocation, education and training sector and has, on numerous occasions, presented to state, territory and federal government details of ways in which some unscrupulous operators exploit students.The statement went on to say:The government has ignored the industry association's warnings to the detriment of Australia's export earnings. This is surely a matter of concern to all Australians.I understand that the minister has refused to meet Mr Graham or to consider the detailed proposal which ACPET has developed for the improvement of the operations of the industry. Our advice to Mr Graham is that he should not take this personally. I know that refusal often does offend in this business, but the truth of the matter is that Dr Kemp has made it a rule to avoid wherever possible any meeting with people involved in the portfolio area which he allegedly represents. After all, they might put to him views that conflict with his own! The trouble is that now it would appear that the overwhelming bulk of his cabinet colleagues fit into that category. One has to ask whether he finds it as difficult to meet them as he does with organisations such as ACPET.Given that Dr Kemp is so fixated on his particular views of the way education should proceed in this country and given that these issues are of enormous importance to the success of our international education effort, I would ask: is it not possible for the minister to find time to see this organisation? If not, why not? If so, when will he do so?16:48:0010081Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that arrangements have been made for ACPET to meet next week. I think that is with the International, Analysis and Evaluation Division. They will be able to canvass in detail their concerns at that meeting. I am not aware of Minister Kemp actually refusing to meet ACPET. I think the best thing for ACPET is to meet the department next week and see how they go from there. It may be that they will be happy with the meeting they have next week and they need to go no further. It really is something that needs to be sorted out after the meeting next week. We will see how they go. I think that a meeting with the department is a good idea, and surely Senator Carr would think that too. The division that I mentioned is the relevant division dealing with this area and can address ACPET's concerns in detail.16:50:0010081Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The problem is that ACPET advised me, as have many other providers in the industry, that they have approached the department which you are representing here today and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on numerous occasions with very serious claims of irregularities occurring within this industry—irregularities that go to the heart of the critical edge that the industry in this country has over industries in other countries. In the international education area, the fundamental cutting edge that we have is our reputation for quality.Yet the industry tell me they are not able to receive satisfaction from the department, who tell them that the complaints they are making about the operations of numerous colleges—many of which I have named—have not been able to receive a satisfactory response because, the department tell them, they are understaffed. There has been a 50 per cent cut—this is clear evidence presented to this Senate committee—to the section of the department dealing with ESOS, and the department's international division has, in fact, been downgraded despite the claims of this government as to the value of this industry to the educational system as a whole.Minister, what assurance can you give the Senate that the complaints put by ACPET will be taken seriously? I have raised a number of matters in this chamber, and I will continue to raise a great many more. Information is coming to me on a daily basis about the operations of (1) the department, (2) the department of immigration, (3) the state governments that are involved in this arrangement and (4) the unscrupulous, unethical and quasi-criminal elements who are using this industry for the purposes of securing visas and people smuggling rather than for the purpose of providing a high quality education system.I say to the minister that these are matters I will continue to pursue, but the point remains that information is coming to me from a range of sources, and, if it is coming to me as a senator in this chamber, surely the same information has been available to the department for some time. I raise, for instance, the question of a number of advertisements that are appearing in the foreign language press circulating in this country right now and that have been circulating for some time, which the department has been advised of on numerous occasions. That is the information that has been presented to me, and I want to know if it is true. My information is that on numerous occasions advertisements have been circulating in this country which clearly are misleading and deceptive, which go to issues such as the amounts of money being transferred to certain immigration agents and education agents, who in turn are able to fix up visas and are able to attend to breaches of the ESOS Act in regard to attendance requirements. These advertisements are clearly misleading and deceptive and are breaches of the ESOS Act in themselves. I ask: is it the case that these complaints have been put to the department, and is it the case that the department has done nothing about them?16:53:0010082Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that the department has received some communication in relation to the points that Senator Carr has referred to, although I do not know whether they specifically relate to the ones that he is thinking of. We would need the detail in order to identify them. But I understand that there are some that have been referred to the department, and these are being looked into.I might just add that Senator Carr at the outset raised the point as to the government's commitment to looking into the operation of the ESOS Act. The ESOS Act deals with overseas students. This area forms quite a large part of our exports. It is no secret that education is worth in excess of $3 billion in exports for Australia. On 19 August this year Minister Kemp announced a review of the ESOS Act, which had been foreshadowed last year when the sunset clause had been extended for three years. So it is not as if the government is just coming to this at the last minute or at the eleventh hour. Last year it was foreshadowed that we would be reviewing this act, and quite properly so. On 19 August this year Minister Kemp announced that review. ACPET has put in a submission, I understand, and that is being considered in the course of the review.As well as that, on 4 November a forum of all peak bodies will be held, and those peak bodies involved in the sector will have a chance to put their views forward. That is how serious this government is. I would remind Senator Carr that just recently in the press there was the headline `Overseas students flock to Australian unis'. That article spelt out just how popular the Australian education system is with people overseas because of our very good system. Obviously that is recognised overseas. We as a government do not want to see this diminished in any way and we doing everything we can to preserve the integrity of the system.Senator Carr has been painting a picture of a sector that is in dire straits, of something that is virtually on its knees. There are roughly 1,000 providers, I understand, in the sector. I am advised that since 1994 11 colleges have fallen into difficulty in the sector. Since 1994—five years ago—there have been 11 colleges out of 1,000 providers. That is a very small percentage indeed. In fact, you are looking at 1.1 per cent, if my arithmetic is correct. That does not necessarily portray a sector which is in dire straits. If people continue to talk down the great Australian education system that we have and play up any problems that there might be, people overseas will get a distorted view of what we have on offer, and what we have on offer is very good.16:57:0010082Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I have a number of questions to the minister in relation to the phasing out of the higher education equity merit scholarships. I acknowledge that I was listening to the minister's speech in my office earlier. I am curious as to the belief of the minister and the government that these are no longer required or that there is no correlation between the scheme and improvement of retention or increased participation among disadvantaged groups. In particular I look at the recipients of those scholarships and I note that the 1998 figures show a total of about 3,000 people who have been assisted. Indigenous Australians received 199, women in non-traditional areas 109, people with a disability 149, people from non-English speaking backgrounds 188, people from rural and isolated backgrounds 375 and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds 1,127.Does the minister honestly believe that there are no barriers to access in higher education for groups in those equity target groups? What will happen to people who are in those particular groups? What form of assistance will they receive, if any, under this government? Does the minister honestly believe that these problems will no longer exist, that when we come around to the year 2000 or 2001, as the case may be, there will not be a need among, say, students with a disability for that kind of assistance, perhaps in the form of a scholarship or at least some other form of assistance? I am quite staggered by some of the comments have come from the minister and the government suggesting that these scholarships essentially did not serve a purpose or are no longer required. I am wondering what kind of support would be provided in order to facilitate the entry to and participation in higher education of those particular groups.I am also curious as to whether or not the minister will admit on behalf of the government that, while some increases have taken place in the number of people from equity groups, in absolute terms, the figures that are available from the department demonstrate that overall the relative representation of a number of groups has not increased; in fact, it has declined. One example is the proportion of students from rural, isolated and lower socioeconomic backgrounds. That has declined between 1991 and 1997.These groups, as well as indigenous Australians, remain significantly underrepresented in higher education, and I refer to a Bills Digest report that has a number of tables that illustrate this fact. So is the government not concerned that these equity groups still exist? What happens to the potentially thousands of students who could have been assisted under the scheme that is currently in operation? What methods or what assistance will the government give those students in those target equity groups to facilitate their participation in higher education, now that this merit scholarship system has been abolished?17:00:0010083Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government did look at the merit based equity scholarship scheme and it was found to be rather complex to administer. I do return to my previous comment that HECS remains the centrepiece of equity and access in relation to Australian students accessing tertiary education.But I would also point out to Senator Stott Despoja the higher education equity program and the 1999 allocation, which is reported at page 64 of the higher education report for the triennium 1999-2001. That provides for equity target groups which are listed as follows: people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, people from rural and isolated backgrounds, people with disabilities, women studying in non-traditional areas and people from a non-English speaking background who have arrived in Australia within the previous 10 years. They are the target groups that are covered by this program, and there are funds which have been linked to universities' equity performance and are allocated to institutions as part of their operating grant.The Commonwealth has played an active role in monitoring the participation and performance of the six equity groups which I mentioned in higher education, and what is set out there are the various amounts which have been allocated to the various universities and institutions. The total amount comes to just over $5.5 million. So the abolition of the merit based equity scholarships does not leave those disadvantaged groups out in the cold. There is a program which is dealing with this, and can I say once again to those people who were granted the scholarships that they will continue to have them; there is no retrospective operation of this abolition of the scheme. The government believes that what it has in place will address equity in and access to the tertiary education sector and that with this program we will address those target groups of disadvantaged people.17:03:0010084Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Can I turn to the issue of the poor administration of international education. The minister refers to what he says are 11 colleges which have collapsed since December 1994. Of course, he knows too well that such a figure totally misrepresents the number of colleges that have faced financial collapse in that period, because most colleges are actually taken over by another company shortly before they collapse. So those figures distort the number, and I am sure he would be only too well aware of that and I am sure that his advisers have told him that.Given the experience of the National College of Australia, the minister was able to advise the Senate last Monday that the number of students `associated' with that college and `associated' with this new category we are finding in the international education industry in this country—it is not `enrolled', it is `associated'—was 733 students. Is it the case, Minister, that the number of students that were actually involved in various scams under the ESOS Act for these international colleges may in fact be as high as 5,000?17:04:0010084Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—My advice is that this is under investigation at the moment and it is premature to say what the figure is of those involved. I would be interested to know how Senator Carr calculates it as 5,000, because he obviously seems to know more than anyone else. If he does, perhaps he could let the government know because that could assist us in our investigations. We would welcome any assistance whatsoever from Senator Carr.17:05:0010084Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Thank you very much, Senator Ellison. I always appreciate those sorts of invitations and I am sure you, in due course, will come to regret them. Nonetheless, I take it in the spirit in which it has been offered—and it is the same offer that Mr Ruddock has made to me on numerous occasions—and I say to you I will be only too happy to continue to provide you with advice on how you can improve the operations of this particular area.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Constructive, not furphies.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—It is always constructive, Minister. What I am particularly concerned about—and I come back to this point, and I have not had an answer from you on this—is this issue: has the department been advised of foreign language advertisements circulating in this country, particularly in the Korean press, about the operations of certain colleges, many of whom I have named? Has it been advised of those complaints, and what action has it taken on those complaints?I refer specifically here to the issue of advertisements in the foreign language press outlining the activities of various agents, whether they be immigration or education agents, which I claim in fact involve breaches of the law; namely, offering people money—with the claim that they can fix their bank balance, offering inducements to people to appear at various colleges, making claims that they can fix attendance problems and that they can fix up visas, and other such activities which would appear to me to fit into the category of misleading and deceptive conduct. Have such claims been made to the department and what action has the ministry undertaken on those matters?17:07:0010084Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I said earlier, the advertisements have been drawn to the attention of the department and action has been taken in relation to the investigation of them. I really cannot take it much further other than to say that it is under investigation.17:07:0010084Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—When was that action taken? Was the action taken after these matters were raised in the Senate?17:07:0010084Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I foreshadowed this earlier when I said that a number had been received but I was not sure whether they were the same ones Senator Carr was referring to because he had not sufficiently described the instances he was referring to. Senator Carr is asking me when we actioned an investigation into those ones that he is referring to. Before I can answer that I need some detail as to the dates of the advertisements and where they appeared. Then I could assist Senator Carr further.17:08:0010085Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—In debate I have raised a series of advertisements and I think the departmental officials are only too aware of those advertisements in the Woori Magazine circulated in the Korean community. Have those inquiries been investigated?17:08:0010085Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I think it would be a good idea if Senator Carr could give us a copy of those because we might be at cross-purposes here. The ones I have been advised of might not necessarily be the ones you are referring to. You say you mentioned them previously in debate; I would like you to point to where that has been debated previously. Senator Carr has not mentioned this in question time to me previously or in any other debate that I have been involved in. If Senator Carr could table them or provide them to us, we are only too willing to look into them.17:09:0010085Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I do realise that Senator Carr is pursuing a line of questioning, but I have a couple of queries of the minister. Firstly, does the minister agree with Dr Kemp's assessment that `already eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at risk'? I would like his response to that. Does he agree with that? I am wondering if he can shed some light on the time line in relation to Dr Kemp's statement in response to funding issues in higher education. The statement we are anticipating is in part a response to the West report. I am wondering when we can expect the next instalment from Dr Kemp in relation to his assessment of funding matters as distinct from his cabinet-in-confidence submissions, which we have already seen.17:10:0010085Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The minister has made it quite clear that he is not aware of any regional campuses being at risk of closure. I think the minister has already said that regional universities are no exception to the reality that there is always a variety of risks for complex organisations like universities, and managing these risks is always a challenge for good management. To highlight and to perhaps even distort the situation in relation to regional universities does them no good.Certainly, the government is keen to afford a system which provides opportunities for those students in regional Australia and regional universities. I think the minister has also said that he does not deny that some universities will need to continue to modify the way in which they operate in order to meet the challenges that are posed by operating in regional Australia. But to suggest that the actions of this government put at risk the existence of regional universities is totally false and the government would reject that.As I have stated, the government are committed to giving greater flexibility to universities and to ensuring that the bureaucratic regulation and controls which inhibit their operations are minimised. We are about assisting those universities to make it easier for them to operate and not to tangle them up in regulation and formality.17:12:0010085Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for his response. I did not actually state or suggest that the government was responsible for putting regional universities at risk. That was not the purpose of my question. I just wanted to know if the minister agreed with the relevant minister's exact words, which were `some regional campuses are at risk'. It is fairly simple: either you agree with his assessment or you do not.I also had another question. I understand that the minister was taking advice when I asked it. My query was on the next paper from Dr David Kemp, in part relating to the government's response to the West review and also relating to funding for higher education. I was wondering what the time line on that paper was. When can we expect that?In relation to the scholarships, I am wondering if the government provided money to universities for the purposes of administering the scholarships and advertising those scholarships. I am conscious that one of the concerns that came back from universities during this survey, if you like, by the government was that it was difficult. Perhaps they did not advertise them broadly enough. I take on board the minister's response that it was administratively complex. I am just wondering what assistance the government provided to universities in order to ensure that those complexities were minimised so that you would have a scheme that did what it was intended to do—that is, assist those students from genuinely disadvantaged backgrounds, students who, I might add, will not have this form of assistance in future.17:14:0010086Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to Senator Stott Despoja's first question—do I agree with the minister's comments—I think she was quoting from a leaked document which I am not aware of as having any authenticity. We have repeatedly asked for the document to be tabled. I do not comment on documents which have been leaked illegally. The document is entirely hearsay; it is a document which purports to be something.