1999-10-213914SENATE1012501999-10-21The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.1012510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:1012528663I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate assembled in the Parliament.This is a petition of the citizens of Australia who draw to the attention of the Senate recent developments for the production, manufacture and sale of Genetically Modified Foods (GMFs) throughout Australia.It appears that consumers are not adequately informed about the dangers of GMFs, nor are they (adequately) notified when GMFs are incorporated into products which are made available for sale in our stores.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate takes action, as a matter of urgency, to ensure there is a moratorium on the commercial production, manufacture, and sale of GMFs in Australia, until there has been adequate public consultation and debate on the issue and the full impact of GMFs is understood. This course of action will enable an informed decision about the sale of GMFs and therefore ensure the ongoing health and safety of the residents of Australia.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 2,866 citizens)Petition received.Notices1012510125Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the report of the Internet Society of Australia and Philips Fox that drafting problems with the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 may lead to `tens of thousands of Australian businesses' being subject to provisions of the legislation, (ii) that, while previous discussion has focused on organisations whose primary activity involves the Internet, many other interests and businesses need to be consulted, and (iii) that the penalties for non-compliance with the legislation are inappropriate in light of these problems and ongoing uncertainties; and(b) condemns the Government's failure to consult widely on the impact of the Internet censorship legislation.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 21 October 1999 is a staff and student national day of action, and (ii) the national day of action is a response to proposals by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) to turn the higher education sector into a demand-driven system with the possible abolition of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, the introduction of a real rate of interest on student loans, the deregulation of the higher education sector and the introduction of vouchers;(b) condemns the Minister for the above proposals, which would create a higher education system for the wealthy; and(c) calls on the Government to maintain its pledge not to introduce such changes.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Regulation and Promotion of Biotechnology, be established to inquire into and report by 1 April 2000 on the following matter: A critical comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of biotechnology regulatory regimes in Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the European Union, Canada and New Zealand, with particular reference to: (a) the implementation of labelling of genetically-modified food products; (b) the suitability and adequacy of testing of biotechnology products; (c) the scientific and community risk assessment of biotechnology; (d) the meaning and validity of `evidence-based assessments' and the assessment of the quality of evidence; (e) the place of personal preference, culture and free choice to accept or reject biotechnology; (f) segregation procedures for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) or living modified organisms (LMOs); (g) the definition of `GMO-free'; (h) the environmental consequences of GMO release; (i) domestic policies for promoting research and development in biotechnology which may be promoted or restricted by regulation; (j) the effects of trade initiatives, transfer pricing and tariffs for biotechnology and its products; (k) the measurement of consumer demand for current commercial agricultural biotechnology products; (l) the effects of the concentration of ownership of biotechnology; (m) the accountability of technology; (n) the effectiveness of intellectual property rights to ensure adequate recognition of indigenous knowledge of biological species and the recognition of indigenous heritage and natural resources in domestic law; (o) the positive and negative economic, environmental and health effects of a GMO- or LMO-free Australian landmass; and (p) the possible health effects of GMOs or LMOs on immuno-compromised people.(2) That the committee consist of 7 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, minor groups or independents in the Senate.(3) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.(4) That the chair of the committee be elected by and from the members of the committee.(5) That the deputy chair of the committee be elected by and from the members of the committee immediately after the election of the chair.(6) That the deputy chair act as chair when there is no chair or the chair is not present at a meeting. (7) That, in the event of the votes on any question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.(8) That the quorum of the committee be 5 members.(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.09:31:0010126Coonan, 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. Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 made under subsection 96-1(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997 .2. Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.202 and made under the Customs Act 1901 .3. Therapeutic Goods Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.209 and made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 .4. Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.5), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.205 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 made under subsection 96-1(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997The Principles establish a legal framework for the accreditation of aged care facilities by an accreditation body.Paragraph 2.11(1)(a) requires an accreditation body, if it has decided to accredit a residential care service, to decide the period for which the service is to be accredited. However, subsection 2.11(3) provides that, once the accreditation body has decided to accredit a service, the period for which the services is to be accredited must be 12 months. It would appear, therefore, that 2.11(1)(a) might not serve any practical purpose.Subsections 3.4(1), 3.12(1) and 3.21(1) allow an accreditation body to arrange for a review audit of a residential care service if it believes, on reasonable grounds, that there may not have been compliance with various Standards, or other responsibilities under the enabling Act. However, there is apparently no provision requiring the accreditation body to inform the provider of the service of the fact that it believes that there has been non-compliance.Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3)Statutory Rules 1999 No. 202The Statutory Rules introduce controls on the importation of the substance Erythropoietin.The effect of new subregulation 5G(3) is that not only competitors in sports (within the meaning of the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990 ) but also anyone who comes to Australia as part of a competitor's entourage must obtain written permission from a Customs officer to import Erythropoietin (EPO). This requirement appears to apply even though the person is bringing in no more than has been prescribed for him or her by a medical practitioner.Therapeutic Goods Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.2) Statutory Rules 1999 No.209The Statutory Rules amend the Principal Regulations as a result of the establishment of the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee.New Subregulation 42ZCK(1) permits the Minister to terminate the membership of those serving on the Committee on a variety of grounds, in the Minister's discretion. However, there does not appear to be any provision for the decision to terminate the membership to be in writing, nor to be accompanied by a statement of reasons which have led to that decision.New subregulation 42ZCY(3) permits the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee to refuse to disclose, or provide access to, `information which it properly regards as requiring confidentiality for commercial reasons'. However, there does not appear to be any provision for external merits review of such decisions.Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.5)Statutory Rules 1999 No.205The Statutory Rules give effect to the Government's response to aspects of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters concerning the role of the Electoral Commission in conducting industrial elections.New paragraph 60A(6)(a) of the Principal Regulations, inserted by item 1 of the Schedule to these Statutory Rules, creates a criminal offence of using information about voter rolls for `any purpose other than a purpose in connection with the election'. Since that offence carries a maximum penalty of $1,100, it may be thought that the content of the offence might be more fully spelt out than merely by the reference to `a purpose in connection with the election'.Business1012710127Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 4— International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999No. 5— Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999No. 3— Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 10128Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business order of the day No. 59 (Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 (No. 2); and(2) Consideration of government documents.Notices1012810128Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 367 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to East Timor, postponed till 23 November 1999.Committees101281012810128Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:(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. 1012810128Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous10128Motion (by Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the passage in the New Zealand Parliament of a new Animal Welfare Act which contains specific protection for non-human hominids (also known as great apes), (ii) that the Act prohibits the use of all great apes in research, testing or teaching unless such use is in the best interests of the non-human hominid or other members of this family, (iii) that this protection is based on scientific evidence that great apes share not only human genes but also basic human mental traits, such as self-awareness, intelligence and other forms of mental insight, complex communications and social systems, (iv) that there are five great ape species: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orang-utans and humans, and all are in the same genetic family, (v) the statement by the New Zealand Minister for Food and Fibre, Mr John Luxton, that New Zealand is the first country in the world to legislate in this way, (vi) that the number of great apes has declined dramatically due to measures such as deforestation, commercial bush-meat trade, live trade, and civil conflicts, with all non-human great ape species being listed as threatened, and (vii) the claim by the Great Ape Project International that more than 3 000 individual apes are held in captivity around the world; and(b) calls on Australian governments to give consideration to following the lead of the New Zealand Parliament. Committees101291012910129Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Hogg) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous10129Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to: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. Committees101291012910129Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Hogg) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous10129Motion (by Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) reports of statements by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) that Kosovars currently in Australia on safe haven visas faced the prospect of being placed in immigration detention if they do not leave Australia by 30 November 1999, and (ii) calls by the Australian Democrats, the Federal Opposition, the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Bacon, and the Premier of South Australia, Mr Olsen, for those Kosovars who can establish their refugee status under the current refugee determination criteria to be allowed to remain in Australia;(b) supports the calls by the Federal Opposition, the Australian Democrats, Mr Bacon and Mr Olsen for the Minister not to forcibly deport any Kosovars currently in Australia on safe haven visas;(c) urges the Government to allow those Kosovar refugees who fear persecution should they be returned to Kosovo, to lodge on-shore refugee claims under the existing criteria, and to treat such claims on an individual case by case basis; and(d) supports the introduction of amendments to the safe haven legislation to enable on-shore refugee applications to be made by the remaining Kosovars.Miscellaneous1012909:35:0010129Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—On behalf of Senator Woodley, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 345 standing in his name for today relating to an order for production of documents be taken as a formal motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?09:36:0010130Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—There is no objection to this being taken as formal, but I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I thank the Senate. This return to order represents a serious mistake of judgment. Those who have been associated with the process of an aviation safety investigation know that the purpose of such an investigation is to identify human or systematic errors and to recommend changes to regulations and practice. Above all else, the aim of the investigation is to avoid the allocation of blame, lest future investigations become impeded by legal efforts to shield interested parties.One of the central elements in avoiding the casting of blame is to move from a draft report—which outlines all that the investigators have found and provides their best initial effort at piecing together the story—to a final report which may, following the processes of consultation with interested parties who have an involvement or interest in the incident under investigation, be different from the draft.The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation procedures manual identifies that interested parties, and only interested parties, get draft reports in order to identify errors, to allow natural justice and to promote confidence within the industry that reporting is open and accountable. Great care is taken in the final report to avoid references which are unfair or inaccurate.Senator Woodley is proposing that the Senate should abandon this established and successful process and turn the class G airspace investigation into a series of media opportunities. He does not seek to await the completion of the report to its final stage but instead seeks the production of what I cannot emphasise too strongly is a draft report. Senator Woodley's motion would make it extremely difficult for the air safety investigators to do their job properly, and I believe it would not be either appropriate or responsible for the Senate to agree to it.09:38:0010130O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—The opposition is supporting Senator Woodley's order to produce the draft report concerning the class G airspace trial. This is not a matter which would normally be pursued in this manner by the opposition. However, there are special circumstances relating to this draft report, and I am sure that if Senator Woodley was in the chamber at the moment he would outline them. They are that the matter of the class G airspace trial is a matter before a committee of this Senate, the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. In terms of the consideration of the matter, the committee has asked to have access to the draft report and my understanding is that the minister has denied that access.More importantly, it has been suggested in hearings before the Senate, particularly by Mr Dick Smith, that the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation was pressured in relation to this matter and that that pressure is reflected in the draft report. It is necessary for the Senate committee to have access to that report to make judgments on those claims. In the absence of the production of the document to the committee, this is the only means by which the matter can be pursued, hence the opposition will be supporting this resolution.Motion (by Senator Bartlett, at the request of Senator Woodley) agreed to:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Macdonald), no later than 4 pm on 22 November 1999, the Bureau of Safety Investigation's draft report into the Class G airspace trial.Committees10130101301013009:40:0010130West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I present the second report of 1999 of the Procedure Committee.Ordered that the report be printed.Ordered that consideration of the report be made a business of the Senate order of the day for the next day of sitting.101311013109:40:0010131Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Lightfoot, I present the ninth report of the Publications Committee and move:That the report be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.101311013109:41:0010131Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—I present the report of the parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities on matters arising from the Company Law Review Act 1998 together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings, minutes of proceedings and submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my remarks in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—The Company Law Review Act 1998 which was passed by the Parliament in June 1998, altered the core rules affecting the way a company is run. The Act rewrote substantially the provisions of the Corporations Law dealing with, among other things, the registration of companies, company meetings, share capital and financial reporting by companies.Prior to its enactment, the Act underwent an extensive process of parliamentary scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities (PJSC). In fact, the PJSC tabled two reports in November 1996 and March 1998, having examined the provisions of the Exposure Draft Bill and the final Bill that was introduced into the Parliament.The Act incorporated many of the comments and amendments recommended by the PJSC as a result of its examination of the Company Law Review Bill 1997. During debate on the Bill in the Senate, the Australian Democrats and the Opposition moved a number of amendments which the PJSC had not had the opportunity to examine. This was regrettable because many of the amendments were passed into law without having undergone a process of public consultation and the rigours of parliamentary scrutiny. While a number of amendments and revised amendments to the Bill were passed by the Senate, additional amendments and issues not resolved during the debate were deferred until these could be examined in detail by the PJSC.The PJSC commenced its review of the late amendments and proposed amendments to the Company Law Review Act in July 1998 following a request by the Treasurer. In general, there was considerable criticism of the process and of the lack of public consultation in respect of the late amendments to the Act which necessitated the PSJC review.The submission of The Law Society of Western Australia reflects the views expressed by a large number of companies, business groups, professional bodies and practitioners of the Corporations Law: (and I quote)"The Society wishes to express its concern at the amendments which were introduced into the Act at the last moment. The Society recognises that the Parliament has the power to amend pending legislation. In the circumstances, the Society contends the power ought not to have been exercised in this case. The Company Law Review Bill, and its predecessor, were the subject of very extensive public consultation and comment, in which the Society and many of its members participated, both before and after release of the draft legislation in June 1995. Such a long and extensive public consultation was then abandoned without opportunity for further input at the last moment. The last minute amendment undermines the integrity of the consultation process by demeaning the efforts of those that participated and endangers their further participation. It is true that certain amendments had been the subject of discussion by some. However, without advance knowledge that the proposals were to become law, there was neither incentive nor opportunity to comment on them."The Committee's review was interrupted by last year's Federal election and then resumed earlier this year. There is insufficient time to outline all of the amendments and other matters considered by the PJSC so I will confine my comments to the more controversial amendments and issues. One of the main areas of concern raised with the PJSC was section 299(1)(f) which requires listed companies to report on environmental compliance with federal and state laws. The PJSC was told that the provision was vague and uncertain, with practical effects which were limited and counter-productive. For example, the requirement does not apply to the operations of Australian companies overseas, where many listed companies have substantial investments.Section 299(1)(f) also requires entity rather than project reporting for mining and exploration joint ventures. Consequently, a stakeholder with only a nominal share in the joint venture is obliged to report on environmental compliance. The PJSC concluded that it was inappropriate for the Corporations Law to provide for environmental reporting in this manner and accepted the almost total unanimity of view on this point of submissions from the Australian business and legal communities. The PJSC is satisfied that a voluntary reporting system, as opposed to a statutory obligation, will encourage companies to achieve best practice in the area of environmental reporting. Accordingly, the PJSC recommended that section 299(1)(f) should be repealed.A second controversial amendment was the requirement for listed companies to disclose in their annual reports the company board's remuneration policies, a discussion of the linkage between remuneration and the company's performance, and the disclosure of the details of the remuneration of directors and senior executives. While the PJSC agrees with the objectives behind the new disclosure requirements under section 300A, the drafting of that section was deficient in many respects. In fact, many submissions argued that the disclosures required under section 300A would produce only general statements of the obvious and would result in inaccurate and misleading information being disclosed.A further point was that section 300A did not require the disclosure of a valuation of options granted to directors and executives as part of the remuneration package, although during debate on the amendment it was intended that the Law should require this. The PJSC found a large disparity in practice between companies in the degree of compliance with section 300A which was the result of the unclear drafting. This outcome was not the result of an unwillingness by companies to comply with the Corporations Law. Very simply the Corporations Law was unclear.Given the increasingly large amounts involved where options are granted to directors and executives, the PJSC concluded that the Corporations Law should require the disclosure of the value of options in the total remuneration. To resolve the drafting inconsistencies and the inclusion of the value of options in the remuneration package, the PJSC recommended various amendments to section 300A and section 300 of the Corporations Law, which will have the effect of requiring the disclosure of directors' and executives' remuneration in all its forms. The PJSC has also recommended that the new accounting standard on directors' and executives' remuneration should require a statement by the board that discusses its remuneration policy and the relationship between that policy and the company's performance.Another significant issue was the extension of the period of notice of shareholders' meetings from 14 to 28 days. In its March 1998 Report on the Company Law Review Bill 1997, the PJSC did not support the calls for extending the period of notice from 21 days to 28 days. The PJSC had considerable sympathy for those concerned that the 14 days was too short but was not convinced that the doubling to 28 days was either justified, necessary or in the interests of the company. The Committee recommended that the clause in the Bill requiring a minimum 21 days notice of meeting should proceed. The evidence put to the PJSC during the inquiry has reinforced its earlier view and recommendation. The 28 days notice has placed greater demands on directors and company management and has increased costs without any measurable corresponding benefit to shareholders. The PJSC concluded that the amendment which doubled the period of notice from 14 to 28 days has added considerably to costs and inefficiency in company meeting cycles. The PJSC also concluded that the increased use of electronic communication provides a more appropriate solution than extending the notice period for shareholders' meetings. Accordingly the PJSC has recommended that the notice period should be reduced to 21 days.The final issue I want to address is the threshold requirements for requisitioning a shareholders' meeting. This matter was referred to the PJSC by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. The current position is that 100 members of a company, who together may hold only a small economic interest in the company, may requisition a meeting of shareholders, with the resulting costs being met the company.The PJSC was told that this provision in the Corporations Law was open to abuse and inappropriate, given that the requisitioners may represent only a minuscule proportion of the company's members. In addition, the company is disadvantaged by the distraction of its directors and senior management from their core functions.The PJSC also found that the proper purpose test in section 249Q of the Law did not provide adequate safeguards against the potential abuse of the requisitioning power. The PJSC endorsed the view expressed by the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee that a 5% issued share capital test would be reasonable and conforms to overseas practice. The PJSC therefore recommended that the Corporations Law should be amended to provide that the sole test, to requisition a meeting of shareholders, is 5% of the issued share capital to be met collectively by the requisitioning members.The PJSC also has made other significant recommendations in relation to a director's power to call a meeting, the disclosure of information relating to proxy voting intentions, the receipt of proxy appointments and other matters affecting company administration.Before I conclude my remarks I would like to thank all of the individuals, companies, professional bodies and organisations which made submissions to the PJSC and witnesses who appeared before the PJSC during its public hearings. I would also like to thank all members and former members of the PJSC for their contributions to its deliberations on this important review of Matters Arising from the Company Law Review Act. May I also thank Committee Secretary David Creed and his dedicated staff for their efficient running of the Committee and this Inquiry and for their erudite assistance with my Chairman's first draft of this Report, which was well received by all Committee Members.I welcome the general support of all members of the PJSC for the Report. I commend the Report to all honourable Senators.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.101331013309:42:0010133Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—I present report No. 371 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit entitled Aviation Security, Planning of Aged Care, Costing of Services, Review of Auditor-General's reports 1998-99 , and I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Madam President, Report 371 informs the Parliament of the Committee's examination of the Auditor-General's reports on aviation security, the costing of services, and the planning of aged care services. The Committee held a public hearing in May this year to discuss these issues with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss each issue in turn.The Audit Report on aviation security noted that the department had established a regulatory regime which ensured Australia's compliance with international standards. However, the report also identified areas where Australia's aviation security regime could be strengthened. The JCPAA focussed on risk management practices and auditing and compliance procedures. It is vital that security procedures address the danger presented by criminal behaviour at airports. Currently, the focus is on politically motivated violence but criminal activity is actually more of a problem. Our report recommends that security arrangements be reviewed by relevant Commonwealth agencies so as to maximise the effectiveness of police forces and airport authorities in combating crime.The Committee also examined Audit Report No. 19 , into the planning of aged care. The quality and availability of aged care services is a very important issue for many Australian families. It is critical that the Commonwealth plans effectively to provide these services where they will be most needed. This is why the JCPAA has recommended that the input of local communities be harnessed when planning is undertaken. Local communities, particularly local councils, are uniquely qualified to advise the Commonwealth of their future needs in this area.Currently, state offices of the Department of Health and Aged Care can choose whether to consult local communities. The JCPAA believes that this approach is inadequate. We have recommended that local council input become an integral component of the planning process.Audit Report No. 21 reviewed the costing of services in Commonwealth agencies. With the adoption of accrual budgeting and the increasingly contestable environment in which agencies operate, it is vital that Commonwealth services are costed appropriately. The audit report found that there was scope for substantial improvement. Indeed, Committee members are concerned that costing systems are not sophisticated enough for the new public sector environment.The JCPAA has recommended that the Department of Finance and Administration actively facilitate the development of appropriate costing methodologies. We support the contention that each agency should prepare a methodology that is suitable for its business needs. However, in the interests of both quality and consistency, we also encourage the Department of Finance and Administration to provide a suitable level of assistance.May I conclude, Madam President, by thanking on behalf of the Committee those people who contributed their time and expertise to the Committee's review hearings.I am also indebted to my colleagues on the Committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiry, Dr Margot Kerley, the Committee secretary, Ms Rose Verspaandonk, Ms Maureen Chan, Ms Tiana Gray, and Ms Maria Pappas.Madam President, I commend the Report to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Miscellaneous1013409:43:0010134Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—by leave—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 359 standing in my name for today relating to the failure of the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty be taken as a formal motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to the formality of this motion?Leave not granted.1013409:43:0010134Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Pursuant to contingent notice and at the request of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lees moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely, a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 359.I understand that this is to be supported.Question resolved in the affirmative.10134Motion (by Senator Allison, at the request of Senator Lees) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 359 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.1013409:44:0010134Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:(1) That the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the failure of the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty sends a strong negative signal to the global community regarding progress toward nuclear weapons disarmament and international security, and (ii) Agenda Item 76(R) of the First Committee of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly calls on nuclear weapons states to discharge their Article 6 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations without delay, and calls on all nations that have not done so to sign and ratify the Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and (b) calls on the Australian Government to strongly support Agenda Item 76(R) presented by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden, particularly in light of the above.