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Hearsay?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Documents are hearsay. Any court of law will tell you that, Senator O'Brien. We have here a document, unsubstantiated, which the Democrats are asking me to pass comment on. I am not able to pass comment on a document I have not seen, which is unsubstantiated and which purports to be something which it might not be. To say that they are the words of the minister is totally inappropriate and totally incorrect.17:15:0010086Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am wondering again whether the minister will answer the first question. Even if he does not know, do we have a time line on the release of the paper by Dr Kemp that looks into funding issues and is, in part, a response to the West paper? I put on record that the authenticity or the legitimacy of that document has not been denied. I quote from one part of a 7.30 Report transcript, where Kerry O'Brien asks Dr David Kemp a question based on the document:KERRY O'BRIEN: This document says that under the current system, your current system, "Higher student staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology in key areas of professional prevention are fuelling a perception of declining quality." A perception or a reality, Dr Kemp?DAVID KEMP: You ask the universities.KERRY O'BRIEN: These are your words, aren't they?DAVID KEMP: That's what I've said—- a perception of declining quality.Is the minister suggesting that this is not an authentic document from David Kemp? Is he stating for the record now that the document is hearsay? Is he disowning this document as a government document, albeit a leaked cabinet-in-confidence document? Is he seriously suggesting that the authenticity of this document has been denied? As far as I am concerned, it has not been denied, and most of the media reports would support that. I look forward to the minister stating categorically that this is not a government document.17:17:0010086Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am unable to provide a time line to Senator Stott Despoja. I do not think I can take it further than that. This is something the government is looking at, and it really is something that I cannot assist Senator Stott Despoja any further on.17:17:0010086Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for that answer. The paper is authored, we believe, by Dr David Kemp, and this has not been denied by the minister as being his document. I would like to hear whether the minister is honestly suggesting to the chamber that that is not a cabinet-in-confidence document from Minister Kemp.17:18:0010087Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I seek clarification as to which document Senator Stott Despoja is referring to.17:18:0010087Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The one that I quoted from, that Kerry O'Brien quoted from, the cabinet-in-confidence document that is Dr Kemp's views on the higher education sector—one that I am sure you have seen, Minister.17:18:0010087Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I have not seen it. I have read a great deal about it and I have seen some excerpts, but I have not seen that document. I am not about to confirm whether anything is a cabinet document. That is a matter which is cabinet-in-confidence. That has been the practice—it is a standard principle in relation to the operation of government—of this government and of governments since time immemorial before this one. I think it is a well-established practice which I am not about to break.I move request for amendment:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraphs (l) and (m), substitute: (l) in the case of the year 2000—$3,417,075,000; and (m) in the case of the year 2001—$3,351,623,000.17:19:0010087Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I seek leave to table certain documents that the minister has asked me about. These concern some questions I raised in the Senate on 30 September in the adjournment debate. The documents relate to a series of advertisements that appeared in the foreign language press—in the 29th issue of the Woori Magazine , dated August this year—and circulated in Australia. They purport to be advertisements concerning the operations of a number of colleges, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney. The names of the colleges are identified in English. The advertisements are in Korean, with translations that are purported to be and I have been given to believe—and I do so put to the Senate in good faith—are accurate translations. Obviously the department would be aware of the Senate debate, and I seek leave to table those documents now.17:21:0010087Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—On the basis that Senator Carr has tendered them in good faith, and I understand that he states they are actual translations, I will grant leave.Leave granted.17:21:0010087Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I repeat that these translations have been given to me in good faith. I am of the view that the persons who gave them to me have acted in good faith. Not speaking Korean, I cannot personally verify that these are accurate in all respects, but I will table the documents and would like to speak to them. I indicate that the documents name a number of colleges that purport to offer students assistance and, in return for certain sums of money, to overcome what to me are clear problems with visas.For instance, Woori Magazine, in the 29th issue, identified the International Academy of Education and stated details of other colleges that are operating. They provide advertisements for the arrangement of visas and pathways to higher education. Their advertisement sought to claim their identification with a number of other institutions. An advertisement for Infinity Quest said that they were able to provide assistance to students. It said:Please contact us if you do not have sufficient bank account balance. We solve the problems about attendance rate.Another advertisement, for Prime, said:1. We help students who do not have sufficient bank account balance.2. Consultation for the attendance problems.3. No agent fee is charged for your relatives and friends in Korea.An advertisement for Hundai Gate says:1. We lend up to $10,000 to students who do not have enough tuition fee2. We help students who have attendance problems3. We are able to make bank accounts balance for youThat is a tremendous service, as I have indicated on previous occasions. On page 31, an advertisement for Sogang—and it gives the address in Pitt Street in Sydney—says:If you have troubles in extending your visa due to the attendance problem, we are able to solve such problems.And so it goes on. I will table those documents. I ask these two questions again: have the department been contacted about these matters? Have they taken action since the matters were raised on 30 September?17:24:0010088Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The department have not been contacted in relation to these advertisements and will look into the matters that Senator Carr has raised. I stress to the Senate that the mere raising of an allegation, of course, does not mean that that allegation has been found and proven. As a matter of fairness to the people who are mentioned in relation to these advertisements, they do very much enjoy the benefit of the doubt under our system of law. I would remind those who are listening and the Senate of that fact. But, in view of Senator Carr's comments, we will look into this, as we usually do, and I can assure him that that will be done.17:24:0010088Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I thank the minister for his assurance on that matter, and I indicate that I do accept the spirit in which he has presented that assurance. I look forward to further discussion on that. I ask: what action has been taken in the case of the Business Institute of Victoria, which is a college where—and the department have in previous times acknowledged this—prima facie breaches of the law have occurred in relation to the offering of courses outside of the CRICOS list. It is a college that was given accreditation under the CRICOS list to run courses in security and cleaning but was offering courses in higher education, such as MBAs. The department have acknowledged prima facie breaches of the law, which I understand have penalties of some four years and other penalties of two years. What action has been taken in that matter?17:25:0010088Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that question on notice. I do not recall the department acknowledging any prima facie case. If that were done, an investigation might necessarily flow. I urge Senator Carr to be very careful in equating the acknowledgment of a prima facie case with a charge being laid or a finding of guilt. Normally the finding of a prima facie case results in a charge being laid. I am not aware of any charges being laid in that matter, but I will take it on notice.17:26:0010088Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I do appreciate the difference. Given the seriousness of the allegations that have been made in the chamber, I therefore ask the minister: has the department prosecuted anybody for breaches of the ESOS Act in the last 12 months?17:27:0010088Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—My advice is that there has been no prosecution in the last 12 months.17:27:0010088Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—When was the last time a prosecution was launched under this act?17:27:0010088Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will have to take that one on notice.17:27:0010088Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, is it the case that, under this act, these companies do not require independent audits of their accounts—that is, independent of the companies themselves? Or is it the case that there is no government audit of the accounts of these companies? Is it the case that, under the operations of the international division at the moment, the government relies upon the advice of auditors provided by the companies themselves?17:28:0010088Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I understand it, the government does not carry out an audit itself but that an independent auditor carries out such an audit. I think that answers Senator Carr's question.17:28:0010088Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Is it the case that this so-called independent auditor is in fact provided by the company?17:28:0010088Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I understand it, the company does choose the auditor but the auditor has to be independent. Auditors, of course, are not necessarily in the business of being bought and sold.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You are very brave.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Senator Carr, it is an office which is a professional one. I think we are entitled to assume that auditors, just like lawyers and doctors and others, are professionals.17:29:0010089Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—As I understand it, each year, on 30 June, audits are provided to the department at the discretion of the companies. How many qualified audits have been presented to the department for these providers as of today, and how many companies have failed to produce audited statements at all?17:30:0010089Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that question on notice. I can say at the outset that the selection of an auditor is compulsory; it is not discretionary. I think that is conceded. But the remainder of the question needs answering, and it will be taken on notice.17:30:0010089Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—How many of the companies that I have actually named in this chamber have failed to produce non-qualified audit reports?17:30:0010089Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Again, I will take that on notice.17:31:0010089Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I return briefly to the minister's suggestion that the document to which a number of us have referred—a document entitled `Proposals for Reform in Higher Education' which is attributed to Dr David Kemp—is hearsay. I seek leave to table the transcript of the 7.30 Report from which I was reading. I have just had another glance at it and have highlighted Minister Kemp's responses where he has said things like:What we have said in the document is that we want universities to have flexibilities.. . . . . . . . .As any fair-minded reader of that document will see . . . When Kerry O'Brien puts a quote to him from the document and asks, `Are you comfortable about universities charging higher fees?' Minister Kemp answers:Well, what I was saying there was that the claims would be made.Presumably `there' is the document. Kerry O'Brien says:This document says that the deregulation of fees will allow the properly—the proposition of financed by taxpayers—the proportion, sorry, financed by taxpayers to decrease.Minister Kemp responds:Well, there is no suggestion in this document about cutting funding to universities.How many times can the minister refer to the document that nearly every person involved in education debates in Australia has seen and yet the minister—who, theoretically, should be more familiar with these proposals than just about anyone here because he is the minister representing the minister in this place—seems to be suggesting that he has not seen the document. Further, is he suggesting that the document is hearsay when even David Kemp has not denied the authenticity of this document? If he insists that the document is hearsay, perhaps Dr David Kemp is talking about a different document. In that case, could we table that document—because I think we would all be curious to see it.Is the minister seriously suggesting, as the education minister and as the minister representing the minister for higher education in this place, that he has not seen the document which nearly every person in Australia has seen? My understanding is—and I will happily check—that it actually has been tabled in the parliament.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The first issue is that Senator Stott Despoja has sought leave to table a document. Is leave granted?17:33:0010089Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Perhaps I could be given a copy of that document before that question is put to me. In the absence of seeing it, I would have to say no. I think that that question is best deferred until I have had a chance to have a look at the document, and then I can advise the chamber as to whether leave is granted.In relation to another point, I think Senator Stott Despoja referred to me as the minister for education and the minister representing the minister for higher education. I think that was a slip. I am not the minister for either of those. Can I say that, as the minister representing the minister for education, in the normal course of my duties I would not see any document that Dr Kemp might or might not put up. It is really not in my portfolio; therefore when Senator Stott Despoja queries whether I have seen this document, I can honestly say I have not seen it, because it is not in my portfolio. I can only say that, from what I have heard to date, it is a document which purports to be something which it claims to be, which has not been substantiated.I will have to look at this transcript—in particular those points that have been highlighted. I will need a little time to have a look at that before I can advise the chamber as to whether leave is granted. Perhaps Senator Stott Despoja might carry on with something else and I can look at this in the meantime.17:35:0010090Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am sorry—I acknowledge that the minister is representing the minister in this place in the debate. I am happy for leave to be denied. I have already read into the Hansard the relevant excerpts from the 7.30 Report . It is a transcript that was not written by me. It is from the Internet, from the ABC. I just thought it would be preferred by the minister that the transcript was tabled as opposed to my continually referring to it and reading from it. I am happy for you to deny leave. It is not a particularly scary document, but you should by now have a copy of the cabinet-in-confidence submission, which we are happy to table. I understand that that is acceptable to the opposition. I am very pleased that we could be the first people to show you that document. I am sorry that you had to get it from us. I would have thought that, in the normal course of events, you would have seen it, if not in the paper then from the relevant minister. I would have thought he would have provided that to you.I have to say that I find it extraordinary that a minister representing the minister for education in this place in this debate is suggesting that he has not seen that document.17:36:0010090Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Can I say that it has not been established that it is a cabinet-in-confidence document. I have had two documents handed to me. One is the transcript of an interview with Dr Kemp on the 7.30 Report . Leave is granted in relation to tabling that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If there is no objection, leave is so granted.