(2) That the text of this resolution be conveyed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), to the Australian Ambassador to the UN and to other UN delegations.This motion is a very important one, and it goes to the question of Australia's action in supporting a nuclear weapon free world. The proposal by the First Committee of the UN General Assembly—agenda item 76(R), which is referred to in the motion—began back in March 1998, when the Middle Powers Initiative was established by a network of international citizen organisations to encourage leaders of the nuclear weapons states to commit themselves to the immediate practical steps and negotiation needed for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The goal is to build the political will to achieve a nuclear weapon free world. On 9 June last year, the foreign ministers of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden launched a joint declaration called `Towards a nuclear weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda'. This group is known as the New Agenda Coalition. On 4 December last year, the UN General Assembly adopted this as resolution 53/77 Y by an overwhelming majority. The Australian government intended to vote against the resolution but ended up abstaining. I must say that this action encouraged others to do the same, and it turned out to be a crucial vote.Now the New Agenda Coalition has drafted resolution 76(R) and is seeking the support once again of the General Assembly to create a nuclear weapons free world by putting the heat on weapons states. That resolution says, amongst other things, that it notes the many negative developments in the proliferation of nuclear weapons and notes a small number of positive steps taken on the road to nonproliferation. It draws on all the existing conventions, treaties and initiatives, and it calls on the United States and Russia to bring START II into force. This is the second strategic arms reduction treaty, which seeks by the year 2003 to limit the US and Russia to 3,500 warheads each, of which no more than 1,750 may be deployed on multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle equipped submarine launched ballistic missiles, with the balance on single warhead ballistic missiles and/or bombers. On 26 January 1996, the US Senate ratified START II. However, the Russian Duma has not done so, and a substantial body of opinion in Russia views the treaty as giving the US a nuclear advantage. It calls on nuclear weapons capable states that have not yet done so to accede to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. It calls on states that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and it calls on states that have not yet done so to adhere to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and to work towards its further strengthening.It is useful at this point to have a look at the current state of nuclear arsenals around the world. By the end of 1997, estimates of the number of nuclear weapons in the five nuclear states were as follows: Russia had 22,500 weapons; the United States had nearly 12,000 in the US, 150 B-61 bombs and 10 NATO air bases in Belgium and Germany, and Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK also had US bombs; France had 450; China had an estimated 400; and the UK had 160. There are over 30,000 nuclear warheads alone in the world today. Two or more states have crossed the nuclear threshold now—India and Pakistan, to name those two. Approximately $780 billion is spent every year on global military expenditure. Nuclear weapons continue to be very attractive to some states. There is an illusion of security and no doubt prestige, and the doctrine of deterrence continues to be upheld in many places. The standstill of the START treaty process between the US and Russia is of great con cern. Also of concern are: the deadlock in the conference on disarmament; the 11 announced nuclear explosions in South Asia in 1998; the persistent concerns over North Korea's nuclear program; the impending sale of a nuclear reactor by Canada to Turkey—Canada sold Pakistan and India their reactors; the failure just last week of the US to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; and Russia's continuing adherence to the policy of nuclear deterrence, which began in 1993.I would argue here today that not only should the Senate support this motion but in doing so it would recognise that there is enormous public opinion out there that says: (a) we are spending far too much money on nuclear weaponry; and (b) it does not have widespread support and people are very concerned about this issue. In the US and the UK, opinion polls showed that 87 per cent of those people polled wanted their governments to help negotiate a nuclear weapons convention. I have no doubt at all that, were such a poll to be conducted in this country, we would achieve the same kind of feeling in opposition to nuclear weapons.In 1996, the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all of its aspects under strict and effective international control. The antiballistic missile treaty is regarded as the cornerstone of strategic stability. It limits the US and Russia to two antiballistic missile deployment stations. Their thinking is to not advantage one over the other, thus allowing for a reasonably equal penetration by both arsenals in the event of war. Of course, that antiballistic missile treaty is now under threat with recent Russian complaints.So I think the world is not a safe place from nuclear weapons, and I strongly urge the Senate to support this motion. I think we are not much closer than we were during the Cold War to seeing peace and seeing a nuclear free world. We must revitalise this issue in this country and we must act on the international stage. My motion calls on the Australian government to strongly support agenda item 76(R)—and I have outlined what that means—presented by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden, particularly in the light of the above, and that the text of this resolution be conveyed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, and to the Australian Ambassador to the UN and to other UN delegations.It is an important ask and not something that I believe the coalition or the opposition should be afraid of. It is important because Australia must state its position very clearly on the world stage in respect of nuclear weapons. Clearly we must go forward instead of reverting to a situation where nuclear weapons become a serious danger to the future of the entire world. I strongly recommend support for this motion.09:54:0010136Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I say at the outset that the intentions behind the honourable senator's motion are applauded by the government. I think the disagreements around the chamber on this are relatively marginal. The government has, of course, made it clear that we are deeply disappointed over the failure of the US Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. One need only look a little bit below the surface to see the domestic political issues that are always in play around the Congress, particularly as we approach yet another round of congressional and presidential elections. I guess when you have got two-year cycles in congressional elections they are always not too far away. I have heard, I think, the Prime Minister and certainly the Foreign Minister making it very clear internationally that we are deeply disappointed.But I think it should be pointed out that, although the US Senate vote was a setback to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it was no more than that. It is certainly not an end to the treaty. We should not forget that there are already 154 state signatories to the treaty. It is rapidly approaching the status of a universal treaty. Furthermore, because all five nuclear weapon states have signed the treaty, under international law there is an obligation on those states not to frustrate its purpose before it enters into force.President Clinton has made it quite clear that he and his government will continue the United States' commitment, a commitment that has been policy in the United States since 1992, to not conducting nuclear tests. As Senator Allison pointed out, in the vote on the New Agenda Coalition resolution on nuclear disarmament in the First Committee at the United Nations General Assembly Australia last year did abstain. The government's position at the moment is that we will look very closely at this year's resolution, but we do continue to have concerns about it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—What are they?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I will outline what the concerns are. They are not so much on the individual elements of the resolution. Many of these are capable of support from the Australian government. It is in fact the resolution taken as a whole. The basic premise is to call into question the commitment of the nuclear weapon states to the undertaking they made in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, that is, to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. We as a government believe that by calling for a new agenda the resolution also presupposes that the existing nonproliferation regime has failed, and we do not accept that as a contention. More importantly, we do not regard that as helpful. Australia and the international community derive fundamentally important security benefits from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and we do not want the treaty to be damaged by further polarisation and debate over nuclear disarmament putting at risk the security benefits of the nonproliferation norm which has been clearly established by that treaty.We do, as always, support practical, realistic proposals on nuclear disarmament which are capable of winning the support of all states and, very importantly, the nuclear weapon states. But the New Agenda Coalition has clearly failed to do this. We do want to see reductions in nuclear warhead numbers. We should not forget the progress that has been made. We should applaud that progress. I think at the peak the numbers, between the US and Russia, were 69,490 warheads back in 1986. That has been reduced to 36,100 in 1997. Under START II, total deployed warheads should fall to 3,500 each, with further cuts envisaged under START III. That is significant progress, and of course we want to see that go further.In terms of the current negotiations and discussions, Australia is working with New Zealand and Mexico to bring a resolution on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. That resolution will call on all countries which have not yet done so to sign and ratify the treaty as soon as possible. I think that demonstrates what I said at the outset, that is, there is very little disagreement around the chamber on what the outcome should be and that it is very much a matter of how that is achieved. I think those words clearly demonstrate the government's bona fides and position on this issue. For that reason, because there is a disagreement on how we move that forward, particularly at the UN General Assembly First Committee, the government will not be supporting the motion as it is currently worded.09:59:0010137Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The motion that is now before the Senate does two things. In part (a) it makes a number of observations about, in the first case, the failure of the US Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and observes that sends a negative signal to the global community. It then refers to agenda item 76(R) of the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which calls on nuclear weapons states to discharge their article 6 nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations without delay. They are the observational elements of this motion.The action elements of this motion ask the Australian government to take a stand and to strongly support agenda item 76(R)—presented by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden—in order to have the United Nations carry a detailed and comprehensive resolution asking for international action to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and to start to wind back nuclear stockpiles. It specifically would, if carried, request the President of this Senate to convey the text of this resolution to the foreign minister, to the Australian Ambassador to the UN and to other UN delegations.The Australian Labor Party support this motion and we will vote for it. What is particularly important in this motion is its action elements. There are now some 36,000 nuclear warheads in the world that we know about. That is an excessive ability to demolish the globe several times over. Australia is a non-nuclear weapons power and Australia is committed bipartisanly—and I acknowledge this from the Howard government too—to remain a non-nuclear weapons power.Therefore it falls to us to exert our influence in world forums, such as the United Nations, to curb the influence of the spread of nuclear weapons and to reduce the threat to world harmony and peace that they pose, and to make the world a safer and kinder place to live in, one in which economic growth and the wellbeing of the peoples of the world can proceed without the shadow of the nuclear weapons silo falling over them. If we do not take that stand, we derogate our own self-interest as a non-nuclear weapons power and we remove from ourselves the ability to influence global debate on this central question. Therefore the opposition strongly believes that Australia should mark the spot as to where it stands and should use its influence in the world by building coalitions of like-minded nations to push for an end to nuclear testing and a winding back of stockpiles.Since the end of the Cold War and the stand-off between Russia and the United States on nuclear weapons—or between the East and the West, as it was often described—global attention has wandered from the threat posed by nuclear weapons. It seems that since the end of the Cold War and the dramatic representation of that threat by the two reigning superpowers at that time, there has been an assumption that the world is a safer place. It is not. The threat is more dangerous now than perhaps ever before.That is because there has been the emergence of a number of new nuclear weapons powers that do not have the ability to scruti nise each other's actions, arsenals and operational directives and that do not have the early warning devices. It has to be fairly said that these weapons belong to governments which are inherently politically unstable. Because of that, the prospect of nuclear war by accident is more real now than it ever was. And because of that, the prospect of nuclear war by precipitate action—or to make some ideological, religious or developing nation's point to the rest of the world—is more possible now than ever before. As a consequence, Australia, as a responsible country in this debate, should assert and use its influence to try to bring some coherence, organisation, scrutiny and, ultimately, control to that situation.The item that the Senate is being asked to support is a long one. I think most senators are aware of it and I do not intend to read it; it would take too long to do so. It has a number of provisions in it which call upon the UN to take particular action. Again, these are too long to exhaustively quote into the Senate Hansard this morning but a number of them deserve particular emphasis. Let me turn to a couple of those. Part 4 of this item calls for the examination of ways and means to diminish the role of nuclear weapons on security policies so as to enhance strategic stability, facilitate the process of the elimination of these weapons and contribute to international confidence and security. It goes on, in part 5, to call upon the nuclear weapons states in this context to take early steps to reduce tactical nuclear weapons with a view to their elimination as an integral part of nuclear arms reduction, and to examine the possibilities for, and to proceed to, the de-alerting and removal of nuclear weapons from delivery vehicles.It calls for the states to further examine nuclear weapons and postures, to demonstrate transparency on their nuclear arsenals and fissile material inventories, and to place all fissile material for nuclear weapons declared to be in excess of military requirements under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in the framework of the voluntary safeguards agreements in place. It goes on to talk about the nuclear nonproliferation treaty—full scope safeguards, a moratorium on tests and the physical protection of nuclear material.The last is not an insignificant item in the list of issues that should be taken up here. The possibility of the suitcase nuclear bomb being smuggled across borders, not just by international terrorist organisations but by international criminal organisations, with nuclear weapons being at large and traded on the black market due to the decommissioning of some of the former Soviet Union's nuclear stockpiles, is a real threat to international security and requires global action to prevent it.A lot of comment and most of what the government have said—and I acknowledge they said it fairly; I disagree with their conclusion, but the facts they put down are a fair representation in many respects—about this debate centres on the rejection by the US Senate of the 1996 nuclear nonproliferation treaty signed by the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. I want to deal with the US Senate and the rejection of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in a moment. In talking about the United States and its role in global military and strategic leadership—more importantly perhaps, in this context, its role in global moral leadership on the weapons issue—one tends to overlook other responsible nations in this debate.We know that in the last two years nuclear weapons have been tested in Pakistan and in India. They are nuclear weapons states. They are building stockpiles. They may lack sophisticated means of delivery, but they are rapidly acquiring those. We know that North Korea and Iran are widely suspected of being secret nuclear weapons states or being close to achieving nuclear criticality. Those nations bear a major responsibility in this debate, too. The