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I have now been handed a second document, which purports to be cabinet-in-confidence. I have not had an opportunity to look at that document; therefore, leave is not granted, because it is normal to allow some time, and I think that is proper.Can I say that there is nothing extraordinary about a minister not seeing any cabinet submission which is not in his or her portfolio. That is not extraordinary. If Senator Stott Despoja is trying to make that so, then really it is in the face of standing practice. Ministers do not involve themselves in other minister's cabinet submissions in the normal course of events. If there is some dual involvement in putting it to cabinet, it might be a different story. But there is nothing untoward in that at all. I have not seen the document before, as Senator Stott Despoja has put to me, and I reject totally that there is anything untoward and that I should have seen it before. I am not aware of it having been published in full in any paper. I certainly have not looked it up on the Internet.17:38:0010090Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I was asking about the operation of the international division. I understand that 26 providers submitted statements regarding NTA funds accompanied by a qualified report from their auditor or otherwise identified as having failed to comply with one or more aspects of the financial and reporting requirements of the ESOS Act during the reporting period from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999. The identified instances of non-compliance have been: failure to notify the Secretary to the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs of NTA details; failure to deposit course monies in the NTA as soon as practicable; failure to comply with regulations governing withdrawals and payments from the NTA, resulting in shortfalls to the amount standing to the credit of students; failure to comply with refund provisions of student defaults; the depositing of money other then overseas students' pre-paid course money in the NTA, in contravention of the laws of trust; and incorrect particulars in the statement of NTA funds. I ask the minister: can he confirm that all of those 26 providers are now operating in accordance with the ESOS Act in terms of the reporting requirement?17:39:0010091Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that question on notice. I understand that there were some companies that had qualified audits and that the department had made further inquiry in relation to that. For the detail that Senator Carr is seeking, I need to take that on notice.17:40:0010091Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I have, of course, asked questions about these matters in the past, and I was advised that, as of 25 August, only three responses to the department's overtures had been received from those 26 companies—many of which operate with multiple company or trading names, so it is obviously more than just the 26 colleges identified by these reports. As of today, how many are in breach of the reporting requirement? How many responses have been received by the department and how many remain overdue? I understand that 14 days is provided to the colleges to respond. Quite clearly, we are well in excess of that 14-day requirement, in some cases by many weeks. I ask the minister to take that matter on notice, and I expect that he will. Is that the case, Minister? Will you take that on notice?17:41:0010091Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Yes.17:41:0010091Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—When was the last time that the department undertook a random audit rather than rely on the 30 June cut-off point?17:41:0010091Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that on notice as well.17:41:0010091Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I ask the minister: what action does the depart ment currently take to ensure compliance with attendance requirements of the ESOS Act?17:42:0010091Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There is an annual compliance test that the department carries out in relation to the various providers. There are a number of other matters which the department undertakes. I do not have that detail to hand, but I can provide that to Senator Carr fairly soon, I would imagine.17:42:0010091Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Does the department of education undertake random attendance checks of students' attendance? I mean by that: not notifying the particular college with 48 hours notice that they are intending to arrive and not counting chairs but counting students. I ask the minister: when was the last time such action was undertaken?17:43:0010091Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Again, I will have to take that on notice.17:43:0010091Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Is it the case that there are considerable existing powers under the ESOS Act to prevent breaches of the ESOS Act? Given that the minister has announced a review with terms of reference substantially stronger than those originally announced when he first indicated his intention to move in this direction—which just so happened to coincide with a number of issues being pursued by the Labor Party on these matters—are there existing powers that can be used to prevent the operations of fraudulent practitioners in this industry rather than wait for the inquiry to bring down a finding in the middle of next year?17:44:0010091Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Any providers found to be in breach of the act can be suspended, as I understand it—which is a salutary sanction, I would suggest.17:44:0010091Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I come back to the point that, given there have been no prosecutions in the last year and there is some question as to whether or not there have been any in recent years, what action has the government undertaken using its existing powers to clean up this industry?17:44:0010092Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The fact that there has been no prosecution does not necessarily mean that there has been some tardiness or negligence in relation to the department in carrying out its investigations. Senator Carr would agree, I am sure, that if any prosecution was to be brought it would be founded on evidence and proper procedure. If we rushed into any prosecution which was ill founded, no doubt Senator Carr would be the first to raise a complaint. We are engaging in due process in relation to these matters. I do not think that there can be any conclusions drawn from the fact that there has not been any prosecution in relation to the matters raised by Senator Carr.17:45:0010092Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The last I would be accusing this government of is rushing into anything in terms of seeking to improve the protection of the quality and integrity of this industry. Despite the fact that numerous complaints have been raised, despite the fact that I initiated an inquiry into the operations of this act last year and despite the fact that the Senate report was brought down on a unanimous basis, it is apparent that the government took over 12 months to move any further and only after a number of colleges had been named which had clearly been in breach of the law and which clearly had been identified by the department's own officers. For instance, I cite the case of the Business Institute of Victoria which collapsed in May this year, yet no action has been taken. The last thing I would be doing is accusing this government of rushing to actually do anything to improve the operations of this industry rather than have another inquiry.Dr Kemp has this tremendous technique. He gets a huge mirror out. When he has a problem or he has a complaint from the Labor Party, he gets a big mirror out and has a good look into it. That is all that ever happens. What you identify is a constant failure by this government to deal with fundamental questions which go to the heart of the success of education in this country—that is, provision of quality services. We have been seeing a decline in a range of areas. The minister acknowledges it himself these days. His cabinet submission said, `There is a perception of a decline in quality in higher education.' But we notice that it is not just in the universities. There is a decline in quality in a range of other educational institutions, yet there is no action being taken by this government other than to get the big mirror out and have a look into it.Of course, when you find out what the scam really is—that is, what the government's proposals really are in terms of their cabinet submission—we hear repeated denials: `Oh, we didn't really intend to do that at all. We didn't really want to get into that area at all.' We hear from the government: `That's not our intention—to introduce an American style education system. We are not going to introduce a series of measures which would undermine the quality of education still further.' What we hear from this government is: `Well, we'll put that on the back burner. We'll have a look at that later on.' That is a pattern that is now emerging.I ask the government: given that there are substantive powers currently available for this government to get off its tail and actually do something rather than get the mirror out, why isn't the government moving? What is stopping the government from moving? Of course, it will be said that it is natural justice. Well, there is no natural justice for the people that are ripped off by these unethical operators. There is no natural justice for those that are brought into this country as students and told that they are going to be given a quality education but find themselves forced into the clutches of some of these unsavoury characters. There is no natural justice for those that are used as cheap labour in the restaurants, the hotels, the cleaning businesses or the brothels in this country. There is no natural justice for them because they are here on the basis that if they do not do what they are told they will be shipped out. They are told, `Carry a toothbrush with you, because at any time you could be tapped on the shoulder and taken out.' There is no basis of complaint for them. There is no natural justice for them. There is only the opportunity to be given short shrift if you complain. There is therefore a continuing cycle of corruption—corruption in the sense that people act on the basis of monetary gain rather than the provision of the services which we would expect of them.What has this got to do with education? It has everything to do with the quality of education. The provision of educational services in this country has to be predicated on the assumption that everyone is entitled to a high quality service. Increasingly evidence is showing that if we get a reputation internationally for not being able to provide a high quality service for everybody and we get a reputation for being used as the vehicle for various people smugglers then we will find that there will be a decline in our international reputation. That all comes back to the government. It comes back to the officers in this chamber at the moment because it is their responsibility as the gatekeepers on behalf of this parliament to ensure that we are providing a quality service. If they cannot do their job, we are entitled to ask: why not?They say to people in the industry, `We do not have enough resources.' I say that is because the government has cut these officers back. There is 50 per cent less of them. I also say that the government does not have the political will to do anything about it. This government works on the assumption that the private market—the free-for-all—should rule. That means that the lowest common denominator should rule. Cost pressures are leading to a decline in the number of students in many sectors, not just the universities but in so many other sectors of the international education industry. This bill goes to all of those, not just the higher education system. Cost pressures mean that providers are often placed in a position where they have to cut corners.And when you have to compete against some of these characters that are offering courses for about $1,000 a year when the quality programs are running at $12,000 a year, you are entitled to ask: how do they do it? They do it on the basis that they are not actually teaching. They are not in the business of providing a service; they are in the business of providing a visa. That visa is then used to provide the sweatshops of this country with cheap labour. They are using vehicles such as the ESOS Act which is being subverted because this government is not doing enough to stop it. The providers who are engaged in this with crook immigration agents and crook education agents know what the scam is and know that they will not meet any real resistance from this government. That is a very serious question which goes to the very heart of the provision of education in this country and to the very heart of the nature of the matters being discussed before us at the moment. I ask again, minister: why are you not taking action, using the existing powers, to clean up the corrupt practices in this industry?17:52:0010093Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can only reiterate that the department is looking into these matters, and that it would be unwise to comment on operational matters. Senator Carr knows that any inadvertent comment from me could well result in those who might be guilty escaping from proper investigation, and I am not about to do that, as I am not about to pre-empt any finding of the same. There is an investigation process; due process has to take its course. I reject entirely the allegation of Senator Carr that we are not pursuing these matters.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Minister, there is one issue that does need clarification. Senator Stott Despoja sought to table a second document. I want to clarify whether leave is granted for that document to be tabled.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I have had a chance to have a quick look at this document. The thing that strikes me is that at the bottom of the document it states, `This document has been retyped from the original.' I had understood, when Senator Stott Despoja was talking of this document, that we were dealing with a document which purported to be a cabinet submission and not a copy or retyping thereof. What we are talking about is two very different documents.What we would be doing here, were we to allow this to go forward in its self-proclamation as a cabinet submission, would be to rely on an anonymous person who has retyped this document and to rely on that person as having: (a) retyped this from a cabinet submission; and (b) done so accurately. Without knowing who did that and the circumstances and without knowing about the original document, no Australian government would ever agree to the tabling of such a document.This could be the greatest fraud of all time—I am not to know—because we have at the bottom of each page, `This document has been retyped from the original,' not copied but retyped. It could have been reframed, reworded. We do not know the identity of the person who sat down and retyped it. We do not know what the original document looked like. We have nothing which identifies the original here. There is no copy number on this submission. So I reject entirely that this document is what it says it is. On that basis, the government refuses leave.17:55:0010094Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for his explanation of why the government will be denying leave for the purposes of tabling this document. It is not unusual for documents that are controversial or that may be disagreed with by the government, or even the opposition of the day, to be tabled as a matter of courtesy. I have made available to the chamber—with the acceptance and willingness of the opposition, in particular the opposition whip—this document which I have quoted from and which has been the subject of debate while we have been discussing this bill. So it is actually quite appropriate that this document, regardless of whether or not it is the original, should be tabled. I think it should be tabled.I acknowledge that the government has denied leave in a show of what I believe is a lack of goodwill. I believe the minister today has gone much further than Dr David Kemp in relation to this document, first of all mentioning hearsay, now questioning whether or not—it is a reasonable question to ask—the content has differed in any way. I bet that if it had Dr David Kemp would have issued an all points bulletin. We would have had an alert telling us exactly what bits were fraudulent or incorrect or inappropriate in some way. Quite the contrary: we have heard Dr Kemp in a number of instances, in particular in an interview with Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report—I thank the minister for granting leave to table that document—expressly acknowledging quotes from that document, not resiling from them, not suggesting that he is not responsible. He does not resile or recoil from them in any way. He counters them on some occasions with perhaps different arguments or interpretations. But I did not read one sentence that said, `This is not my document, I did not write this.' Quite the contrary: a number of his statements began, `I was not saying this there' or `I said this' or `We meant in the document that'. Excuse my paraphrasing. He does not resile from the ownership of that document.I thank the minister for his concerns. I am a little upset by his lack of goodwill. I think there is a good argument to table a document when there have been a number of quotations from that document, and the government can put on record its concerns about that document being tabled. No-one is pretending that it is the original. When you table a document that says, `This document has been retyped from the original', you are not exactly pretending. It is an interesting argument that the minister has put forward but a little churlish. I suspect that David Kemp might have a slightly different attitude. I take the minister at his word when he says that he had not seen it until today, although the rest of us involved in education debates had seen it.17:58:0010094Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I stress once again that what we are relying on here, with the retyping or reconstruction of this document, is that a third party has been involved in that. That third party, via this document, is trying to tell the Senate, if this were to be tabled, what the original said. That is hearsay. It is hearsay per se.I also say that Dr Kemp might have referred to one or two quotes that were mentioned. That is not an adoption of the entire document. That document is a rather lengthy one. It would be entirely improper to assume from that interview which took place that Dr Kemp had adopted this document. Indeed, he did not. It was not put to him by the interviewer at the time that he read through it and adopt it. You cannot play fast and loose with laws of evidence; you cannot play fast and loose with procedural fairness.Because someone has adopted a quote or referred to a document does not mean that the document which it was attempted to table today has been adopted by the minister concerned. That does not follow. In relation to the fact that this document is retyped, perhaps the opposition and the Democrats could be more genuine and put to the Senate the original, and not some reconstruction about which we have no assurance and which might be a fraud.18:00:0010095Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Welcome to the chair, Senator Lightfoot; I am sure you will enjoy this. I indicate to the minister—I do not think I have made it clear—that I have asked the government to investigate a number of colleges that I have named in regard to overseas students. I accept the minister's assurance that they will be investigated. I also acknowledge that an allegation is not in itself evidence of guilt. However, I do require—and I will be pursuing the departmental officers on this issue at the estimates hearings on 1 December—that there be a robust inquiry into the operations of those colleges to date. I reiterate that claims have been made to me by numerous participants in the industry. It is consistent across the country that these complaints are being made, so I do take the view that they have considerable validity. Many of these types of complaints have been put to the department on previous occasions and have not been investigated. So I will want to follow up those matters in the next round of estimates.There are a number of new issues. I do not want to suggest that all matters that I am pursuing have been previously raised, but I have raised a number of new examples. I expect the department may not have had knowledge of them, although I would be surprised, if the department were seriously engaged with this industry, if the department were not aware of the information that has been provided.I turn now to the issue of Greenwich University, which is another institution that I have raised concerns about. I have raised concerns about a range of institutions, that is, those operating in this new twilight zone of the Internet. I have mentioned the Australasian Institute. I have raised the issue of the University of Asia and St Clements. I have been concerned at the failure of this government to take a whole-of-government approach to the question of these universities operating outside of the HEFA Act, with the exception, presumably now, of Greenwich. They claim to be Australian universities, and operate in the international market as Australian universities, to which the government seems to have a range of responses according to whether it is the taxation department, the securities commission, the department of education, the department of territories or the department of immigration. I ask the minister: has the government developed a whole-of-government approach to the question of these Internet universities?18:03:0010095Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—We have a review well under way in relation to the Greenwich University.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Another one?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—No, this is the one that was originally being conducted by a panel established by the Commonwealth and one which Senator Carr is well aware of. We are waiting for further information to be provided by Greenwich University. It would be premature for the government to set up any whole-of-government approach to `Internet universities', as he puts them, without first ascertaining the result of this inquiry. It might be jumping the gun, as it were, if we were to pre-empt our inquiry and go off half-cocked with a whole-of-government approach. This inquiry is well under way and no doubt as a result of it the government will be looking at how it does things in the future.18:05:0010095Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, we have yet another example of the mirror approach to education policy by this government. We have another good look into something and we get a series of scandals exposed. We have a body claiming to be a university in South Australia operating out of the back of a grog shop, we have another one in Queensland operating out of a post office box, and we have these clowns in Greenwich, in Norfolk Island. In Victoria some of these universities are claiming to be in association with established reputable universities. Yet the government does nothing about it.What the government does without its whole-of-government approach is to allow the Department of the Treasury to have a different view and encourages them. Some of these people get export awards. That is what I find staggering. Some of these bogus operations get rewarded by this government because we do not have a whole-of-government approach to international education. You have the Department of the Treasury saying: `It is okay if you want to operate in this field. Anyone can call themselves a university.' I have a company around the corner from my electoral office known as University Meats. I would expect under this government's policy that they should be able to operate as a university, because that is the way it is functioning at the moment. We do not have a whole-of-government approach. The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing.The minister today has indicated to us that that appears to be government policy because it does not want to pre-empt anything. It would only be natural justice for every crook who wants to plunder this country to do so! That is natural justice! You will be able to call yourself a university. You will have freedom of choice. You can operate out of a grog shop and call yourself a university. You can operate out of an offshore island. You can get the local council to hoodwink a minister who would not know one end of a university from another to direct the Administrator of Norfolk Island to establish a university on that island and then claim that it has access to Australia's reputation as a quality provider.I come back to this point. When will the Gallagher report come down? It was initiated by the Commonwealth, true, but only after we again pursued the question. When will we have an indication of what the department and the officers associated with this committee are able to claim is their response to the question of the bona fides of Greenwich University?18:08:0010096Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I cannot add anything further. Any investigation has a life of its own; it is an island unto itself. I cannot say on what date that investigation will be completed. It would be wrong of me to say so—when Senator Carr asks when this report is due. He knows very well that I cannot pre-empt the date.18:08:0010096Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, I had the good fortune to read Campus Review just a couple of weeks ago. It was able to detail a draft report outlining certain criteria for accreditation.