debate should not just focus on the superpowers but focus on those nations as well. They all share some characteristics. One of them is that the emergent nuclear powers tend to be developing countries described fairly as `poor' nations in the world that are diverting scarce economic resources to the acquisition of sophisticated nuclear technology, which comes at a very high cost. It is money which could be spent on lifting the living standards of people in those countries. In this debate it is always worth while making this point—it is a salutary one.In the early 1970s, international intelligence agencies strongly suspected that Argentina and Brazil were engaged in a parallel nuclear race. The suspicion was that neither country had designs on the world but they feared each other. In order to prevent war between them, so the theory went, they acquired secretly the capacity to build nuclear weapons. In the mid-1980s the cost to their economies of diverting scarce economic resources to do that was so great that they could not bear the weight. They diverted back and a trade treaty was signed which integrated regional economic development between South America's major economies of Argentina and Brazil. As a consequence of choosing trade not war, the economies and living standards of those people has dramatically improved.If there is a lesson here for the cross-border conflicts between Pakistan and India, it is: make love not war. Engage in cross-border trade, grow your economies and offer a better living standard to your people. Do not divert scarce economic resources into the acquisition of nuclear weapons. It comes at a high price that your country cannot afford. The consequent knock-on effect is that millions of Indians and Pakistanis live in poverty.At the back of this resolution is a higher purpose. It is indeed a worthy purpose to achieve global nuclear disarmament. The effect on the world would be better living standards, fewer people in poverty, less tension between nations and less envy between peoples as to the material standards of wellbeing, and wellbeing at moral levels as well. That is a fundamental question that needs to be remembered here.Let me now turn to the debate in the United States Senate in which the US Senate repudiated the US President and declined to endorse his signature on the 1996 nuclear test ban treaty. I have here an excerpt from the Economist magazine of 16 October 1999. Their opening paragraph reporting this development is worthy of repeating for this debate. The Economist says:The Senate's defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a humiliation for the Clinton administration, a pyrrhic victory for the Senate and a disaster for America's foreign-policymaking process.That does sum up the outcome. It seems the numbers were mobilised on the floor of the US Senate for a host of reasons. People who had wanted to impeach the President earlier but had failed to get the impeachment up now sought revenge by repudiating him over a motion that he was seeking to move. With base political motive they voted in this direction. Others voted for a whole series of reasons that the government referred to as a post-presidential election focus on internal domestic issues—nothing to do with what the treaty was about or what the global significance of the treaty was about but rather about positioning in a presidential race due to start next year.One hopes that, once that political baggage has been cleared off the stage—and I do express this as a genuine aspiration—the US Senate can again approach the issue of endorsement of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and find within its ranks the numbers to provide a backing for the administration of the President in adopting such a treaty binding the United States. Let me express as a postscript to that sentiment another view—that I think Australia should intrude into this debate. If that vote is taken to be a vote for the increasing sentiment one sees reported in US domestic politics for isolationism and for higher protectionism in the US economy—that is, a moving away from participation in the world to isolating and trying to insulate yourself from the globe—then that is a negative direction for the United States.As one of the US's eternal friends in the world, Australia should, as a mate, say clearly to the United States, `Do not go down the isolationist road. As a friend, you have an obligation—as indeed we do—to play a role in world affairs and not to isolate yourself from them. That means providing military and strategic leadership in nuclear weapons control and disarmament as well as providing global moral leadership on that issue. That is an attitude not just confined to weapons but broadly expressed across a range of global issues, including integrating your economy with the world and opening up your economy to fair and free competition.'We support this motion, which, if adopted, will advance the cause of nuclear weapons control at a time when the globe needs such an effort to be made. Nuclear weapons and arms control has ceased to be an issue that attracts public attention. As the world has become more complex, other issues have taken centre stage as the arms race and the Cold War have ended. As I said earlier in my remarks, while the most obvious manifestation of Cold War hostilities is off the international stage, the arms race is continuing around the world in a range of ways, which means that there are more nuclear weapons now in the hands of countries which are politically unstable and have axes to grind than ever before. The best advice the United Nations can give them, urged on by Australia, is to disarm and direct their attentions to growing their economies and benefiting materially the welfare of their people.10:18:0010140Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed in favour of this motion and congratulate Senator Allison for bringing it forward. It sadly shows a division between the majority sentiment in the Senate and the position of neutrality at best that the Howard government represents in world fora as well as in this place. This is simply not good enough, because it sells out public opinion in Australia. There is no country in the world where public opinion is in favour of nuclear weapons. The world's people are opposed to nuclear weapons. If there were a plebiscite around the world tomorrow, nuclear weapons would be outlawed by the sentiment of something like 80 per cent of the people on the planet. We have nuclear weapons because there is greed, belligerence and a failure of imagination, not amongst ordinary people but amongst those who hold the power and exercise it. That includes democracies and dictatorships alike.The recent vote on the United Nations resolution on nuclear disarmament, `The need for a new agenda', was hosted by, amongst other countries, our neighbour New Zealand, which is the only country to have comprehensively prohibited nuclear weapons and nuclear activities on its soil. There was a preponderant 114 votes in favour, there were 18 votes against, from the nuclear countries and their acolytes by and large, and there were abstentions from 38 countries who could not make up their minds that nuclear weapons should be outlawed, and that includes Australia—no doubt part of the result of a very strong lobby, including emissaries from the United States and elsewhere, coming here to Canberra to lobby to not have this resolution go through.One of the things we have to be clear about here is that this government is influenced by the fact that the uranium miners want to expand their exports into the world nuclear fuel cycle, and that is indivisible from the propensity for making nuclear weapons. It is an immoral process that we take part in there. The sale of uranium out of this country compromises governments in their ability to take a stand comparable to New Zealand's in opposing nuclear weapons, which is the wish of the majority of Australians.There is a consistency in polls elsewhere around the world on such things as nuclear disarmament, support for UN resolutions on the abolition of nuclear weapons and so on. In Canada 92 per cent of people support it. In India, even following the media coverage of euphoria about the explosion of their nuclear bomb last year, 73 per cent of people do not want the country to develop nuclear weapons. In Norway support is 92 per cent; Germany, 87 per cent; Belgium, 72 per cent; and in Russia, 61 per cent of people want nuclear weapons abolished altogether.In the United States, 87 per cent of people want their government to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention. But the Senate, calling on and abusing Christian sentiment, amongst other things, have decided—for reasons including those outlined just a moment ago by Senator Cook—to vote against the wish of the rest of the world that we move towards a comprehensive test ban treaty and the abolition of nuclear weapons. In the United Kingdom, 87 per cent of people supported a nuclear weapons convention; in Australia, 92 per cent; in Japan, 78 per cent—and so on.The sentiment is extraordinarily strong. And why not? The World Court itself in its advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 cited the uniquely appalling characteristics of nuclear weapons:. . . in particular their destructive capacity, their capacity to cause untold human suffering, and their ability to cause damage to generations to come.It added that only they:. . . have the potential to destroy all civilisation and the entire ecosystem of the planet.But there is a mind block among the powers that be that is not able to relate to life on the planet in the future. It is an armageddon fault in the brains of those people in power who seem to think that they have some form of immortality or that, if they press the button first, there will be no repercussions and that they will in fact be the last ones left on the planet when the nuclear weapons explode. It is an enormous dilemma. It is one of those things that causes me to be in favour of a world parliament so that there can be a better reflection of the feelings of the people around the world through a democratic system, rather than the current system which leaves that world opinion at the mercy of multinational corporations that have an investment imperative in much of what they do and that do not think about the wider human and ecological components essential to proper political decision making.It is interesting to read what retired US Air Force General Lee Butler had to say about nuclear deterrence, which is the driving force for the stockpiling or the maintenance of nuclear weapons, both in the NATO countries as well as in Russia and China. He said:(T)he theory of nuclear deterrence, the bedrock principle of US national security during the Cold War, is costly, wrong-headed and dangerous.(Deterrence) evolved from an increasingly convoluted morass of unwarranted assumptions, unprovable assertions and logical contradictions.This is the best thinkers in the United States having their thinking dissected by one who was part of their military establishment. He goes on:By the end of the first decade of the Cold War, it had effectively served to suspend rational thinking about the ultimate aim of national security: to ensure the survival of the nation.The United States alone has spent $A7 trillion or $A8 trillion on developing nuclear weapons. That outstrips such things as education, local security and the delivery of a lot of social security services in the United States. It is an indictment, again, of the way in which the world has failed, after more than half a century of nuclear weapons, to come to grips with this blight on our collective reputation.I hope we get far enough in history that the world will be able to look back on this period and note not only the fight of those who wanted nuclear weapons but also the extraordinary public feeling against them and the ongoing campaign that is coming from a grassroots level. On that, I would like to note this book, entitled Fast track to zero nuclear weapons, which outlines the middle powers initiative, which Australia abstained from at the United Nations. It was disseminated widely in this parliament just last week by that noted former Western Australian Greens senator Jo Valentine, who was here to lobby for sanity as far as nuclear weapons are concerned.I am appalled that we have a government that cannot come out against nuclear weapons testing insofar as they cannot come out in favour of this new middle powers initiative in the United Nations. We should be part of the driving force for this instead of, at best, sitting on the sidelines saying, `We are unable to make up our minds.' That is what the government are saying here today: they cannot make up their mind to support this extraordinarily reasonable motion. It is not an outspoken motion; it is simply calling for a message to come from this place to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Australian Ambassador to the UN and to other UN delegations to say that the Senate wants Australia to join the other middle power nations, for goodness sake, like Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden.Notably, South Africa had nuclear weapons and got rid of them. It is one of the four countries that has actually done what the rest of the world wants countries like Russia, the United States, China, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and Iran to do. I also note at this point that, at the moment, we have at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney at least 16 scientists working on a laser enrichment program which is going to diminish the cost of enriching uranium by about 90 per cent, if it fulfils its promise—to use that word in a contrary or strange context. This means that nuclear weapons, for those who can get hold of this technology, will be much cheaper to produce. So not only are we exporting the raw materials out of this country; we are also engaged in and licensing experimentation which is ultimately going to flow on to help those who want to abuse nuclear weapons and who could hold the world in thrall of unimaginable terrorism in the next century, because we are not acting now. I support this motion. I condemn the government for not supporting it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Oh dear!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is an extraordinary thing that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate cannot speak out in favour of this motion and that the Howard government are so far behind public opinion on this matter.10:30:0010142Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—It is disappointing, as Senator Brown says, to hear the government say that it cannot support this motion. I thought that the government's arguments were very weak. For the government to say that it was supportive of individual elements of resolution 76(R) but not the resolution as a whole, seems to me to be an extraordinary statement to make, particularly given that we are one of those middle order states which have no nuclear weapons and that we entered into legally binding commitments not to receive, to manufacture or to otherwise acquire weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Those undertakings were made in the context of a corresponding legally binding commitment to the pursuit of nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapons states, including the US, which seems to be the country which Australia is most afraid of upsetting.Senator Ian Campbell also said that the government applauds the progress so far on disarmament, coming down from 60,000 nuclear warheads to 36,000. A fraction of 36,000 nuclear warheads would be enough to wipe out most of humanity on this planet. So it is not good enough. We must use whatever means are at our disposal and we must join with other nations when initiatives such as this come up and do our utmost to see that that 36,000 arsenal of nuclear warheads is gotten rid of completely. That is the only way we can guarantee a safe and peaceful future for this planet.Even though Australia is not a major player on the world stage in terms of nuclear activities, it must use whatever means are at its disposal to influence other countries. To say that this would call into question previous treaties and that the new agenda presupposes that the existing convention has failed is really quite absurd. Is Senator Ian Campbell saying that those other states—Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden—have got it so wrong; that they have presupposed that the existing convention has failed? I find that an extraordinary argument to put.It is disappointing. I hope that the government can come up with some other measure, some other step, that will allow us to go forward on this and to really make a stand. Whenever I see New Zealand's name amongst the number of countries which stand up against nuclear weapons in the world, I feel very proud of New Zealand because it is such a close neighbour to us but very sorry that Australia cannot follow the example of what is a very small nation but one which is unafraid to stand up to the rest of the world and unafraid to speak out about this issue. I often wish that Australia could find the courage to do what New Zealand does. Again, I urge the Senate to support this motion and I urge the government to change its mind about what I see as an intransigent position.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10142Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills: Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 Bills10143r92710143Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1014310:36:0010143Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The legislation enacting the new tax system was passed by this parliament last June and came into effect after Royal Assent on 8 July 1999. The most visible impact of the new system so far has been the price reductions for goods including TVs, video recorders, stereos and cameras as a result of wholesale sales tax on those items being reduced from 32 per cent to 22 per cent on 29 July.Since the legislation came into effect, many industry groups and practitioners have identified and brought to the government's attention a number of issues. We have noted where improvements could be made, and we have taken on board constructive suggestions concerning the legislation.This bill includes amendments which the government considers are necessary to ensure that the original intention of the law has been enacted and to ensure smooth implementation of this historic tax reform. Further consultations are continuing, and in particular areas—for example, financial services—the need for further amendments is being considered. However, I can inform the parliament that, barring unforeseen events, it is the government's intention to have further finetuning completed and legislated by the end of the year. This will provide business with a clear six-month period before implementation of the GST on 1 July 2000.Turning to the specific changes, the amendments in this bill provide some necessary and worthwhile concessions, amendments to clarify the existing rules, and some revenue and consumer protection measures.The government has always been concerned to ensure that the GST is not used as an excuse by unscrupulous operators to unfairly increase prices. While we have provided the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with powers to monitor prices and tough penalties for exploitation, we have been made aware of a view that the ACCC's powers do not cover situations where prices are unfairly increased prior to 1 July 2000. To put the issue beyond any doubt, the government will amend the Trade Practices Act 1975 to ensure that, in addition to their post 1 July 2000 powers, the ACCC's powers enable it to take immediate action in respect of any unreasonable price rises before 1 July 2000.During the negotiations with the Democrats over the initial package of tax reform legislation it was agreed that a charities consultative group would be established with the Australian Taxation Office. This group is assisting in clarifying the effect of the GST on the sector and will develop rulings well in advance of the introduction of the GST.As a result of these consultations, this bill will extend the definition of non-commercial supplies of residential accommodation by charities. The market value and cost of supply tests will be extended for the non-commercial supplies of residential accommodation by charities from 50 per cent to 75 per cent.The measure only applies to non-commercial supply of residential accommodation by charities, because the client income based contributions associated with residential accommodation are often only marginally above the current 50 per cent market value test. To not meet this test would make the supplies input taxed as residential rents or taxable as commercial accommodation for some boarding houses, which would significantly increase compliance costs. This is an important measure which will reduce compliance costs while maintaining the principle that all commercial supplies should be subject to GST. The 50 per cent market value test remains for other non-commercial supplies.The government will also take this opportunity to insert measures to provide further assistance to small business. In particular, the government will provide special rules for retailers with a mixture of taxable and GST-free supplies so that the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to determine alternative, simpler methods of calculating GST liability for retailers selling such goods. This provision for simplified accounting methods is an important measure to reduce compliance costs of small business. In addition, the Treasurer has already announced that the government will extend the cash basis for accounting for GST by doubling the existing cash accounting threshold to $1 million.The government has also decided to provide relief for vehicle lessors in certain circumstances. Currently, motor vehicle lessors with operating leases are required to pay GST on the disposal of vehicles acquired before 2 December 1998--that is the date the GST bills were introduced into parliament--and sold after 30 June 2000, without any ability to recover that tax from lessees. To alleviate this problem, we will allow a notional input tax credit on the sale of these vehicles to offset the GST imposed. The cost to revenue of this measure is $150 million over four years.Amendments in this bill also clarify the operation of the GST in several areas. We will make clear that exports acquired by an overseas business in Australia will be GST free even when ownership of goods passes to the overseas purchaser, who is not registered or required to be registered, before the goods are removed from Australia. This amendment will be welcomed by a wide range of industry bodies who have raised the GST treatment of free on board exports with the government.We will also clarify the definition of wine products so that the wine equalisation tax extends, as was intended, to fruit or vegetable wines and grape wine products such as wine cocktails, flavoured wines and a range of cream drinks.As an important revenue protection measure, this bill clarifies the application of the transitional measure denying input tax credits for the GST on business insurance premiums. The current legislation allows businesses to choose to claim an input tax credit on their business insurance premiums at the end of a quarterly or monthly tax period.The government will amend this to make the election prospective rather than retrospective. The option to elect to claim the input tax credit would be available at the time of registration or subsequently at the time of lodging the business activity statement. The option will be confined to one election per entity, rather than per policy, to minimise compliance costs. The revenue consequences of the amendment are nil because it essentially gives effect to the intended policy. However, if the measure were not adopted, then the cost to revenue would be significant. To accord with international practice, this bill will ensure that GST applying to goods and services supplied is to be excluded from assessable income, and input credits on acquisitions are to be excluded from allowable deductions, except to the extent that input tax credits are denied in respect of the purchase.There are also a number of other minor policy changes and technical amendments.These amendments show the government's commitment to working with businesses and charities on tax reform and responding positively to constructive suggestions.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first day of the 1999 summer sittings in accordance with standing order 111.Bills10144r91210144Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1014410:36:0010144Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill makes a number of amendments to the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986.The bill is a logical, common sense and practical continuation of the government's ongoing policy commitments in this area. The amendments are aimed at achieving genuine equality of opportunity for women in Australian workplaces. The bill seeks to bridge the gap which currently exists between the provision of equal opportunities for women in the workplace, and the ability and inclination of business managers to provide those opportunities. The bill will make the act more business-friendly and flexible, ensuring that organisations covered by the act are not subject to outdated and overly complex paperwork and costs associated with compliance. It will also assist in meeting the government's commitment to cut paperwork for business.The Affirmative Action Act has now been in force for 13 years and, last year, its role and performance was reviewed by an independent committee. The committee unanimously found that the act had delivered substantial gains to women and desirable outcomes for business, and was still fulfilling a valued and valuable role. However, it was also found that amendments to the act could make it more efficient and more effective.The committee also recommended the establishment of an Advisory Board under the existing provisions of the act. I was particularly pleased to endorse this recommendation, with the Advisory Board first meeting on 19 August 1999. I am confident that the Board will provide a proficient and valuable link between the Agency, the organisations covered by the act, and me. This is an important aspect of ensuring that the act is responsive to business, and to women, and is at its most efficient and effective.The focus of this bill is to modernise the existing features of the Affirmative Action Act to allow it to more clearly reflect today's workplace procedures and practices. The bill endeavours to deliver genuine flexibility to employers in how they achieve equal employment opportunity for women in their workplaces, acknowledging that the previous `one size fits all' approach to equal opportunity for women in the workplace does not serve the best interests of women, business or the Australian economy more generally.This bill proposes a fair and contemporary law which complements and positively reinforces the major objectives of our revitalised workplace relations system. It puts workers and businesses first, not institutions; it is relevant to modern Australia; it builds on the common interests which exist in the workplace; and it provides for fair and productive outcomes reflecting our national economic and social goals.Most importantly, in achieving these outcomes, the bill retains and promotes the importance of equal opportunity for women in the workplace. Employers who currently have obligations under the Affirmative Action Act will be the same employers who have obligations under the amended Affirma tive Action Act. The bill will simply change the nature of some of those obligations, making it more conducive for employers to provide genuine equal opportunity for women in the workplace.The name of the Act, Agency and DirectorThe bill clarifies the true intention of the Act. Unfortunately the term `affirmative action' is too often misconstrued as pertaining to `reverse' or `positive' discrimination based on preferential treatment and quotas. `Affirmative action' has been a misnomer, because the substance of the existing act has required `equal opportunity' in employment, rather than `affirmative action'. This is an appropriate direction for the act, and one which the government will continue, with both the substantive and nomenclature changes achieved by the bill.This bill therefore proposes a change in name to the act, Agency and the Director's title to dispel, once and for all, any misunderstandings about the essential aims of the legislation. The bill seeks to rename the act the `Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act', the Agency will be known as the `Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency' and the Director will be the `Director of Equal Opportunity in the Workplace'.Inserting an objects clauseTo support the name changes, the bill also introduces an objects clause. This reflects contemporary legislative practice and further elucidates the genuine objectives of the act.The new objects clause states that the principal objects of the act are to: promote the principle that employment for women should be dealt with on the basis of merit; promote, amongst employers, the elimination of discrimination against, and the provision of equal opportunity for, women in relation to employment matters; and to foster workplace consultation between employers and employees on issues concerning equal opportunity for women in relation to employment. In short, this bill aims to facilitate equal opportunity for women in the workplace, recognise the importance of merit, and promote dialogue between employers and employees on matters relating to equal opportunity for women in the workplace.The objects clause will provide guidance to employers and the Agency about the interpretation and administration of the act. With respect to consultation, this will mean that employers will be encouraged to ensure adequate dialogue between employers and employees on matters relating to the act. The Agency will take into account this objective in the full range of its activities including its educative and promotional activities.The insertion of this objects clause will not detract from the Agency's existing role with respect to the promotion within the wider community of the understanding, acceptance and public discussion of issues relating to equal opportunity for women in the workplace.Definition of `employment matters'The definition of `employment matters' is broadened by the bill. In addition to those matters already covered by the act, such as selection processes and conditions of service, the bill adds `work organisation' and `arrangements for dealing with sex-based harassment'. These matters were identified by the review committee as being of importance to women in achieving equal opportunity in the workplace. These changes will bring the act up-to-date with respect to matters relevant to the workplace of today. This list of employment matters is not intended to be an exhaustive account of matters relevant to the act. Indeed, the revised definition of an equal opportunity program means a program designed to remove all forms of discrimination against women in relation to employment matters at any particular workplace. This means that direct, indirect and systemic discrimination can be considered within the context of this act.Equal opportunity for women in the workplace programsUnder the existing provisions, employers are required to develop affirmative action programs based on a prescriptive and complex `8 step' process.The revised approach, as introduced by this bill, is simpler and more straightforward. Its aims are outcomes oriented, rather than being process-driven, allowing and encouraging employers and employees to put in place programs that are tailored to the needs of their particular workplaces.The new workplace programs will require the preparation of a workplace profile. This profile will be based upon data relating to the occupational and gender characteristics of the workplace. In collecting data, employers can choose to use standard ABS categories, or employers can use any other categories relevant to them. Some organisations have their own very specific classification system, while others use industry or occupational standards.This provision supports our objectives of greater flexibility and the alleviation of unnecessary processes and paperwork.Once an employer has a workplace profile, the employer will then be required to undertake an analysis to identify issues that the employer would need to address to achieve equal opportunity for women in the employer's workplace.Once the analysis is undertaken, the program must then provide for actions to be taken in relation to priority issues, and for an evaluation of the effectiveness of these actions.The new emphasis is squarely on actions and achievements. It provides opportunities for employ ers and workers to be genuinely innovative, and encourages real and appropriate measures to be put in place and gains to be made.The new program requirements also encourage organisations to take into account the broader business context, putting equal employment opportunity firmly in the context of good business practice, and integrating it into more general management strategies.This also means that employers will not have to duplicate activities that are undertaken for another purpose, but that also meet requirements under this act. In particular this relates to the collection of data for the purpose of the workplace profile.Reporting requirementsTo reflect the revised program requirements, the bill also introduces new reporting requirements.As with the existing provisions, employers will still be required to submit reports to the Agency concerning their programs. However, the new reports will afford significantly more flexibility to reporting organisations, focusing less on processes and more on outcomes. The integrity of the reporting system will be maintained with organisations required to analyse, describe and evaluate the actions taken in the previous reporting period, and also to provide a forward-looking plan for the next reporting period. Workplace profiles are to be submitted with respect to each reporting period.Reporting periodsThe new reporting cycles will be more firmly aligned with strategic workforce planning.The bill introduces a two-year