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Hearsay.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—The minister interjects and says that it is hearsay. The report of the Campus Review some weeks ago detailed what was purported to be a draft of the criteria for accreditation for these new universities. Was the document that they reproduced an accurate document? Did it reflect the committee's thinking at that time?18:09:0010096Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Carr is asking us to accept what Campus Review has said. I have not seen that article, but it purports to convey to the community at large a draft report which is the product of the Gallagher committee—as Senator Carr puts it. I am not about to say whether or not that is true or untrue. All I do know is that that committee is carrying out its inquiries and that for me to comment on the result of those inquiries one way or another would be improper. The publication concerned might be careful in relation to how it reports that report. I am not about to comment on the authenticity of its report or otherwise.18:10:0010096Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I note that the government is allowing these operators to continue, despite the fact that there is no formal accreditation process in place to deal with these private providers of dubious providence. Is it the case that the government has plans to allow them access to public funding for both teaching and research? 18:10:0010097Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that question on notice.18:11:0010097Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—When will the minister be able to respond to that question? He has taken it on notice. Does that mean the normal 28-day provision? Do we have to follow through the normal operations of the standing orders for questions on notice? Would the minister accept that at this point?18:11:0010097Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Not all of the matters that Senator Carr has raised at the committee stage have been pertinent to the funding covered by this particular bill. This is a higher education funding amendment bill. I concede that, in its title, it is broad in application. However, not everything that Senator Carr has asked today has been entirely specific to the bill—some have, some have not—and not all the officials from the department have been present for this debate. There are also detailed questions that Senator Carr has put to us and we will look into them. The government has a fairly good record on education and on answering questions—voluminous as they are from Senator Carr. We still do our best to answer those queries.18:12:0010097Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, I say to you that the questions I have asked are directly related to the bill insofar as this bill sets maximum funding levels for the expenditure on international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International for the 2001 funding year. That is the case, Minister, is it not? This is directly related to the operations of this bill. This is the international division of the department that is directly covered by this bill.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—The administration of the ESOS Act is not in this bill. It's irrelevant.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—No, Minister, you are dead wrong. The officers in the international education division of the department of employment administer the ESOS Act. This goes specifically to the issue of the marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International. You are dead wrong on that, Minister. I am asking you a specific question. You have taken a number of questions on notice today. You have said to me that you will come back with answers. I understand that you may not have the detail available immediately. My question relates to when you will reply and whether the normal provisions of the standing orders, as far as you are concerned, cover such questions on notice.18:13:0010097Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can tell Senator Carr that we will do our best to get the answers to him. However, I take issue with the fact that the ESOS Act, and the administration thereof, has formed the basis of several questions from Senator Carr. The ESOS Act, or any amending bill to it, is not before us. The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill is before us. Some of the officers from the international division might be here, but it is not a matter which is before the chamber as such. The ESOS Act is something quite separate. It relates to higher education, but it is a discrete area. We will endeavour to answer those questions which have been taken on notice as quickly as possible.18:14:0010097Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I repeat, Minister, that Australian Education International covers all aspects of international education, including the administration of the ESOS Act. This is expenditure for this division of the department which, as part of its responsibilities, administers the ESOS Act. I take your point about answering the questions. Unfortunately, I must advise you that, notwithstanding your good faith, far too often I have had occasion to raise with this department its failure to answer questions and to answer them in their entirety. I will be pursuing these matters if you are not able to get the department to respond in the spirit in which you have spoken in the chamber today. I ask the minister: when will the government announce its formal policy on accreditation of private and Internet higher education providers in general?18:15:0010097Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I do not think that I can add to that; we have gone over this previously. The inquiry into the Greenwich University is a key factor in all of this and, as I have said, I am unable to give any indication to the Senate as to when that would conclude and, even if I could, it would be improper of me to do so.18:15:0010098Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I just want to be clear about this. Is it the government's intention to use a voucher scheme for private or Internet providers in terms of access to any funds from the public purse?18:15:0010098Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that question on notice.Request agreed to.Bill agreed to, with a request.Bill reported with a request; report adopted.Bills10098r64610098Consideration resumed from 18 October.Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed and agrees to the additional amendment made by the House of Representatives to the bill.18:18:0010098Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Let me outline the position of the opposition. We will be opposing the government's motion. Therefore, we will be voting to insist that the amendments carried by the Senate when the bill was dealt with a month or two ago should stand. The government in the House of Representatives has moved, and it was carried, an amendment which would establish a Forest Products Advisory Council. That is the amendment that Minister Ellison referred to a moment ago. Our position is that we believe that the amendments that we originally moved in the Senate but which were not carried—to establish a Wood and Paper Industry Council—are more appropriate and, accordingly, we will be moving an amendment to once again put that to the Senate. That amendment, I understand, has been circulated and is set out on sheet 1617. To summarise our position, we will oppose the government's motion insofar as it relates to not insisting upon the Senate's amendments previously carried. In relation to the government's proposal for a Forest Products Industry Council, we will move an amendment that would establish a Wood and Paper Industry Council. If that amendment is not carried by the Senate—but we hope that on this occasion the Democrats will reconsider their position and support it—then we would, rather reluctantly, ultimately support the government's proposal. Although we believe it is a long way short of the desirable outcome, it is nevertheless better than nothing. I hope that is clear. That may therefore require the vote to be taken separately, although we are happy to have the issues treated together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—In the light of your comments, can I confirm that you would now like the question to be divided?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Yes, thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I note also that Senator Brown has circulated two amendments to be moved in addition to the amendment that has been carried by the House of Representatives, namely, the amendment establishing a Forest Products Advisory Council. I will indicate our attitude to Senator Brown's amendments at the appropriate time.I will now make some remarks in regard to the government's refusal to consider any of the amendments that were carried by this Senate. I remind the government and senators generally that this debate spanned six days. It was lengthy and detailed, and there is no doubt that a lot of attention was given to the important issues by the Senate at that time. Further, this is a matter that has been widely canvassed for quite some time. We are therefore very disappointed at the way in which Minister Tucker flippantly treats the very considered amendments carried by this chamber. His response publicly after the Senate carried the legislation with those amendments was, in his usual bullying fashion, to try and stand up the Senate and the parliament and say that he would consider withdrawing the legislation. His attitude was that these amendments would not be given any serious con sideration at all by him or the government. His message to the Senate was, `You had better pass my bill, or else.' That is reflective of his attitude all the way through the development of this legislation.When he came to deal with the bill last week in the other place, he demonstrated his hypocritical and inconsistent approach; and he demonstrated that his approach is a political one, not one that is based on a balanced approach and a balanced assessment looking for a balanced outcome in a very difficult issue. For instance, he rejected our perfectly reasonable objects clause, yet in his opening remarks in the debate in the other place last week he stated:The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 provides legislative support to the outcomes being achieved under the regional forest agreement process. The government is working cooperatively with the states to implement the National Forest Policy Statement, which is the framework for a long-term and lasting resolution of forest industry, conservation and community interests and expectations concerning our nation's forests.So at the very outset he acknowledges the importance of the principles of the National Forest Policy Statement, but he point blank refuses to even include in the bill an objects clause that will reflect the principles of that statement.Subsequently, however, in his own amendment establishing the Forest Products Industry Council, in what is clearly a political move designed to win over some support from the union movement for his proposals, he has agreed to include recognition of the wood and paper industry strategy. It is rather ironic, because the wood and paper industry strategy was one developed by the previous Labor government as a consequence of the principles of the National Forest Policy Statement. That was a strategy that was abandoned by this government when it came to office, but now this minister, in a rather cynical way, is prepared to give recognition to that in his half-baked proposal for a Forest Products Advisory Council. It is clearly inconsistent. Why on the one hand object to a perfectly reasonable, sensible and necessary objects clause but on the other hand in another amendment give some recognition to it? I will come back to the Forest Products Industry Council and our proposal for the Wood and Paper Industry Council a little later.The minister has also gone around the country in his usual fashion attacking the Labor Party and attacking the Senate, claiming that we are frustrating the process. He is now claiming that somehow, as a result of this legislation not being passed, all RFAs will not be completed by 31 December this year. The delays are due entirely to this minister. If one has followed his performance over past months, one can see him chop and change from day to day or week to week. One day he is attacking the industry and the New South Wales government for their agreement on the north coast forests, trying to play the role of an environmentalist. The next day he is attacking the Western Australian government. There is absolutely no consistency in his approach, and that has been demonstrated by his reaction to the amendments put forward by the Senate.I turn quickly to one other issue. No doubt I will need to make some further remarks on it later in this committee consideration. The minister has claimed, in his reasons for rejecting our proposal for disallowance procedures, that they are unconstitutional. It is quite clear that his arguments just give support to the old maxim that you can get whatever legal advice you want if you frame the question accordingly. In what has to be one of the greatest jokes of all time from this minister, he says that we do not need a disallowance process or a parliamentary scrutiny process. I quote from his reasons:Further, if there is a concern that RFA requirements are not being complied with, it is open to parliament to amend or repeal the bill.This is a bill that, when enacted, is supposed to give certainty to this industry. Yet this minister says he will not accept parliamentary scrutiny at the outset of the process but that, if there is a problem somewhere over the next 20 years, the parliament can come back and amend the legislation. That is a nonsensical proposition and a dangerous proposition for this industry. (Time expired)18:30:0010099Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens will not be voting for the House of Representatives resolution that we should drop the amendments that the Senate put to the House. Even with those amendments, the forest industry gets lay down misere through this regional forest agreements legislation. I will remind the committee that this legislation is basically a corroboration of the regional forest agreements whereby the Prime Minister has signed away the powers and responsibilities of the federal parliament to the states and the woodchip corporations over Australia's native forests for the next 20 years. In particular, the legislation provides that, where the forests—or the wildlife in them—are to be protected by federal decree in those 20 years, the woodchip corporations are to be compensated by Australian taxpayers for the value of those forests for which the woodchip corporations have never paid a red cent—nothing at all. What has astounded me about this whole process is that those very woodchip corporations have cried crocodile tears over jobs in the forests right down the line and yet there is no provision in the legislation and no move by the House of Representatives—that is, the government—in this process to provide for compensation for workers who lose their jobs, not even for the reskilling of them.This is a heist of the Australian people's forests for a small number of rich corporations to maraud the unprotected forests of this nation, largely to send those forests as woodchips to Japan, Korea, China and other destinations in the Northern Hemisphere where they are converted into paper and enter the disposal cycle. The grandest forests of this country end up in the landfills of the Northern Hemisphere, and where the forests are destroyed the wildlife is destroyed with them.As I have explained to the Senate in the previous full debate on this matter, the cycle in Tasmania is to cut down the grand forests, firebomb to prevent any regrowth of rainforest or competing species, and then poison the area with 1080 to kill any wildlife coming into the area. And this legislation is to compensate that process, augment it, foster it and extend it. As you will remember, Mr Temporary Chairman Lightfoot, during this debate when I asked the government representative about—and challenged that representative over—so-called ecologically sustainable logging that this legislation is supposed to foster, she sat glued to her seat because there is no defence of the doublespeak.Ecologically sustainable logging, according to Prime Minister Howard's pacts with several premiers, means total destruction of the forests and their replacement with genetically modified, fast growing eucalypts or pines for the further enhancement of the woodchip corporations' interests further down the line. All this is totally unnecessary because, as you know, there are enough plantations in this country to provide all its wood needs.Even when it comes to the balance of payments, the myth that is put about by people—including the government spokesperson on forests and so-called conservation, Mr Tuckey—is that we are somehow imbalanced in a way which requires us to continue the destruction of our native forests. In fact, we export twice as much wood as we import. The problem is that the industry, because it is rapacious and greedy, does not downstream process in this country or create the jobs here. It allows that to happen elsewhere and we import goods based on wood at twice the cost that we export our wood. So we end up basically with this terrible process where we export much more than we bring into the country, but we pay more for what we bring into the country than what we export. There is nothing in this legislation or in the amendments coming back from the House of Representatives that is going to meet that problem and get Australia the advantage that it could have through downstream processing of its plantations, protection of its native forests and a commitment by the industry, as well as government, to look after the jobs of those in the forests.The regional forest agreement signed in Tasmania is a fraud. It is a fraud that has been perpetrated on the workers in the industry. Those Tasmanian senators who are present will have read the weekend press in Tasmania which highlighted a group of transport operators committed to the logging industry. They talked about how they had come to this parliament to protest against conservationists and in favour of the wood chipping industry but in the last few weeks, in the wake of the regional forest agreement whereby Prime Minister Howard and others indicated that they were acting in the `interests of the workers', they have been dumped. They have huge repayments on their machinery and they have no way of paying them. Some of those men and their families are going to end up in bankruptcy.Where is the logging industry? Where is the government? Where is the Bacon Labor government in Tasmania, which supports this fraudulent process? Where is the Prime Minister to succour these people who have now been put on the garbage tip and have been thrown out of work, along with nearly 500 others who have suffered a similar fate, since the woodchip organisations managed to get the Prime Minister's and the Premier's signatures on the bottom of a regional forest agreement? Then we are asked in this Senate to endorse that process.The sad thing about this is that even the Labor Party's amendments left Tasmania out in the cold. There is no review process in these proposals either from the House of Representatives or from the Senate to enable the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement to be vetted by the Senate. We are supposed to accept, as a parliament, a mechanism whereby the Prime Minister and the state Premier have signed an agreement to hand across the forests to the sectional interests of the big corporations who are not based in Tasmania—neither their headquarters nor their shareholders are—but at the same time to underwrite them should there be any future federal move on behalf of the nation or Tasmanians in particular to protect our forests. The whole process is shameful. It is disgusting.Nevertheless, I am hopeful that these minimalist amendments which the Senate agreed to will be insisted upon. How dare the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who has conserved nothing since he entered that portfolio, rail against the Senate for these minimalist amendments which, amongst other things, would see the regional forest agreements on the mainland, with the exception of the early agreements signed in East Gippsland and in Victoria, brought before the parlia ment. The taxpayers are underwriting them; should not the parliament be vetting them? Of course it should. As a Green I will be supporting these amendments for the little improvement that they do make to what is a parlous sell-out of the nation's interest, which the regional forest agreement process and this legislation represent.I have to foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to the amendment brought up here from the House of Representatives so that if there is—and this is another gift to the industry—a forest products, taxpayer funded council set up, it is not just those who wield chainsaws that are on the council but also representatives from the forest related tourism industry, because that is where the job creation in forests is in Tasmania. There are more people getting jobs out of the preservation of our forests, intact, in Tasmania—more than 3,000 these days—than are involved in the destruction of native forests.I will also be moving an amendment to say that there should be represented on such an industry council people who are interested in forest related water industries, because there has been a lot of contention not only in this country but also right around the world about the damage to water catchments that accrues from logging—and not just through the pollution of streams by direct run-off and by soiling of streams. I remember an indigenous person in Sarawak describing their river, which used to be pristine and full of fish but now was neither, as looking like a river of Milo—referring to the Nestle product—because that is just what their river looked like. Rivers in Australia downstream of logging operations look much the same.Of course, there is the added hazard after the logging industry has moved in of the spraying of pesticides and, on occasions, herbicides into the fast growing plantations. These are particularly vulnerable, genetically modified plantations which replace these forests very often in the headwaters of rivers which are used for a variety of other purposes, including drinking water for people living downstream. Water is an industry these days and that very important commercial as well as environmental entity should be represented on any such council.Earlier I supported the proposal put forward by the Labor Party as an alternative, which I think is superior, and I would make a minor amendment to ensure that a representative of the Australian Conservation Foundation is on the council that is proposed there. I support the Senate's stand on this matter. I hope that the Senate will remain resolute. I take the opportunity again to condemn the legislation while adding support to these very minor, around the edges amendments which the Senate has made and put to the House of Representatives and which the House of Representatives is, in the interests of the woodchip corporations, trying to eliminate.18:43:0010102Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The reasons why the government does not support these amendments and in particular the amendments which tie regional forest agreements to a new objects clause, thus enabling disallowance by either house, have already been explained to the Senate in the previous debate and I do not propose to go over those matters again. I would, however, like to take a few moments to explain to the opposition the practical consequences of their disallowance proposal. This amendment would require that proposed RFAs be tabled in each house, and each house then has 15 sitting days to disallow. This is to be preceded by certain procedural requirements, including publication of the proposed RFA in the gazette, and it includes the RFAs signed in Western Australia, north-east Victoria and Eden.It is highly probable that there would be an attempt to disallow all these RFAs in the Senate, and the opposition itself has implied that it will seek to disallow the Western Australian RFA. Given that the remaining uncompleted RFAs are not likely to be signed before mid-December at the earliest, the consequence of the opposition's amendments would be the immediate cessation of woodchip processing in all areas except those where RFAs were signed before 1 March 1999, because the exporters would have no guarantee that their product could be shipped. The parliamentary sitting schedule means that this would be the case even if the government were to move to extend the existing licences for a short period and regardless of whether or not the RFAs were eventually disallowed by the Senate. The mere fact that Senate approval was required would prevent a woodchip exporter from processing residues.For those RFAs disallowed by the Senate there would be no certainty of a final resolution at all, given the need to negotiate sequentially with the states and the Senate. No doubt the Greens and the Democrats would be very pleased with this outcome, but it would cause massive disruption to the native hardwood timber industry in Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and possibly even Tasmania. Timber mills would either close or lay off workers, and contractors would be unemployed. These impacts would hit hardest in small mills where sales of residue play a larger part in cash flow. There are no circumstances under which the government would allow this to happen and therefore it cannot support the amendments. I am surprised, Senator Murphy, that you are supporting these amendments, given your usual stand on the rights of the workers and the way in which you want to support industries in Tasmania, because your state will be hit hardest by these.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—You will hear from me in due course.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—There would also need to be a freeze on industry development and restructuring assistance negotiated as part of RFAs, further penalising industry and stifling investment prospects. Industry has pushed the need for RFA-led certainty legislation, and it has strongly expressed the view that it would be more secure without the bill rather than have an amended bill as proposed which would deliver additional uncertainty. Therefore, the only thing that these amendments are achieving is delaying the bill until after all the RFAs are signed and preventing the government from getting on with the job of restructuring the industry under secure RFA regimes. After all the RFAs are signed, the effect of the amendments would be to prevent almost all woodchip exports for a period ranging from some months to indefinitely—a position which I am assuming the opposition will not promote.As we all know, the government has previously tabled advice from the Office of General Counsel that the parliamentary scrutiny provisions proposed by the opposition are unconstitutional. I note that the shadow minister for justice argued against this view in the other place and raised some interesting legal issues. However, at the end of the day, an argument about whose legal advice is better will not matter one whit.The real vote on this bill will be taken by those people who are contemplating major investment in this industry which, I remind the Senate, currently runs an annual trade deficit of almost $2 billion. Those people are telling us that they will not invest without the security provided by this bill as originally put forward by the government. So the choice is now with the opposition.Senator Forshaw, you mentioned that you were disappointed. I am also disappointed with the attitude of the opposition. You can either support the government in not insisting on these amendments or you can again support the amendments which I have clearly explained to you would cause unemployment among the very people whom you claim to represent. You would also cause massive disruption to an industry which you purport to support. The choice is yours.Progress reported.Documents1010310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I now call on consideration of government documents. There are 48 government documents for consideration on today's Order of Business and a limit of 30 minutes for their consideration. To expedite the consideration of documents I propose, with the concurrence of honourable senators, to call the documents in groups of five. Documents called in each group to which no senator rises will not be listed on the Notice Paper , and documents not called on today will be listed on the Notice Paper . There being no objection it is so ordered. 1010318:51:0010103Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the documents.Documents Nos 22 and 23 deal with the way our companies are regulated in Australia. These reports come out of Treasury. They used to come out of the Attorney-General's Department but, in recent years, corporations have been regulated through the Treasury because the government wants to give emphasis to the function of companies involved in producing goods and services so that the country can become more wealthy, and that is a good thing. But companies are not simply about that. There are other aspects of them that should be looked at. These two reports are interesting in their contrasts. The first is a report from the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee. That is a committee dedicated to enabling company law to be so arranged as to give companies the ability to flourish as they should. They have much to do with matters like CLERP.The other report is from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. It also deals with the sorts of things that the first report deals with. In addition, it points out the other issues that are very much alive in the corporate world. On page 33 of the report, the Chairman, Mr Alan Cameron, notes that, during the period that this report covers, `$6.5 million was recovered for miners who worked at Cobar. An amount of 87 cents in the dollar was recovered for those people.' Unfortunately, there is no mention here of other areas where workers have been left without their due reward—areas like Mount Schank, Wodonga and others which have now become famous.What this report does is to indicate that companies now affect the lives of all of us—not only our working lives but also the lives that we may lead in terms of leisure. Companies affect the environment. There is now a provision in the Corporations Law requiring companies to give an account of how they have looked to the care of the environment during the course of a particular reporting period. That is important to understand: companies are now so fundamental to the sorts of lives that we all live that it is time this parliament became more and more conscious of that fact and made laws that require companies not only to produce the income and wealth they do but also to act in a way that is consistent with the sort of life that we all want to lead. We have dealt with the way that powerful interests have acted in the past, and it is now time for us to look at companies—not only multinational companies but companies generally—to see them for what they are and to make our laws so that not only the economy is looked to but also every other aspect of our lives.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—I put the question that the documents be accepted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I seek your advice, Mr Acting Deputy President, as to whether this is the right juncture for me to comment on document No. 13 on this list?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am advised that we need to put the question with respect to Senator Cooney's documents first, Senator Brown. I now put the question that Senator Cooney's documents be accepted.Question resolved in the affirmative.1010418:57:0010104Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I refer to the document listed at No. 13, which is in relation to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and, indeed, another document tabled today which is to do with the reasons for delaying the report on the finances of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The question that I want to canvass here, and it is a question I am putting to the government, particularly to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, goes to a report in the Australian on Tuesday, 5 October.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Brown, would you be kind enough to say what number that document is.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The second document I am referring to; we have had notice of it today. It is the first one that was tabled by the Clerk today.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Documents Nos 1 to 16, I think, have already been accepted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I refer to the first document that was tabled today by the Clerk. It is called the Acts Interpretation Act—Statement pursuant to subsection 34C(6) relating to the extension of specified period for presentation of a report—Director of National Parks and Wildlife Report for 1998-99. So I am relating to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife report for 1998-99.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, that has no relevance to these particular documents that we are accepting.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Okay.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—We are not accepting; we are noting, I am informed.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will await, then, a full list of the documents. I will go back to a full list of the documents and continue my remarks when I get that.1010418:59:0010104Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The Affirmative Action Agency is responsible for administering the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. The act covers all private sector organisations, higher education institutions, group training schemes, unions, community organisations and non-government schools with more than 100 employees.The objective of the Affirmative Action Agency is to achieve equal employment status for women and to assist in the elimination of employment discrimination. I would like to draw to the Senate's attention what I believe to be one of the agency's most important roles: monitoring the actual progress of businesses in implementing affirmative action programs. It is good to know that businesses and other groups around Australia are starting to realise that it makes sense to treat women as equals and to promote programs that help women realise their full potential.The agency acknowledges that reports made to it by various groups show incremental improvements to various practices. Nearly 300 organisations have been identified as best practice. There are, unfortunately, 55 organisations that have not met their reporting requirements under the act. I am not going to single out organisations that are identified as best practice, nor am I going to single out the ones that are non-compliant. I do want to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the best represented private sector companies in the annual report's list of best practice groups are machinery and equipment manufacturing companies and metal ore mining companies. Universities and a number of community groups are also listed. I congratulate the organisations in those areas, especially the equipment manufacturing and mining industries, that have made those achievements in a particularly difficult trading environment.There are a lot of statistics in the annual report, but let me focus on one particular area that the agency looked at: recognising that women are more likely to be the primary caregiver to children is extremely important. Overall, 66 per cent of organisations look at workplace agreements and awards for their possible impact on women's conditions of employment. Private sector companies are becomingly increasingly aware of the need for this, with 71 per cent saying they looked at this in 1998. This was up from 65 per cent in 1997 and just 48 per cent in 1994.The agency reports that `part-time work with pro-rata conditions continues to be an increasing feature of employment practice across all sectors, with almost 86 per cent of all organisations utilising part-time employment'. Unfortunately, the provision of paid maternity leave is widely disparate across the different sectors. The private sector, despite increases of one or two per cent in each of the last four years, still has maternity leave provision rates of less than 17 per cent—less than one in five. Thankfully, the percentage of schools, higher education institutions and community groups providing this condition is much higher.All of the sectors examined are increasingly implementing job-sharing. A total of 67 per cent of private sector companies are providing job sharing opportunities. That is up 23 per cent since 1994. All of these initiatives give women a better chance of pursuing a career and starting a family.Let me finish by congratulating the staff of the Affirmative Action Agency for all they have achieved in promoting the role of women in the work force. I hope they continue their good work next year and beyond, especially in light of the proposed changes to the act under which they operate.Question resolved in the affirmative.1010519:04:0010105Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I would like to acknowledge the work done by the Australian Political Exchange Council in sending young people from the four federal parliamentary parties to other countries to study the political systems in those countries. I was a beneficiary of one of the programs and I benefited greatly. I would like to put on the record my experience of a recent trip to the United Kingdom, particularly the experience of looking at the processes of peacekeeping and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and at the interplay of political parties in Belfast. The trip was certainly an eye-opener and it not only contributed to an understanding of the reconciliation process in places like South Africa but it was beneficial from the point of view of looking at the narrower extremes of differences of views of reconciliation in Australia.I would like to mention that colleagues have also benefited from the study tours. The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Meg Lees, went to China; the deputy leader, Natasha Stott Despoja, also went to the United Kingdom; and Senator Andrew Bartlett went to Germany. The Australian Democrats would like to put on the record our continuing support for the Australian Political Exchange Council in the work that it does, and we would like to encourage people to participate in the programs on offer.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator Ridgeway, for the benefit of the clerks, could you recall the documents that you wish to refer back to.8G6RIDGEWAYSenator Ridgeway—Document Nos 24, 25, 28, 32, 41 and 45.