cycle, as opposed to the existing one-year cycle. This will significantly reduce the paperwork burden on employers and will again soundly place the emphasis on quality program development and genuine achievement of equal opportunity for women in the workplace. During the review process, a number of organisations sought longer reporting cycles to enable equal opportunity for women in the workplace to be embedded in corporate planning. One year was considered too short a timeframe to put in place actions aimed at achieving real and sustained change.A two-year cycle will enable equal opportunity for women in the workplace to better sit beside strategic human resource development issues. Savings realised by employers with the reduced reporting burden will allow resources to be redirected towards measurable progress.Waiving of reporting requirementsThe bill introduces a revised waiving arrangement.The Agency will have the power to waive reporting requirements, for a specified period, where it is satisfied that the employer has taken all reasonably practicable measures to address the issues relating to employment matters that affect equal opportunity for women in their workplace.The phrase `reasonably practicable' is a commonly used expression in Commonwealth statutes. This test contains an objective standard that is balanced by the capacity to consider the particular facts of an employer's situation. The test is objective in that the Agency will consider whether the measures taken are of the type that would be taken by a reasonable employer when addressing issues that affect equal opportunity for women in the workplace. The reference to `practicable' also provides for consideration of the actual constraints and limits that face the employer in deciding what measures will be taken.To meet the requirements for waiver, employers must satisfy the Agency that they have taken all reasonably practicable measures to address each identified issue relating to each defined employment matter. If the organisation has no issues concerning a particular employment matter (for example, an all-female workplace that has had no experience of sex-based harassment), then no actions in that area need be taken. Of course there may also be cases where, by addressing one issue, other related issues are subsequently resolved.It is likely that the revised waiving criteria could mean that certain smaller companies, who do provide equal opportunity for women in their workplaces, are not necessarily disadvantaged simply because they cannot meet the standards of sophisticated equal opportunity for women in the workplace programs put in place by their larger, and wealthier, counterparts. There will be more scope for genuine effort and innovation to be rewarded, and more room for genuine constraints to be recognised.The new Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Advisory Board has been asked to examine this provision in more detail, and to develop guidelines on how it should administered. However, it is anticipated that this revision will enable a wider range of organisations to be rewarded for their efforts.There is also provision for the Agency to waive the reporting requirement, for a specified period, on its own motion. Regardless of whether an organisation is waived by applying to the Agency or on the own motion the Agency, they will still have to meet the same standard—that is that they have taken all reasonably practicable measures to address issues affecting equal opportunity for women in the workplace .Agency may request informationTo ensure the probity of reports under this act, the bill also introduces a provision allowing the Agency to request the employer to provide informa tion concerning any aspect of the employer's workplace program or the preparation of the report, or the report itself.This counters any implication that the revised reporting requirements in any way diminish employers' responsibilities with respect to equal opportunity for women in the workplace. The Agency can, at any point in the reporting cycle, seek verification of information supplied to the Agency about the workplace program or report.This provision also assists employers. Previously the Agency could only seek information once non-compliance had been determined. The proposed amendments allow the Agency to ask for information at any time, thereby assisting employers to comply with the act at an early stage, and ensuring that they are not subject to the retained sanctions associated with non-compliance.Mr Speaker, the introduction of the bill implements the legislative aspects of the government's response to the independent committee's report on the regulatory review of the Affirmative Action Act as well as undertakings made by the government in `More Jobs, Better Pay'.The committee's report followed an extensive consultation process, including the seeking of submissions (of which over 180 were received), the convening of roundtable discussions in each State and Territory capital city, and the survey of all organisations covered by the act. I thank all those who constructively participated in these consultations.The bill has had significant input from the Board, and been the subject of valuable comments from the Office of the Status of Women.The proposed changes to the Affirmative Action Act support the government's, and Australia's, commitment to equal employment opportunity for women by ensuring that the act is fully and effectively meeting its objectives.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Committees10147101471014710:37:0010147Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the Australian dairy industry, together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings, submissions and documents received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I seek leave to move a motion in respect of the report.Leave granted.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I believe that this is an outstanding report and that it reflects very clearly the evidence received from every state in Australia. The committee visited every state except the Northern Territory. This report underlines the importance of allowing the voice of ordinary farmers and small business people in country towns to be heard. This committee has a record of going to remote areas to visit people who would not normally have the opportunity of being heard within the national parliament of this country. We believe it is important to hear that voice. The committee is determined to listen not only to the peak farming organisations, even though their evidence is important, or to big companies, even though their evidence is important, but also to reflect upon and listen to the evidence given to us by the small farmers and the little people in this country.I would like to thank the committee secretariat: the secretary, Mr Andrew Snedden; in particular Ms Robina Jaffray, the principal research officer, who was the main author of the report; and other members of the committee who assisted—Mr John O'Keefe, Ms Trish Carling, Ms Rosalind McMahon and Ms Jade Ricza. I would like to seek leave to incorporate the part of my speech that gives an overview of the contents of the report and recommendations, and then to make some general comments.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—On 23 March 1999, the Senate referred the deregulation of the Australian Dairy Industry to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report. The specific matters included:(a) future domestic and international marketing conditions facing the Australian dairy industry and those factors which are influencing Australia's competitiveness in these markets;(b) the pressures on the current industry regulatory arrangements such as the introduction of new technologies and competitor supplier countries such as New Zealand;(c) the impacts associated with the removal of the Domestic Market Support scheme on:(i) the dairy industry and rural and regional communities; and(ii) state marketing arrangements; and(d) measures which may be taken by government to facilitate the transition to a less regulated environment.Following significant public response and 116 submissions, including many from individual farmers, the Committee undertook a series of public hearings in all states of Australia to hear first hand about the potential effects of deregulation and the options to be pursued.The major considerations for the Committee during its inquiry were:. the drivers of deregulation;. the impact of National Competition Policy on the deregulation of the dairy industry;. the specific impacts of deregulation on individual farmers and rural and regional communities;. whether deregulation could be delayed or whether deregulation was inevitable and what an appropriate time frame for deregulation might be;. the adequacy of the re-structure package in the event of deregulation on 1 July 2000;. the role of the Commonwealth Government and the States in setting the deregulation agenda.Committee FindingsThe Committee considers that the following threshold questions need to be addressed by Government in terms of the debate on deregulation:. Could a case be made on national interest grounds to continue or discontinue intervention?. In any event, will market forces, sooner or later, force deregulation?. If they do, is a managed outcome with a soft landing preferable to a commercially driven crash;. Is the proposed adjustment package, big as it is, enough?The Committee has concluded that at some point the market will force deregulation and that a managed outcome is preferable to deregulation cold turkey. On a personal note, I am disappointed that there is not more political will to confront those market forces which are so destructive of farmers' income and rural communities. Deregulation of the dairy industry will have significant impacts on individual farmers—both in terms of falls in income and in a drop in the value of capital assets—and the communities in which they live. These impacts must be addressed by Government. Drivers of Deregulation and National Competition PolicyDeregulation is principally supported by the large Victorian co-operatives, Murray Goulburn and Bonlac, and the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria. However, because Victoria dominates dairy production in Australia, producing two thirds of the total milk produced in Australia, Victoria's press for deregulation is of considerable weight. However, even within Victoria, there seems to be considerable disquiet amongst the dairy farming community about the advantages of deregulation.The Australian Dairy Industry Council has been proactive in alerting governments and the farming community of the consequences of deregulation and in proposing a means of dealing with those consequences in order that the industry will be able to withstand the fallout from total deregulation, if it occurs on 1 July 2000. The ADIC comprises industry and farmer representatives from all over Australia and their membership reflects the degree to which Victoria dominates the industry.The Committee was also interested to undertake an assessment of the degree to which National Competition Policy was a driver for deregulation.Committee concernsThe Committee has a number of specific concerns about the proposal to deregulate the industry, including:. the application of the public interest test in the State based legislation reviews under the terms of National Competition Policy;. the precise impact on farmers income and the adequacy of the re-structure package;. the failure to date by state governments to address the issue of compensation for quota, where appropriate; and. the impact on rural and regional communities.National Competition PolicyThe Committee's concerns in relation to the application of National Competition Policy principles, especially the interpretation of the net community benefit/public interest test and its application in the varying legislation reviews include:. there has not been a thorough investigation of the national consequences of deregulation with State reviews being undertaken piecemeal;. assessment of the public interest in the reviews has been less than comprehensive and appears to favour narrow sectional interests.The re-structure packageThe Committee is further concerned that the consequences of deregulation for individual farmers, their businesses and communities are not being sufficiently addressed. The impacts for farmers include: . an abrupt loss of income by farmers across Australia as farmgate prices drop;. a reduction in the value of capital assets;. a loss of the value of quota entitlement in some states;. the disappearance of countervailing market power by farmers who will be subject to the force of the major processors and retailers.Should deregulation take place on 1 July 2000, the adequacy of the re-structure package is problematic, especially:. Whether the amount to be received is adequate to cover the loss of income the package is intended to address;. The lack of any compensation by the States for loss of quota entitlement;. The administrative arrangements for the assessment and dispersal of funds under the scheme.The Impact on Rural and Regional CommunitiesThe impact of deregulation will be felt severely in most dairying communities around Australia, given the flow-on effects which will manifest within those communities—the farmers themselves will be affected, as will be the businesses which rely on dairying. In the Committee's opinion, the social and regional impacts will be severe and will need to be given detailed consideration in terms of any structural adjustment assistance, once deregulation occurs.RecommendationsThe Committee has recommended a series of actions, including most importantly that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Government call, as a matter of urgency, a meeting of state Agriculture and Regional Development Ministers to determine a framework, and a timeframe, for the co-ordinated deregulation of the Dairy Industry.The Committee considers that this is a critical action which must take place to promote certainty within the industry and an appropriate framework for continued operation.The issues of quota compensation and rural and regional adjustment schemes are also critical. The Committee wishes to draw attention to the Bega Valley Social Impact Study, a study funded by the local community raising the funding and which developed a detailed snapshot of the community and was able to demonstrate in a highly specific way the impact that a fall in the farmgate price of milk of different degrees would have on the local community. The Committee considers that this is a fundamental piece of work, demonstrating very clearly the potential impacts of deregulation on a community such as the Bega Valley. HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I would like to make some general comments that flow from this overview. The first comment I want to make is that I am appalled that we are once again faced with a decision which will further erode rural communities and reduce the profitability of farming businesses. I say I am appalled because it seems that there is little political will to resist the forces that are driving this process. It is a process that has been going on for decades and no political party, including my own, has been able to stop it. We have seen a decline in rural populations for some decades; we have seen, with some outstanding exceptions, the profitability of farms declining.In the reports and the evidence which we received, these market forces were identified as national competition policy, the global market and commercial realities. I am concerned that we, as politicians, put ourselves forward to represent rural communities, and then we have to say that there are forces which we cannot resist. One has to ask the question: if that is so, if we are unable to resist forces which are driving a process of degradation of rural communities, surely we should question whether we should put ourselves forward. If these forces are irresistible, perhaps we should stop pretending that we have any solutions and allow the processes to simply continue.However, I believe that there is political will in all of the political parties, particularly those that are most concerned about rural communities. I believe that the recent Victorian election showed that there was political will amongst ordinary country people who are prepared to change their vote if they believe that they are not being represented by those whom they have elected. Country people are understanding that they must take control of their own futures and that politicians must take account of the concerns they express. If politicians do not take account of those concerns, if we cannot resist the forces that are doing this to our country areas, then we should perhaps get out of the road. No wonder people ask, `What is the point of electing people to either the peak farmer organisations or to parliament?', if we cannot do anything for them.Let me underline, in the time I have left, what the committee report says about those commercial pressures. It is clear from the report that part of the pressure is coming from the big milk manufacturers—the processors. Our report indicates that much of the drive for deregulation comes from Bonlac and Murray Goulburn in Victoria, which have the majority of the market. I find it interesting to read a recent Weekly Times, which indicates that the Chief Executive of Bonlac, Mr Scanlan, is now a million dollar man. In other words, with his base salary and bonuses added to it, he now receives just over $1 million a year in salary. Yet he is asking farmers to live on welfare. I believe that is an obscenity.There is no doubt that there is commercial pressure coming from the large processors. There is also no doubt that there is a transfer of income out of farmers' pockets into the pockets of the processors and the big supermarkets. I believe that we ought to indicate very clearly to this country where those pressures are coming from and whether or not that is the way Australia wants to go. It is about time we made very clear what is happening.Another part of the commercial pressure is said to be the pressure from the global market, particularly the pressure for exports. Let me underline the fact that we are talking about exports of a low value product such as skim milk powder which makes up the bulk of the exports and in order to sell skim milk powder into a corrupt world market we are asking farmers to supply the milk for that product at below the cost of production. That makes no sense to me. It makes no sense at all and it certainly does not make any sense to those farmers who in some cases are now receiving below the cost of production for the milk they supply to the manufacturers in order to manufacture a bulk but low value product. A much larger proportion of the milk supply from states such as Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia goes into whole milk. There is no doubt that the premium price they receive is certainly under threat from the milk processors in Victoria, where over 60 per cent of the total milk production in Australia comes from, and that those commercial pressures will continue.This parliament needs to clearly indicate where that pressure is coming from. We also need to indicate that we believe it is about time the federal government and state agricultural ministers got together and recognised those pressures themselves and, if they cannot be resisted, put together a package which is more adequate than the package being offered. That package does not address the issue of the loss of quotas and their values and it does not address the regional impacts which in some cases will be very severe. In conclusion, I draw attention to the Bega study—which was paid for by people in Bega themselves—which shows that there will be a very significant impact on that community if deregulation does go ahead.