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—We have not got past 30 yet.1010619:07:0010106Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.Document No. 29 relates to the Employment Advocate of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The annual report 1998-99 is, I hope, the penultimate report of the Office of the Employment Advocate. I am waiting expectantly for their final report next year.Page 6 of the annual report contains a summary of the Employment Advocate's functions. They include providing assistance and advice to employers, especially in small business; advice to employees under the Workplace Relations Act 1996; and a number of other matters. It goes on to state that, in performing these functions, it will also:pay special regard to the needs of workers in a disadvantaged bargaining position (for example, women, people from a non-English speaking background, young people, apprentices, trainees and outworkers).The second area is `assisting workers to balance work and family responsibilities'.Unfortunately, one's ability to make an assessment of the financial reporting regime of the Office of the Employment Advocate is a little hampered. At page 7, which covers the Employment Advocate's staff, we are told that the budget for the Employment Advocate will appear in the DEWRSB budget appropriation—which I understand is not yet tabled. But some insight is provided into the types of things that the Employment Advocate spends its money on. The report certainly does not provide any great detail on the matters I referred to earlier, but it does say that something in the order of $315,268 or 7.8 per cent of salaries is spent on training themselves. If you then multiply that—my figures might be a bit wrong—the salary is $4 million odd.It is interesting to look at the advertising the Office of the Employment Advocate has undertaken. Some $2.9 million was spent on campaign advertising. This involved the placement of advertisements in the media, the production of print and television advertisements and so on. It excludes its non-campaign matters, which total some $14,000 for the cost of newspaper advertisements. So the cost of the advertisements of this organisation are, in short, extraordinary. It then talks about matters that it does not really give figures on. It talks about market research by Brian Sweeney and Associates, who undertook some concept testing of advertisements suggested for their campaign. It does not give any figures on this. It talks about the Wallis research group, and does not provide any figures for this.It then talks about 50-odd consultancies on which about $1.3 million was spent. The figures for advertisements, consultancies, market research and money it spent training its officers certainly mount up. Reference is made on page 22 to what it actually spent on delivering the services that I spoke about earlier. We are told that the budget for extending the pilot with the direct client services providers into the second half of 1998-99 was some $167,000.From looking at the reporting for the second half of 1998-99, you can gain a slight appreciation that they spent $167,000 on delivering some of those services that they should be delivering. However, their advertising budget is nothing short of extraordinary. The results of that are even more extraordinary. During 1998-99 it approved some 39,874 AWAs—a pitiful amount. If you divide that by the $2.9 million for advertising, you are left with about $72 per head.You then go to the cost of complaints. There were 785 complaints for the year—an extraordinarily low amount. Divide that by the $2.9 million in advertising, and it comes to something in the order of $3,694.26—quite an extraordinary amount to be spending on that number of inquiries. The Commonwealth Ombudsman receives around 23,000 complaints. (Time expired)19:12:0010107Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Senator Ludwig has been somewhat critical of the matters set out in this report and I must confess I can understand why. This report is very sparse on the sort of information that would enable parliament to assess just how successful the Office of the Employment Advocate is and exactly what work it does. For example, on page 8, under the heading `Delivering quality management', the report states:The OEA has continued to outsource its internal audit function to KPMG. KPMG oversee a program of quarterly internal audit reviews.There is no detail of that audit, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson. Somebody with the vast experience you have in this area would understand what an adequate audit is and what detail might be expected so that members of parliament and, indeed, anybody reading the report can understand just what the audit consists of and how effective it has been. On page 9, under the heading of `Fraud control', the report says:The Employment Advocate has taken further steps to guarantee that fraud control remains a priority within the OEA. As part of this plan, the OEA—the Office of Employment Advocate—implemented a fraud control policy as a development from the existing fraud control plan.It would have been useful for people reading this report to know why the Office of Employment Advocate should be so concerned about fraud within the Office of Employment Advocate and why it is giving priority to guarantee that fraud control remains in the forefront of its concerns. When the Employment Advocate comes to prepare the annual report for 1999-2000, perhaps he might give consideration to those issues.It is difficult to understand what it is that the Employment Advocate does when he deals with cases. Pages 18, 19 and 20 illustrate what I mean. The Employment Advocate mentions an action he has against a Victorian employer. The number given is VG389 of 1998. It simply says:A part XA matter re an employer in the leisure industry failing to re-engage casual employee who did not sign an AWA and complained to the OEA. The matter was settled on payment of compensation to the employee and undertakings from the employer.From that you can get no concept of how the Employment Advocate went about his job, how effective he was, how adequate the compensation was and how effective the undertaking from the employer was going to be.A series of other legal matters are referred to, mainly against unions. They are named. The employer is not named. The union is named and in each case an assessment is given of how the case is going. There seem to be a lot more actions against unions than against employers. It would be useful to know why that is the case and how the Employment Advocate is going about his job. This report raises a lot of questions but answers very few of them. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Documents1010710107The following government documents were considered:Commonwealth and Defence Ombudsman—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 . Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Quirke. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Quirke in continuation.Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—Commonwealth agency-based Year 2000 readiness report and government business entity report by portfolio—Third report, September 1999. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Australian Pork Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Dairy Research and Development Corporation and Dairy Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Dried Fruits Research and Development Council—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Pig Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Australian Dairy Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Ridgeway. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Ridgeway in continuation.Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Ridgeway. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Ridgeway in continuation.Veterans' Review Board—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Ridgeway. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Ridgeway in continuation.Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council—Reports for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Cooney. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Cooney in continuation.Australian Federal Police—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 . Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Cooney. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Cooney in continuation.Adjournment1010810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.1010819:20:0010108Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise tonight to continue a series of speeches drawing the attention of the Senate to problems in regional Australia. We had previously discussed a number of specific regions and difficulties faced by smaller centres in rural and regional Australia—centres on the New England of New South Wales, in western Victoria and in the Hunter Valley. The key theme of the speeches was that the role of government had to shift from being a doer and a director to being a change leader in line with the 1994 McKinsey report. Last week I focused on some of the influences of worldwide economic forces as they are impacting on specific industries and which in turn impact on various regions. I spoke last week about the BHP shut down of the investment in most of its steel operations. I expressed my disappointment at that time that BHP was not prepared to stay in a comprehensive steel industry and that the vision of the founders of BHP, in particular Delprat and Lewis, had been lost in the passage of time.I rise today on a matter of great public interest in another industry—that is, the revolution that is currently sweeping across the banking industry. Last Wednesday, Westpac announced its plan to axe a further 3,000 jobs across Australia. Since 1991, Westpac has axed some 10,000 in total and this further cut will reduce its staff by another 10 per cent. It will also close another 300 branches. According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 October this year, the latest axings from Westpac include 700 jobs in rural and regional New South Wales, 800 in Queensland, 300 in Victoria and 295 in back office jobs in a number of states. According to the report in the Australian on 14 October, Westpac will close down 200 rural branches. Of these, Westpac anticipates that some will be converted to in-store operations with the hope that staff that are shed might get a job there. According to the Newcastle Herald on 14 October, Westpac wants to achieve a national savings of $300 million.The effect of this in my own region will be that branches with five staff or less will go in this national restructuring. The future of branches in this area—including Belmont, Cardiff, Cessnock, Charlestown, Maitland, East Maitland, Hamilton, Kurri Kurri, Morisset, Newcastle, New Lambton, Raymond Terrace, Swansea, The Junction, Toronto, Wallsend and Warners Bay—is unclear. Not surprisingly, the Hunter Region Organisation of Councils has been scathing of the Westpac restructuring. The Hon. Milton Morris, former minister from 1965 to 1975 in New South Wales, had this to say:This is an absolute kick in the teeth to country regions particularly. The rapacious attitude and the greed of the banks knows no bounds.The Managing Director of Westpac, Mr David Morgan, says that there is still too much excess capacity in his organisation. What a change of attitude! If we go back 20 years, I remember one particular banking company screening TV ads of a man fighting his way through the bush and pushing branches out of the way, the ad carrying a caption that a certain bank had branches everywhere. That is what they were pushing at that time. This was seen as a great thing. Of course, that is no longer true.I gained some insight into why the banks have changed their minds when I had a senior executive from one of the big four banks come to see me. He went through the way in which they decided to close their branches. It is a very simple method: they list them in order of profitability—most profitable through to least profitable—and then close the least profitable. You do not have to be an expert to work out where the least profitable are; they are usually in regional and rural Australia.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—But they are still profitable.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—They are still profitable, that is true, but they have a lower profitability, so they are shut. If the banks are making money, in my mind, there is no reason why such branches should not remain open. The combined profits of the big four banks was $9.2 billion last year. Isn't that enough? Have the banks really lost their way on the balance between the interests of their stakeholders? Let me remind the Senate who their stakeholders are. Sure, it is the shareholders; but it is also the customers, the staff and the community. The banks are now totally focused on shareholders, with very little interest in the customers, the staff or the community.Recently, in the launch of his book, Managing in Australia, the former Telstra CEO, Frank Blount, commented very astutely:The role of CEO is to optimise long-term shareholder value.It does not mean that you block out everything else like your social responsibility in communities where you work, play and invest.You've got to balance all 4 stakeholders—community; staff; customers and shareholders.That was said by a person who was a leader of one of the biggest organisations in Australia up until recently. In the bid to make more profit, the banks are forgetting that they are a necessary service that should be available to all Australians, including people living in rural and regional areas. The Australian public have become understandably cynical about the commitment of the banks to their area. How much profit is enough and when will banks really start giving back to the community? What they are doing instead is actually taking from the community, particularly in rural and regional Australia.If you look at the pattern of the close down of branches, you see that in 1994 there were 6,747 bank branches in Australia, whereas in 1998 there were 5,615. Therefore, more than 1,132 branches have shut down. Since 1993, out in the rural and regional areas, there has been a 20.5 per cent reduction in the number of country branches by the big four banks. Even more shutdowns are on the horizon. Is the solution for the banks just closure and axing jobs?There are some hopeful signs that the banks are starting to respond to community outrage. After I visited Tenterfield about a year ago I issued a press release welcoming ANZ's decision not to close any more rural branches in the next 12 months. Westpac announced on 13 October this year that by the year 2000, 200 traditional branches will be converted to in-store operations. That shows some sign of improvement, rather that the banks taking the attitude that they are just going to leave town. As I said before, 300 branches have been closed and 200 transaction centres are being opened. But they have scaled down their operations and lost a total of 100 branches.Colonial State Bank was the leader in the establishment of in-store branches, and they should be congratulated on that. When I was in Tenterfield I did go into their corner store bank. It is set up in a corner, there are full banking facilities, with three people behind the counter, all the logos, all the stuff that is there when you normally go into a bank, and it operates out of a local business. This is great news for local business because when people come into the hardware store to do their banking, they are obviously going to do some shopping as well. So it is win-win situation all around.But we have to recognise that what the banks are doing here is cutting their overheads considerably, and those that are keeping open the in-store banking operations should be congratulated; they manage to cut their costs but still retain their service. One would hope that the banks would adopt a socially responsible position whereby if they were the last bank to leave town, from this point on, they would actually open one of these in-store branches and leave that sort of thing behind.What we have to realise, as we move through to using this new technology in this new information age, is that some of the technology does not replace face-to-face service. The government has introduced rural transaction services, which take up part of the slack. One would hope that this will substitute until the banks take a socially responsible position.1011019:30:0010110Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Breast cancer is one of the most common causes of death of Australian women. It is the most common cause of death from cancer in Australian women. On average, seven women die each day in Australia from breast cancer. In 1997, 2,602 Australian women died of breast cancer. October 25 is Australia's Breast Cancer Day. One of the great achievements of the Labor government was its initiation in 1990 of the National Program for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Since then more than two million mammograms have been provided free of charge to women aged 40 and over.The national screening program has been targeted particularly to women in the 50 to 69 years age group, those most at risk. The likelihood of developing breast cancer increases with age. Over 70 per cent of breast cancers occur in women aged over 50 years. About one in every 11 women will get breast cancer at some stage. Only about one in 10 women who get breast cancer have a family history of breast cancer. Early detection and treatment gives women the best chance of overcoming this disease.The national screening program is already showing positive results. Although the incidence of breast cancer is increasing, the death rate is decreasing. Since 1994 the number of deaths from breast cancer have declined a little each year. In 1995 there was a four per cent fall in the mortality rate from breast cancer in Australia and in 1996 a three per cent fall.Every year approximately 7,500 women are diagnosed as having breast cancer. BreastScreen has had a target of a national participation rate of 70 per cent for women aged from between 50 to 69 years by 1999. The national participation rate for this age group for the 24 months to 1997 was 52.2 per cent but the rate varies from state to state. In the ACT participation for this age group has now reached 68 per cent.I wish to pay tribute to those brave women who have battled breast cancer.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Hear, hear!7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—One, whom many senators and members knew, lost her fight on 23 August this year. She was Paula O'Brien, who worked for many years as a research librarian in the Parliamentary Library, first coming to Old Parliament House in 1973. Paula was unfailingly helpful, intelligent and good natured, with a quiet sense of humour which she may have needed to cope with our sometimes near impossible demands. She kept these qualities and her thoughtfulness for others throughout her illness. During a posting to Paris with her husband from 1996 to 1998 Paula hosted a number of visiting Australian parliamentarians and their families and they will remember her cheerful willingness to share with them the things in Paris that she loved. Paula was 46.The cause of breast cancer is still unknown. Research into the causes, incidence and treatment of breast cancer is still of vital importance. In its 1994-95 budget the Labor government provided for the establishment of the Kathleen Cunningham Foundation for Breast Cancer Research and for the establishment of the National Health and Medical Research Council National Breast Cancer Centre, which provided $16.4 million over four years. To its credit, the present government has continued the commitment to these two bodies.In Australia, some of the research has concerned the genes that cause cancer. Projects such as this link scientists and medical researchers across Australia. Work done at the Austin Research Institute in Melbourne and in the United States has raised hopes that a vaccine may in time be developed. Research is also under way on the possible linkage of a virus with breast cancer. Through the National Breast Cancer Centre the many groups working in research, client and service areas throughout Australia are brought together, and collaborative partnerships developed. One of the needed areas for breast cancer research may be that of the incidence and early detection in women like Paula, younger than 50 years. Regular mammographic screening does not appear to be so useful for pre-menopausal women as the breast tissue is denser, making mammograms very difficult to read.In recent times some criticism has been made of the attention now given to breast cancer. But this was a long neglected disease and many women died needlessly with too late diagnoses. The improved survival rate is due in large part to the awareness campaigns of the 1990s. Yet, while the incidence of deaths generally from breast cancer is falling, the potential years of life lost figure continues to rise, up from 29,420 potential years lost in 1995, to 31,418 potential years lost in 1997. The magnitude of the problem may be judged with the comparison of 5,930 potential years lost in 1997 through prostate cancer.National data on the incidence of breast cancer in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women is still needed. It appears that the incidence of breast cancer in ATSI women is similar or slightly lower than in non-Aboriginal women. But this may be simply that there is a high rate of underreporting of cases. We don't really yet know. However, the death rate from breast cancer amongst ATSI women is slightly higher than that of non-Aboriginal women. In the two years from 1993 to 1995, 26 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women aged from 50 to 69 years had a mammogram with BreastScreen, compared with 37 per cent of non-Aboriginal women in this age group over the same period.Access to breast screening services and to follow-up services for women diagnosed with breast cancer for ATSI women and for rural and regional women is still a major need. For these women there is a need to increase awareness about and encourage participation in screening and early detection programs. Training of ATSI health workers in this area and the development of specialised and accessible support services in rural areas should be priorities for this government.Other priority needs identified at Australia's first national breast cancer conference for women in October last year were: more breast care nurses to follow women from diagnosis throughout treatment, ensuring that all women are provided with information at the time of diagnosis and before treatment; communication skills to be included in medical education and training; consumer representation in decision making related to breast cancer research and in the development and coordination of clinical trials; increased and continuing funding for medical, scientific and policy research; a national link for young women with breast cancer; and, finally, equitable