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—I understand that there is an agreement to divide the remaining time available in this debate and I ask the Clerk to set the clock accordingly.10:48:0010151O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—First, I echo Senator Woodley's comments in relation to the activities of the secretary of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in the conduct of this inquiry and the preparation of the report, particularly the work of Robina Jaffray, whose work in coordinating the submissions, organising hearings and the compilation of the report has been absolutely essential to the efficient functioning of this committee. Let me pay my compliments. This work is a substantial reflection of the effort and diligence of Robina and other members of the committee secretariat in the performance of their duties.Let me also say that this committee travels through rural and regional Australia and we are indebted to Hansard for the enormous effort they put in in carrying equipment to hearings, setting up, getting information from witnesses so that the record can properly reflect who is giving evidence, and generally doing the hard slog that is not apparent from the report that the committee lays down. Without the efforts of Hansard, the members of the committee and the secretariat would be extremely hampered in the performance of our work. This report also reflects the diligence, the hard work and the professionalism of Hansard in the performance of its important duty as part of the Australian parliament.There is always a temptation in areas such as this to tell people what they want to hear. There is also a temptation just to present both sides of the argument but not draw any conclusions. These approaches have not been a feature of this committee in my experience, and this report is no exception. This committee also has a record of bringing down unanimous all-party reports and recommendations, and again this report on the Australian dairy industry is no exception. I must say that we have tested the boundaries of our ability to reach agreement. In some respects there would be passages in this report with which I would agree but others might not and I am sure other senators would say the same thing. That situation has arisen in respect of many reports handed down by this committee. We believe that it is important to have a view that reflects the totality of the views of members of the committee rather than seeking simply to pursue a set of words that a particular senator wants.We have considered 116 submissions, we have taken evidence from 99 witnesses and there are nearly 700 pages of evidence. The evidence is that the industry has performed exceptionally well over the past two decades. It has made considerable changes over that period and, with the support of government, it has managed the process very effectively. Over the last 20 years we have had the Kerin plan, the DMSS scheme, and the Crean plan, which varied that scheme. So this industry has been the subject of considerable interest from the Australian government. There is no doubt that there is a long-term future for the Australian dairy industry and in my view it will be a positive one. There is no doubt as well that the Australian dairy industry will be fully deregulated over time. As this report finds, the real issue is its timing and how that process is managed. It is essential that the process is coordinated and it is clearly the responsibility of the minister, Mr Truss, to manage that process. This is not simply a matter for the industry or individual states. Unfortunately, to date Mr Truss apparently has not accepted that responsibility. I am advised that in relation to the government's approach to the industry package he has now told the industry that they need to go out and sell that package to the states and that it is not a job for the federal government. That certainly is not my view.It is also the view that, while there may be some benefits from a staged approach to deregulation, the best approach is a one-off, properly designed, adequately resourced and fully coordinated approach. It is clear that in the short term farmers and the regions in which they live will suffer under deregulation and that the position of consumers at best will not improve. In the long term the industry as a whole will benefit if further reforms are achieved in the international marketplace and, I say again, it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government to deal with these short-term costs and maximise the potential for long-term gains.In relation to evidence that we have received that there is some support for a proposal that there be a national plebiscite of farmers to determine what course the government and industry should take in managing the dairy industry's future, the committee believes that a simple plebiscite would not be helpful at all. However, perhaps a proper survey covering a wide range of important issues may be helpful. I have to say that this inquiry has been exhaustive—and in some respects, exhausting—and we think that the body of information that has flowed from the inquiry is a sufficient basis for governments to properly develop and implement appropriate measures to manage the process.It is my view that the Commonwealth government has failed in this regard. It has failed to act in a timely and proper manner and, as a consequence, the industry and state governments are now forced to address these important issues in a very short time frame. That is to be regretted. Unfortunately, I have had a very limited time—which is about to expire—in which to speak on this matter, and I will deal with it again later.10:55:0010152Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I support the opening remarks made by my colleague Senator O'Brien concerning the fantastic effort put in by our committee during this inquiry. I give my thanks in particular to Robina Jaffray. I have been involved in many committees and the work she did on this report was outstanding and of the very highest class. She has done a great deal of work on this report on behalf of the members of the committee and has produced a very comprehensive and fairly large report that really gets to the nitty-gritty of the key issues. I commend the spirit in which my colleagues on this committee have worked through the issues, because they are not simple or easy and go far beyond the dairy industry itself.Before I walked into the chamber I was talking on the telephone to a friend of mine who is a dairy farmer in Harvey in Western Australia. They are now trying to work out how they will restructure the town because of the impact this will have on them. There is no doubt that over the next two or three years in rural dairy communities—as Senator Woodley said—there will be an enormous restructuring, not only of farms but also of businesses, support industries, service industries and schools. Sometimes people in this place do not have any perception of what happens when three or four children happen to leave an area. That area often loses a teacher or a nurse from the hospital or some other aspect of the service industry in the area is affected. I agree absolutely that the deregulation of the dairy industry is inevitable. In fact, I believe it is already here, even if the states do not deregulate. The DMS scheme is going and we will have across-the-border trading. The impact of that will be quite devastating to dairy farmers in the initial stages.As a member of the government I will not accept everything that is said in this place, but, while I supported the recommendation in the report, there is some inherent criticism of the fact that the job has not been got on with quickly enough. There has not been enough attention given to it, but the states themselves, particularly New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia—although I do not list them in any particular order; I can start with Western Australia first—have not been helpful. We have a conservative government in Western Australia and when we started this process Victoria had one too. The states have not been as helpful as they could have been.As a matter of extreme urgency—as we reflect in recommendation 1—the states together with the Commonwealth must now pull their weight and get on with what is required to refine the package put on the table by the Commonwealth government and deal with all the other associated issues. One of the problems you have with a situation like this is when the states have the `head of power' under the constitution to deal with quotas while the Commonwealth has an overall responsibility. Some particular states have been tardy when it comes to dealing with their quotas and what they are going to do. You are then left with a situation which invariably ends up being totally unsatisfactory. I say to all the state ministers and to us in government that we need to put a lot of urgency into the next two, three or four months and come to conclusions that will meet the issues head on.This has highlighted a chronic problem which we have with the agreement on competition policy. I could criticise the former government for that because they put it together with the state government, but I am not going to do that. I am going to set the challenge to this parliament that we must deal with competition policy or what I see as a gap in it, and that is looking at the national net benefit. When you go around the states individually and you get one report in one state and another report in another state, it confirms the status quo on what is happening, that there is a net public benefit. In one particular state—in this case, it happens to be Victoria by virtue of the fact that a different recommendation came out of that state—and that is not their fault; I think it is a weakness in the system—there is no consideration of the Commonwealth net benefit. That has to be addressed.There are not many industries like the dairy industry in Australia in the way it is structured, where it has a joint responsibility. Nonetheless I think it needs to be addressed and there needs to be some form of national test as well. Things might get handled a little differently if that were there.Concerning the package, I want to raise a couple of concerns which I have. It is not the size of the package—I think it is enormous—but I am concerned about the distributional effects that that could well have in terms of what may happen regionally, within a state, and also nationally across the various states. If we analyse some of the figures which we received very recently, I think we will find that, unless there are some disciplines put around that particular package, the states—particularly Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales—are going to find it very hard to accept it because the effect will be that those states will be assisting Victoria to export milk across the border into bigger states and undermine the market milk operations there. That is a real concern which obviously the government and we in this parliament have to deal with so that we get the right result out of the package that has been put up and not one that merely shifts the problem across borders and creates further enormous social problems. (Time expired)11:02:0010153Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—This report on deregulation of the Australian dairy industry is very significant. It is comprehensive and, as previous speakers have stated—and I endorse their remarks—the comprehensive nature of the report is due very much to the hard work of the secretariat, particularly Robina Jaffray, who worked with the committee throughout its hearings and deliberations. The committee had the opportunity to visit regional areas of Australia, which provided us with first-hand experience of what can be the very serious and in some cases possibly devastating effects of unbridled deregulation and competition policy upon the people working and living in those regions. All colleagues on the committee were very impressed with the evidence that was brought before us, albeit that there were different points of view put from time to time.Time is short and I am sure there will be much more to say about this report on future occasions. The dairy industry is a significant industry, both domestically and internationally. It has been restructuring since the 1970s, when it suffered a major blow due to the entry at that time of the United Kingdom into the European Community, or Common Market as it was then called. Over those years through the various plans that Senator O'Brien referred to, such as the Kerin plan and the Crean plan, the industry has had to restructure. It has improved its efficiency, and unfortunately that has come at some cost. For instance, today there are some 30 per cent fewer dairy farmers in operation than there were in the 1970s. Still the industry is characterised by some 95 per cent of those farmers being family farmers. When you visit the regions and talk to those farmers, to community leaders and to other people, as we did, you experience first-hand the concerns that they have about future deregulation, particularly the impact that reduced farm gate prices for market milk will have upon them.While there has been a feeling of inevitability about future deregulation because of the abolition of the domestic market support scheme from July next year, that does not lessen the impact of the problem. For instance, Senator Woodley has referred to the study that was done in the Bega area in my home state of New South Wales. I urge senators and others to look in detail at that study. It demonstrates the problems that can impact upon a regional community with decisions such as this which not only directly affect the industry but have a much greater multiplier effect throughout the community. That experience could quite possibly occur in other areas of New South Wales and in other states. That is why we have recommended that there needs to be a specific focus on regional adjustment assistance within a total package.The package that has been developed addresses particularly lost income for dairy farmers as a result of deregulation, but there is a range of other issues which also need to be addressed. We have recommended that in particular there has to be consideration given—in fact, there has to be a commitment by state and federal governments—to finding ways to assist those regional communities that will be affected by what happens in this industry. As we have seen, the impact of national competition policy is not confined to just this industry.I have to say—and I agree with Senator O'Brien—that the federal government could have picked up the ball a lot quicker and run with it a lot harder than it has done to date. I recall, in a debate in this chamber on 29 September, Senator Troeth interjecting at one point in a speech of mine and saying, `This issue is a matter for the states.' It is not a matter just for the states. Whilst regulation of the market milk industry resides with the states, the fact is that this is a national industry and a national issue and it requires national leadership. Unfortunately, I think that has been lacking. You cannot expect to just leave it to the individual states, who have different competing interests, as we have seen, to try and coordinate the final approach. What we are urging as a matter of urgency is for the federal government to coordinate, develop and implement ultimately a nationally agreed package of measures that addresses these issues, not just those that are addressed by this package. In conclusion, I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills10154r71710154Consideration resumed from 20 October.Schedule of the amendment made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed—(17) Schedule 2, page 40 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add: 55 Application The amendments made by items 48 to 53 (inclusive) do not apply to a person who, on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, is receiving parenting payment at the rate applicable for a person who is not a member of a couple. The provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 continue to apply to such persons as if the amendments made to that Act by items 48 to 53 (inclusive) had not been made.House of Representatives reasons for disagreeing to the Senate amendment—The House of Representatives does not agree with Senate Amendment 17 because:The "grandfather" clause is inconsistent with the fiscal objectives of the CDEP package contained in the Bill which implement important features of the Spicer Report and which are supported by ATSIC.The amendment is incorrectly drafted for the purpose for which it was stated to be intended. If the aim of the amendment was to "grandfather" the lone parents affected by the Bill, then the amendment goes too far. By negating the entire Item 53 in the Bill in relation to lone parents, it has the effect of disentitling that group from eligibility for the CDEP Participation Supplement.