access to clinical trials, therapies and drugs and to all support services for women with advanced breast cancer.In closing, I would like to recognise all of the women who participated in the National Breast Cancer Network's field of women around Australia. I would also like to acknowledge the work of so many in our community and within the corporate sector who are prepared to offer their time and funds to the cause of raising awareness amongst women in this country about breast cancer. I would like to reiterate that National Breast Cancer Day on 25 October is an initiative most worthy of the support of all Australians. It is a time not only for us to remember those who have suffered from this disease, but also a time to celebrate the efforts of numerous scientists and health professionals across the country and around the world who contribute positively to breast cancer research.1011219:38:0010112Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Two weeks ago a group of journalists were sharing a bowl of pasta and a plate of bruschetta in the cafe belt of Sydney, musing about the upcoming referendum with one or two of the intellectual giants of the republican debate—the yes case. The chat was about a dilemma facing the republicans: `Why won't the women support us? Why can't the girls understand our simple premise and just say yes?' No-one really had the answer and, as the cab sav warmed up the debate, and more than a few cheeks, out came this remarkable gem from a fearless republican general: `The stupid housewives of Australia will lose us this debate. All the intelligent women know to vote yes. Why don't they?'Perhaps I can be of some assistance. The latest Age poll, published last week—despite that newspaper's clear advocacy for a yes vote—shows that female readers still remain to be convinced. While 48 per cent of men declare themselves to be republicans, only 39 per cent of women agree. So the women of Australia in their thousands are questioning this republic, and for very good reasons.Calls to my office indicate that women—and more than a few men—want to know why this referendum is a priority now, why it takes precedence over all the other important community issues that we are confronting: jobs for young people, the drugs problem, crime, health and so on. They are right of course—there are many more important matters on the government's agenda than this costly referendum. They have also become aware of the 69 changes which will be needed to the Constitution when there have been only a baker's dozen in the last 100 years, and they want to know what that will mean. They are correct again. Even the well-known republican Thomas Keneally has described it as `the biggest structural change to our Constitution'—or, to use Lachlan Murdoch's words, voting yes would bring about `our revolution'.Women are worried about the costs of a change. As managers of the household budget, they are financially well informed, but there is no clear answer on this question. Nobody can say with any certainty what that cost will be on top of the estimated $120 million that has already been spent so far. `What a community priority', they say, and I agree with them. Then there is the important question they raise of the role of women in the political appointment process. Once again, they are right. Despite there being the largest number of elected women in the federal parliament ever in our history, the fact is that 75 per cent of members and senators are men. And women, particularly older working women, understand the magnitude of the built-in bias against the appointment of a woman as our President. On this issue, I agree with the eminent lawyer and direct-elect republican Jocelynne Scutt, who said earlier this week:If you have a presidential system that is controlled by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition and then the endorsement of two thirds of the parliament, why on earth would we think that women have an equal chance of getting up under that system?Why indeed? Dr Scutt continued:In the end, I want a transparent system . . . the reality for me is that a transparent system does assist women . . . I want all women and men in Australia to know who the possibilities are for president, and to have a transparent system . . . More than Dr Scutt are wise to the obstacles placed before women when it comes to being President, whether she was chosen or elected by all Australians. For while it is true that more women are being elected to the federal parliament, the fact is that 22 of them are in the Senate. This is where the shameful bias against not only women but also the rights of every state in this nation are revealed for all to see because, while the senators—male and female—representing their states will have a chance to vote in the selection process now being proposed, that is where the opportunities for our state representatives end.If in the regrettable circumstance that this flawed model was accepted by a majority of states and, even more unfortunately, if the President was to be dismissed by the Prime Minister, where do you think the senators would be when a motion supporting his decision went before the House of Representatives? Absolutely nowhere! They will not be included in the debate or in the vote. There will be no joint sitting for this motion and no representatives of the states will be allowed into the House of Representatives to debate this Prime Minister's unilateral decision. Nowhere! There will be no senators—male or female—and no representatives of the states anywhere to be seen on the green carpet on that day. So much for states rights. As Dr Scutt may have noticed—because, as I have just observed, only members of the House of Representatives will vote on the dismissal motion—only 33 women will be involved in the vote or have an opportunity to take part in the debate.Given that women comprise 52 per cent of the population or 9,502,848 people, affirmative action as well as democracy and state rights seem to be strangely absent on this occasion. The women of Australia are awake to it and they are questioning it in droves. They know a shonky model when they see one, and they know they are looking at one with this republican model that is on offer. Informal research indicates that the largest group of women who believe that the republic may be too much change are aged between 25 and 45, have children and usually manage the finances in their homes. They are the women who are already worried about this country's priorities for their children and grandchildren: what jobs they are going to have, what their health choices will be and, perhaps most important of all, the pervasive drugs scene in this country. These are the intelligent women of Australia, and they are well aware of the murky future of the model on offer. To quote that very brave republican general at the Sydney cafe:All the intelligent people know to vote yes, why don't the women?I have news for that fellow: the intelligent men and women of Australia have thought very carefully about the revolution that this republican model would deliver, and they are correctly voting no.1011319:46:0010113Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Tonight I wish to address two matters, the first of which relates to the outstanding achievement of Mark Occhilupo, who only a few days ago became the world professional surfing champion. I do not know Mark Occhilupo, but I have followed his career with a great deal of interest for many years. That is particularly because I am a lifelong resident of the Sutherland shire of Sydney and for many years lived in Cronulla. Of course, we in the Cronulla region not only believe but know that we have the greatest surfing beaches in Australia. Mark Occhilupo, as a very young boy, commenced his surfing career in the Cronulla region. He was quickly noticed because of his aggressive style of surfing, which led to him being nicknamed the Raging Bull. He surfed waves in Cronulla and elsewhere like no one else had done before. He quickly came to the notice of people in the surfing fraternity—here was a young surfer with incredible talent and a great future. He was also referred to affectionately, and is still known today, as Occy.As I said, I did not know him and I have nothing in common with him other than that I was a goofy-footer when I tried to ride a surfboard, which is not the normal method of doing so. This, in particular, made it even more difficult for Mark to achieve success because surfing generally does not favour goofy-footers, just as golf generally does not favour left-handers. In his early years, Mark showed tremendous potential, and in his first three years—at the very young age of 16 and 17—he was No. 3 and No. 4 in the world. Unfortunately, he dropped out of surfing for a number of years. His life story in that regard has been well chronicled, and I do not have to go into it. But a couple of years ago, he returned to his great love of surfing, got back into fitness, and within two years he was back and has now achieved the status of world champion. He has done that at the age of 33, which is regarded as certainly well past the normal age at which people are likely to achieve such a world championship.I believe it is appropriate that his great achievement be recognised. I understand that it is not possible for me to do so by way of a notice of motion because of the particular rules that apply to notices of motion. I wish that were different because, if we can have receptions for our sporting teams in this building and recognise them, I would have hoped that we could also do so by way of a particular resolution of the parliament. They are the rules and I accept them, but I think it is fitting that we do recognise him. The sporting world throughout Australia, certainly the people of our area in Sydney and indeed the surfing fraternity of the world have recognised that this is a truly great achievement, demonstrating personal dedication and determination by somebody who is a great ambassador for his sport and for his country.In my remaining time, I turn to another subject which I have spoken about on a couple of occasions in the last two weeks and which is the same matter that has just been addressed by Senator Ferris—that is, the forthcoming referendum on 6 November. I listened with interest to Senator Ferris's remarks. She has claimed that the proposal to have an Australian head of state is a sexist proposal, a sexist model, and she has spoken tonight about why she believes the women of Australia will not vote for this. I have to say that I have never heard such a spurious argument in my life. What could be more sexist, what could be more of an insult to the intelligence of Australian women, than to have a system as we do now, which says that the head of state of Australia—who is also the head of state of the United Kingdom—must be the first born male heir of the royal family? If the first born male heir of the royal family is unable to take the crown for some particular reason, it shall then go to the next born male heir. That is why the next head of state of Australia will be Prince Charles, the eldest son of the current Queen.If for some particular reason, as I have referred to in earlier debates, there are circumstances such as those that occurred in 1936, with the then Prince Edward, who became King Edward VIII, having to abdicate, who does the throne then extend to? It extends to the next male child. In that case it was George VI. In the case of the current royal family it would not be the next born child, Princess Anne, the female, who would take the crown; it would be Prince Andrew. Frankly, to have Senator Ferris stand up here tonight and attack the proposed republican model which would lead to an Australian head of state who could be a man or a woman, and to suggest that we should retain our current system based upon male hereditary right, where you must also be a member of the Church of England—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What about Queen Elizabeth? We have a queen now.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The only reason we have a queen, as you know, is that King George VI died without having any male children. That is why the Queen is the current head of state. But if subsequent to the birth of Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret there had been a third child, a male child, he would have been the King. You know that. This puts the lie to this nonsense that is put about by Senator Ferris and others in the monarchist cause. They will stoop to the lowest level to run any nonsensical, spurious, mischievous and deliberately misleading argument to try and knock over this referendum. I believe that the intelligence of the Australian people, and the intelligence of Australian women, is far greater than Senator Ferris gives them credit for. If Senator Ferris thinks they are going to swallow that argument and swallow all of the other lies and distortions that have been put about by those supporting the monarchist cause, she should think again.I want to close on this note. The question that needs to be answered by the monarchists—it has not been answered and they refuse to answer it because they know that they have no logical answer—is why it is that the United Kingdom is entitled to have its own head of state but that Australia is not. Why should we have the head of state of another country? Surely we have grown up enough. Surely we have been able to cope with change throughout this century. We have brought about a situation where we now have Australian governors-general rather than viscounts, dukes and lords from England. We have changed our legal system by abolishing appeals to the Privy Council. That did not destroy the legal system in this country. It was not a necessary change but it was one that was important symbolically and important for the total independence of this country. We have managed to change our legal system in that way and still retain our stable democracy. We can do so again with our own head of state on 6 November.1011519:56:0010115Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—It is a delight to be able to participate in this debate and pay a compliment to the excellent contribution of Senator Ferris in this debate. It is interesting to note that the Labor Party did not seek to match Senator Ferris's very timely and excellent remarks with a female speaker.On 6 November the people of Australia will be deciding not in relation to particular individuals who might be the monarch for the time being of Australia but in relation to the system. It is the system that they will be considering. Indeed, the system under which we have been governed thus far has served us very well, and I do not think anyone would seek to dispute that. So whether we have a queen or a king as head of Australia really is not an issue in this debate.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—So why not change?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—What is at issue is whether the proposed replacement is as good as or better than the current situation.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Sophistry.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Silly Senator Forshaw continues to interject. I am on the record for many years now as favouring Australia becoming a republic.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You are a closet monarchist.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I moved amendments to the Liberal Party state constitution in Tasmania on that very issue some four years ago, Senator Forshaw—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—We will check that.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Just relax over there and take your leader's advice—take a Bex and a cup of tea. We heard you in silence and you might pay the same courtesy to us.The situation is that as somebody with republican sentiment I am not going to foist upon Australia a system that I know will be worse for our country. When Malcolm Turnbull—possibly the general Senator Ferris was referring to, but we do not know—was asked at a forum in Sydney recently, `Can you look me in the eye and tell me that this is the best possible republican model for Australia?' Malcolm Turnbull stuttered, stalled, stumbled and sought to evade the question because he himself knows in his heart of hearts that it is an appalling model. The instant dismissal of the President is completely unacceptable and is a significant change to our Constitution. The Prime Minister cannot sack the Governor-General in the same way. If you want proof of that, I suggest that people look at page 111 of Gough Whitlam's book The Truth of the Matter, where he confirms that very point. That is the real concern that many Australians have about the proposed model. I urge my fellow Australians, albeit that they may harbour republican sentiment, as I do, to vote no.Senate adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Documents1011610116The following government documents were tabled:Affirmative Action Agency—Report for 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999.Australian Broadcasting Authority—Report for 1998-99.Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)—Report for 1998-99.Australian Customs Service—Report for 1998-99.Australian Dairy Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Australian Federal Police—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 .Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Australian Industrial Registry—Reports for 1998-99.Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council—Reports for 1998-99.Australian Institute of Family Studies—Report for 1998-99.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Report for 1998-99.Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund—Report for 1998-99.Australian National Training Authority— Australia's vocational education and training system—Report for 1998—Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Report for 1998-99.Australian Political Exchange Council—Report for 1998-99.Australian Pork Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post)—Report for 1998-99. Australian Securities and Investments Commission—Report for 1998-99.Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)—Report for 1998-99.Centrelink—Report for 1998-99.Commissioner for Superannuation (ComSuper)—Report for 1998-99, incorporating reports on the administration and operation of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act1973 and the Superannuation Act 1922 .Commonwealth and Defence Force Ombudsman—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 .Commonwealth Grants Commission—Report for 1998-99.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—Report for 1998-99.Companies and Securities Advisory Committee—Report for 1998-99.Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—Report for 1998-99.CSS Board—Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme—Report for 1998-99.Dairy Research and Development Corporation and Dairy Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99.Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—Commonwealth agency-based Year 2000 readiness report and government business entity report by portfolio—Third report, September 1999Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs—Report for 1998-99.Department of Family and Community Services—Report for 1998-99.Department of Finance and Administration—Report for 1998-99.Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Immigration (Education) Act 1971.Dried Fruits Research and Development Council—Report for 1998-99.Employment Advocate—Report for 1998-99.Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 1998-99.Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation and Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Report for 1998-99. Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority—Report for 1998-99.Pig Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99.PSS Board—Public Sector Superannuation Scheme—Report for 1998-99.Public Service and Merit Protection Commission and Merit Protection and Review Agency—Reports for 1998-99.Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 1998-99.Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99.Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS)—Report for 1998-99.Veterans' Review Board—Report for 1998-99.Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 1998-99.10117The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Acts Interpretation Act—Statement pursuant to subsection 34C(6) relating to the extension of specified period for presentation of a report—Director of National Parks and Wildlife Report for 1998-99.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument No. CASA 1012/99.Proclamations10117A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of an Act to come into operation on the date specified:Native Title Amendment Act 1998 —Part 2 of Schedule 3—1 July 2000 (Gazette No. S 484, 14 October 1999).Answers to Questions on Notice10118The following answers to questions were circulated:10118(Question No. 1353)135310118Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:(1) Is it correct that Centrelink staff are not required to give their full names to members of the public or clients.(2) Does this not make an already unequal relationship even more demeaning and disempowering, given that clients have to disclose personal details while the staff member can choose to remain anonymous.(3) After a person becomes eligible for intensive assistance: (a) how long does that person have to wait before it is provided; (b) does the waiting period vary from region to region; if so, how: (c) does it vary over time; if so, how; (d) is there any limit to the waiting period; and (e) what factors determine the length of the waiting period.10118Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) It is not policy or practice for Centrelink staff to withhold their names from the public. Centrelink is committed to providing a quality service to the public. The only circumstance where a Centrelink staff member has the option of not disclosing their full name is when they have been threatened or harassed by a customer. Under the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991, Centrelink has a duty of care responsibility to protect the health and safety at work of its staff. Most customers do not behave in a manner which would require staff to adopt such a means of securing their safety. However, when a staff member is threatened or harassed by a customer, the staff member may choose to use only their first name in correspondence to the particular customer who has made a threat.(2) Centrelink takes its responsibilities to both customers and staff seriously and does not believe that the protection of a staff member from a threatening and potentially unsafe situation, as outlined above, to be demeaning and disempowering for the customer.(3) (a)The period between the time a job seeker becomes eligible for Intensive Assistance and their referral to a Job Network member depends on the number of job seekers who have previously been assessed as eligible and the number of positions available with local Job Network members.As job seekers are placed in employment, or exit Intensive Assistance after completing their placement with a Job Network member, new job seekers are referred to these members.Referrals occur in chronological order of the date job seekers are assessed as eligible for this assistance.(b) Yes. It varies according to the number of Intensive Assistance places available and the rate at which job seekers leave Intensive Assistance either for work or because their placement has finished. In areas with a more active labour market, or more successful Job Network members, this turnover will be quicker and waiting times shorter.It also depends on the number of eligible job seekers within a particular area. In areas where there are comparatively more eligible job seekers, the waiting time for referral could be longer.(c) Yes it can. If the employment within a particular area increases and more job seekers in Intensive Assistance return to work, more vacancies are created with the Job Network members. Also, job seekers awaiting placement with a member may find work prior to referral and the waiting times in that area can decrease.If there is a downturn in employment, and more job seekers are identified who are eligible for Intensive Assistance, the number of job seekers leaving Intensive Assistance to return to work may reduce and waiting times may increase.(d) There is no maximum waiting time for referral to Intensive Assistance. However, each Intensive Assistance placement lasts for 12 to 18 months (with a possible extension of up to 6 months if the Job Network member believes an employment outcome is likely). As job seekers complete their Intensive Assistance placement or leave for other reasons such as employment, other job seekers are referred.This ensures that there is a turnover of job seekers through Intensive Assistance giving each eligible job seeker a chance to participate.(e) Waiting times are determined by the number of Intensive Assistance positions available in a particular area, the number of job seekers who have been previously assessed as eligible, but are still waiting referral, and the number of job seekers leaving Intensive Assistance because of employment or other reasons (like completion of placement).10119(Question No. 1370)137010119O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) When was each Area Consultative Committee (ACC) established as part of the Regional Assistance Program.(2) (a) What was the location of each ACC; and (b) what federal electorates were incorporated in the area covered by each ACC.(3) Has the area covered by each ACC varied since its establishment; if so: (a) how has the region varied; (b) what was the basis of each variation; and (c) when were the changed boundaries communicated to the department.(4) (a) What was the membership of each ACC at the time of its establishment; and (b) what changes to the membership of each ACC has occurred since it was first established.(5) What process was followed in the selection of people to be appointed to each ACC; in each case; (a) who was consulted as part of that selection process; and (b) who made the final decision on the membership of each ACC.(6) (a) Who was appointed as the chair of each ACC at the time of its establishment; and (b) what changes to the chair of each ACC have occurred since it was first established.(7) What process was followed in the selection of people to be appointed to chair each ACC and in each case: (a) who was consulted as part of that selection process; and (b) who made the final decision on the chair of each ACC.(8) (a) What funding was provided to each ACC in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years; and (b) how much of that funding allocation was expended by each ACC in each financial year.(9) (a) How much of that funding was reallocated between ACCs in each financial year; (b) which ACCs received additional funding; and (c) what was the amount of additional funding received by each ACC as a result of the above re-allocation.(10) Was funding for any ACC supplemented from consolidated revenue or from another program in either of the above financial years; if so (a) which ACCs received additional funding ; (b) how much additional funding was provided; (c) when was the additional funding sought; (d) when was the request met; and (e) who approved the additional money.(11) Where additional funding was provided at the request of the ACC: (a) how was the additional funding used; and (b) was all of the additional funding expended.(12) If additional funding provided to an ACC in the above financial years was not requested by the ACC: (a) who requested the funding; (b) what was the basis for the request; and (c) who approved the request.10119Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) ACCs were not established as a part of the RAP. ACCs were established in 1994. RAP commenced on 1 July 1997. From that date ACCs were given a supporting role in relation to the development and endorsement of proposals for RAP funding.(2) A copy of the responses to (a) and (b) is being separately supplied to the honourable senator (a copy is also held in the Senate Table Office).(3) Responses to (a) (b) and (c) are contained in the table provided for (2) above. I am advised by my department that while dates have been provided where possible in relation to changes in ACC areas, such amendments were most often addressed by consultation over a period of time between the relevant ACC(s) and the department.(4) (a) and (b) I am advised by my department that this information is not readily available. I am also advised that the sum of the resources required to answer this question in its entirety would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the Department and there could be no guarantee that the information finally identified would be comprehensive.(5) The Secretary of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has the authority to appoint members of ACCs. However, in practice, Chairs of each ACC select members in accordance with the requirements of their rules of incorporation under State law. (a) This is at the discretion of the Chair of the ACC. However, it is expected that State offices of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business be consulted in this process. To assist in identifying suitable members, the Hon Tony Abbott MP, Minister for Employment Services, wrote to all Government members and to the Hon Martin Ferguson MP as spokesperson for the Federal Opposition, inviting them to forward to the department the names of any potential appointees to ACCs. (b) The Chair, or the membership, depending on the rules of incorporation for each ACC under State law.(6) (a) and (b) A table containing the information is being separately supplied to the honourable senator (a copy is also held in the Senate Table Office). I am advised by my department that dates in relation to the terms of each Chair have been provided wherever historical records have permitted.(7) I am advised by my department that details of the process of the appointment of individual Chairs to each ACC prior to October 1998 are not readily available. I am also advised that the sum of the resources required to answer this question in its entirety would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the Department and there could be no guarantee that the final information obtained would be comprehensive. Since the transfer of responsibility for ACCs to my department in October 1998, the procedure for the appointment of Chairs is for the Secretary of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to appoint Chairs to ACCs following the provision of nominees from state managers, the outgoing Chair or ACC members.(a) To identify nominees, the Secretary and State Managers may consult the outgoing Chair, existing members of ACCs, local community leaders, the register maintained by the Office of the Status of Women and other government bodies as considered appropriate or desirable. The Secretary may also consult with Ministers' offices.(b) The Secretary of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.(8) I am advised by my department that the information for the financial year 1997-98 is not readily available. I am also advised that the sum of the resources required to answer this question in its entirety would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the Department. A table containing the information based on State office records for (a) & (b) for 1998-99 is being separately supplied to the honourable senator (a copy is also held in the Senate Table Office).(9) (a) (b) and (c). I am advised by my department that prior to the transfer of responsibility for ACCs to my department in October 1998, there was no formal process for the re-allocation of funds between ACCs. At the local level some re-allocation may have occurred due to under-expenditure or on a needs basis. However, I am advised that details on any re-allocations that may have taken place are not readily available. The new guidelines issued by my department on 18 July 1999 provide for the department to re-allocate unspent funds at its discretion. (10) I am advised by my department that no ACC was supplemented from consolidated revenue or another program for either of the financial years.(11) Not applicable.(12) Not applicable.10120(Question No. 1371)137110120O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) How many facilitators were appointed through the Regional Assistance Program in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(2) What was the appointment date for each of the facilitators.(3) (a) What selection process was followed in the appointment of each of the facilitators; and (b) who approved each appointment.(4) (a) In what federal electorate was each facilitator located; (b) what was the cost of each facilitator; and (c) what was the term of each appointment.10120Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised by my department that, initially, proposals for 12 employment facilitators were approved in 1997-98. Eleven were employed. One approved proposal did not proceed. No new proposals for employment facilitators were approved in 1998-99.(2) I am advised by my department that the approved employment duration for each facilitator is provided in the table below.(3) (a) and (b) I am advised by my department that to the best of its knowledge each facilitator was selected and approved by the proposal's proponent.(4) (a) I am advised by my department that this information was not specifically collected. However, from the information available it would appear that employment facilitators were located in the federal electorates listed in the table below. Facilitators may have covered more than one electorate and where that is known it is provided.(b) The amount provided for the facilitators is provided in the table below against the relevant electorates.(c) See (2) above. FEDERAL ELECTORATEAMOUNTTERM OF APPOINTMENTCanberra/Fraser/Eden-Monaro/Hume$47,2569/1/97—28/2/98Franklin$30,0191/12/97—30/11/98O'Connor$180,00024/12/97—30/6/99Kalgoorlie$54,3001/6/98—30/6/2000Maranoa and Capricornia$34,32314/1/98 + 1/3/99Groom$45,30012/3/98 + 31/7/99Maranoa$20,5003/4/98 + 31/3/99Maranoa$37,00026/6/98 + 30/6/99Herbert$70,70022/5/98 + 18/9/99Leichhardt$25,50026/6/98 + 30/5/9910121(Question No. 1372)137210121O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) Has each Area Consultative Committee (ACC) formed through the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) lodged both a Strategic Regional Plan (SRP) and an Annual Business Plan (ABP); if so, when was each SRP and ABP completed by each ACC.(2) Must each SRP and ABP be approved by the department; if so: (a) have all the above plans been approved; and (b) when was each plan approved.(3) If some ACCs have not yet completed an SRP or an ABP, which ACCs have failed to complete these plans.(4) Which ACCs were provided with funding through the RAP prior to the lodgement and approval of an SRP and an ABP.(5) In each case: (a) how much funding was provided; (b) when was the funding provided; (c) who approved the funding; and (d) how long after funding was allocated did each ACC complete an SRP and an ABP.(6) (a) How many proposals for assistance through the RAP were lodged by ACCs that had not lodged an SRP or an ABP; (b) how many of these proposals were approved by a state office of the department; and (c) how many proposals were approved by the national office.10121Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) As stated in my response to Question 1370, ACCs were not formed through RAP. I am advised by my department that all Strategic Regional Plans for 1998 + 2000 were lodged by 30 September 1998. At the time of the preparation of this response, most Annual Business Plans (ABPs) for 1999/2000 have also been lodged. Usually, ABPs are expected to be finalised in the quarter preceding the commencement of the financial year. However, because new guidelines were being developed the lodgement date was extended to end September 1999.(2) No. However, it is expected that ACCs will consult with the State offices of my department in the development of their plans; (a) not applicable (b) not applicable.(3) None.(4) ACCs do not generally receive funding under RAP. The ACC role is to facilitate and endorse applications for funds under RAP from project proponents in their region. ACCs receive separate allocations to cover the operational costs of ACCs. All ACCs are allocated a notional amount of base funding which is not contingent on the development of plans. Funding additional to the base is dependent on the development of the plans. My department advises that all ACCs have developed a Strategic Regional Plan and have either lodged or are soon to lodge an Annual Business Plan.(5) Not applicable.(6) Not applicable.10121(Question No. 1373)137310121O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) How many projects approved for funding through the Regional Assistance Program in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years included a commitment of funding from the private sector, state or territory governments or the local community.(2) In each case: (a) what was the nature of the proposal; (b) what was the cost of the proposal; and (c) what was the value of the financial commitment from the above sources.10122Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised by my department that to obtain this information for 1997-98 and the majority of 1998-99 would require a manual search of all files in each State and district office. I am also advised that the sum of the resources required to answer this question in its entirety would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the Department and there could be no guarantee that the information would be comprehensive. However, information on approved projects which include complementary funding from the private sector, State or Territory governments or local community since the introduction of new administrative arrangements from 14 April 1999 is contained in the table which is being separately supplied to the honourable senator (a copy is also held in the Senate Table Office).(2) The table provided for (1) above contains the relevant information for approved projects from 14 April 1999.10122(Question No. 1374)137410122O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) How many proponents of projects approved for funding in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years through the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) were for non-profit organisations.(2) Where the successful applicant was a normal commercial enterprise seeking to generate a financial return: (a) what was the name of each applicant; (b) what was the nature of each project; (c) how much funding through the RAP was sought; (d) when was each application lodged; and (e) when was the application approved.10122Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Busi ness has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised by my department based on available historical data, that all proponents of approved projects, a total of 949 to date, were non-profit.(2) The Guide to Applicants for RAP projects used prior to the introduction of the new guidelines issued on 18 July 1999, excluded for-profit proponents. The current guidelines do not generally allow for-profit proponents and I am advised by my department that to date, no applications by for-profit proponents have been approved.10122(Question No. 1375)137510122O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) How many applications for funding in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years through the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) did not follow the application process provided in the RAP guidelines.(2) (a) When was each application not meeting the RAP guidelines lodged; and (b) which applications were approved by a state office of the department.(3) In each instance, who made the decision to progress the above applications even though the guidelines were not followed.(4) In each case: (a) what aspect of the guidelines was not addressed; (b) what was the reason the guidelines were not followed in full; (c) what was the outcome of each application; and (d) on what date was each of the above proposals rejected or approved.10122Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised by my department that, to the best of its knowledge, none.(2) (a) See response to Question 1368 (1).(b) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.(4) (a) (b) (c) See response to Questions 1368 (1).(d) Not applicable. 10123(Question No. 1376)137610123O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) (a) How many applications for funding in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years through the Regional Assistance Program that missed the quarterly cut-off dates were not considered for approval until the next quarter; and (b) how many were considered in the quarter in which the late application was lodged.(2) Where an application was considered despite missing a quarterly cut-off date: (a) what was the date the application was lodged; (b) what was the nature of each application; (c) when was the allocation considered; and (d) was the application successful.(3) In each instance, who made the decision to progress the above applications even though the guidelines were not followed.10123Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The quarterly approval process commenced from 1 July 1999. The cut off date for the first round was 17 September 1999. I am advised by my department that to the best of its knowledge, no proposals ready for consideration have missed the cut off date; (b) Not applicable.(2) Not applicable. However, the new guidelines allow for exceptions to the quarterly approval process in special circumstances, eg. proposals put forward in response to a natural disaster, local economic crisis or to accord with alternative funding sources if this is time critical.(3) Not applicable.10123(Question No. 1377)137710123O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) How many applications for funding in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years through the Regional Assistance Program sought retrospective funding or were provided with retrospective funding.(2) In each case: (a) what was the nature of the proposal; (b) who was the proponent of the proposal; (c) when was the application lodged; (d) when was funding for the proposal approved; and (e) who approved the retrospective payment for the project.10123Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised by my department, based on available historical data, that no applications have sought or were provided with retrospective funding.(2) Not applicable.