(Quorum formed)Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the committee does not insist on its amendment No. 17 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.11:11:0010155Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This message relates to the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 and specifically the House of Representatives' decision to disagree to an amendment made by the Senate last time around, which was an amendment that I moved on behalf of the Democrats, supported by the Senate, in an attempt to grandfather a group of people. The measure that the amendment related to sought to change the entitlements for CDEP Scheme recipients. Broadly speaking, it was a good measure which increased availability for most scheme recipients to various add-ons that social security recipients normally receive, such as rent assistance, but it also had a flow-on effect of reducing payments for about 4,000 people, mainly women on sole parents pension. That was of concern to the Democrats.We were willing to accept the intent of the change that the government was putting forward in relation to sole parents, which was to ensure consistency of treatment across all income support recipients, but we did feel that it was inappropriate for the approximately 4,000 people that were already in that circumstance to have their income reduced by a fairly significant amount. Thus, we moved a grandfathering related amendment to protect those people whilst ensuring that any people in the future in receipt of the lone parenting payment would be treated differently under the new regime.It appears, as the House of Representatives and the government have indicated, that they do not like the concept of a grandfather clause, at least in relation to this particular amendment, and also that the original amendment did not meet the purpose for which it was intended.Following some communication with the Clerk and also with assistance from the government, I think we have come to an amendment which does have the intent that the Democrats had initially. I suppose this is starting to be an indication of how complex the Social Security Act is becoming and how difficult it is to get amendments that have the intent that one desires reflected in them. But I think we have got it this time. Obviously, as part of that, we would like to indicate that the original intent of the Democrats to have a grandfathering amendment to protect those lone parents currently on the CDEP Scheme to retain their current income treatment is something the Democrats wish to pursue and continue with. Having now, I think, got an amendment which we believe will achieve that, I will move that amendment, which has been circulated, at the appropriate stage in the debate.I will speak to it briefly without going through all the arguments that we went through last time we discussed the bill. The Democrats believe, as I have just stated, that it is appropriate that those people who are already in the situation do not have a significant reduction in their income. There are two things I would like to emphasise in support of that. Firstly, in terms of the concept of grandfathering itself, it was pointed out in this chamber on Tuesday, when the government was putting forward some changes to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999, that those changes include a grandfathering clause for some people, so that they would not be negatively impacted by the changes that were proposed to shared caring arrangements. I think that in itself demonstrates that inserting grandfathering arrangements is not calamitous public policy that will cease to enable the effective operation of the entire income support system.As I stated the first time around, I think it is a legitimate transitional method to try to smooth the effect of change so that any changes that are made do not impact too severely and suddenly on people. The government itself obviously had the same view in relation to another change it was proposing with that other piece of legislation, so I think that in itself shows that there is nothing inherently unacceptable about grandfathering.I would also like to mention some comments that the Democrats have received from ATSIC. As was stated the first time around, the Democrats quite willingly conceded that ATSIC as a body have expressed their support for the changes the government is proposing to ensure equitable treatment for all CDEP participants. They have stated that and they are keen to get the measure up and running. A letter dated 30 September from Gatjil Djerrkura to the Democrats stated:I am advised that the Democrats are proposing a grandfathering amendment, which would enable those lone parents currently participating on the CDEP scheme to retain the current income treatment whilst they remain as CDEP participants. ATSIC supports this proposal because it protects the present income of those lone parents currently participating on the CDEP scheme.I would like to read that into the record as an indication that the government have made some play on the fact that ATSIC supported their amendments, which is quite appropriate for them to highlight. I would also like put on the record that ATSIC has indicated support for the Democrats' proposal to have a grandfathering amendment as part of that changeover.I think those are sufficient arguments, certainly from the Democrats' point of view, to persevere with our original intent of having a grandfathering component as part of this change and with the hope of an amendment which I believe does meet that purpose. I could ask Senator Campbell, who has an extensive knowledge of the Social Security Act 1991, to outline that in greater detail but I have actually discussed it with his advisers already. I am satisfied that it does meet the aim of the intention that the Democrats had in relation to this. That being the case, I would like to eagerly dispose of the government's motion and then move my amendment.11:18:0010156Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of the Labor opposition, we will be obviously supporting the government motion because it disposes of the Democrats' original amendments, and we will be supporting Senator Bartlett's amendment as circulated in the chamber. It seeks to give legislative effect to the position that they originally proposed. In the original debate in this chamber, Labor had a proposition that the benefit for single parents to access CDEP payments was to be supported. The Democrats did not support that view, and they put up a compromise position, which was that we grandfather the entitlements of those currently in receipt of CDEP.I said during that debate that I thought that was a second best option, but that, reading the numbers in the chamber, the Labor opposition was prepared to support that. It had the advantage of at least protecting the entitlements of those people currently in receipt of the single parenting payment and CDEP. We would prefer to see the situation that currently exists continue because we do not think there is any good reason for reducing the payments made to some of the most disadvantaged people in our community. We are talking about single parent Aboriginal people supporting children and also working in the CDEP program. We think they are some of the most disadvantaged members of our community.These are people who are making an effort to contribute to their society. We believe the current arrangements give them the same entitlements as other single parents in terms of earning a tax-free income which allows them to supplement their parenting payment. Sure, this is a supplement that is going from another Commonwealth funded scheme, but we believe, given the isolation of these communities and the absence of any other employment opportunities, that it is not unreasonable to say that they ought to be able to access both payments. This in effect would be their equivalent of obtaining part-time employment in the private sector. There is virtually no part-time or full-time work available in these communities outside the CDEP program. They do not have the opportunities that people living in other communities have. Given that they are single parent Aboriginal people, living in remote communities and trying to bring up children, we think that the current arrangements are not overly generous and that it is a mistake to seek to reduce the entitlements that these people currently enjoy. We think doing so in the name of uniformity is not sufficient justification.But we have had that argument. We have put that case. The Democrats are putting up a compromise proposition, which is the grandfathering proposition that is before us today. We supported that during the original debate and will support that again as a second-best option. We accept the government's advice that the original amendments did not achieve what we sought to achieve in terms of the legislative outcome. It is obviously important that we get it right. Senator Bartlett has now circulated an amendment which seeks to give effect to that proposition. We will support that again today, and we hope that the government will accept that as a reasonable compromise between what they set out to achieve and the interests of the people affected, which we think ought to be given some priority in this debate. So we will be supporting the motion moved by Senator Ian Campbell to not insist on that original set of amendments, but we will also be supporting Senator Bartlett when he moves the new amendment which establishes the grandfathering provision for single parents who are CDEP participants. We believe that is a much better alternative than the complete removal of those benefits, as proposed by the government. Question resolved in the affirmative.11:23:0010157Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move:(1) Schedule 2, page 40 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:55 Benefits of single parents who are CDEP participants not to be reduced (1) Section 1188C inserted in the Social Security Act 1991 by item 53 does not apply in respect of a person who, immediately before the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent: (a) was in receipt of parenting payment at the rate applicable for a person who is not a member of a couple: and (b) was a CDEP participant. (2) However, if such a person ceases on or after that day to be a CDEP participant, subitem (1) ceases to have effect in respect of the person whether or not he or she afterwards again becomes a CDEP participant.I spoke to this amendment at length before when I thought I was moving it. For the reasons that I outlined before, I think it is a good one to support, and I urge the Senate to do so.Amendment agreed to.Resolution reported; report adopted.Business1015710157Motion (by Senator Kemp) proposed:That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of the following government business orders of the day:No. 4—International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999No. 5—Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999No. 3—Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999(Quorum formed)11:28:0010157O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—We are not unhappy with the government changing the program. I make the point that it appears that somewhere along the line there has been a problem in communication. We are ready to proceed with the RFA Bill but, if the government wishes not to, perhaps the best thing to do while we sort the matter out is to proceed with another matter. We are not aware of any arrangement to change the program. In terms of being prepared to proceed on another bill, I understand that we are ready to proceed now.11:28:0010158Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate, as I was the shadow minister on duty in the chamber at the time, that Senator Ian Campbell has suggested to us that there is need for the RFA Bill to be deferred, on advice he has got from Mr Tuckey's office suggesting that he has some agreement with the Labor Party to that effect. The Labor Party senators in the chamber are not aware of that, but in order for us to progress without undue delay we will agree to this motion, on the basis that, if that is not true, the RFA Bill will come straight on after the international tax bill. Obviously there has been some discussion and it is best not to delay the Senate. I understand that Senator Sherry is prepared to go ahead with the international tax bill, but we would obviously want to come back to the RFA Bill if Senator Campbell's information is not correct. It seems sensible that we proceed and vote for this motion at this stage.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10158r92410158Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.11:29:0010158Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 proposes to enact double taxation agreements, known as DTAs, with South Africa, the Slovak Republic and Argentina. In addition, it also proposes to enact a protocol—an amendment—to the existing DTA with Malaysia. These are generally consistent but do have some differing provisions because of the specific domestic tax arrangements of some jurisdictions. DTAs exist to clarify taxing rights between jurisdictions for income derived in one jurisdiction by a resident of another jurisdiction. They attempt to ensure an equitable distribution of taxing rights between jurisdictions and to avoid double taxation, so as to encourage trade and investment between entities of the jurisdictions.Australia has a large network of DTAs mainly because Labor, when in office, significantly expanded the network of DTAs that Australia is a party to. We did this in order to create a better environment for Australian business to operate internationally and to encourage productive investment in Australia. This approach has been built upon by the current government and these latest agreements are the results of the continuation of Labor's successful policies.I might say in passing, at least in respect of the Slovak Republic, that it is a new nation as a result of the fall of the former Soviet Union and the break-up of the old Czechoslovak communist state. I will make no comment about the break-up of the Czechoslovak state obviously caused by the creation of a new nation in Europe.I will turn to the specific provisions. Australia's DTAs are all broadly similar in their design. They are based generally on the OECD model convention but they also reflect the particular economic circumstances of Australia, namely Australia being a large capital importer, and the domestic tax rules of the other jurisdiction on some occasions. For example, the taxation of some annuities under the South African DTA differs from the normal agreements Australia is a party to because of the specific treatment of this income under South African law. Similarly, the withholding tax limits for interest, royalties and dividends under the Argentinian DTA vary from the normal practice, as does the inclusion of the specific branch profits tax provision. These variations reflect the reality of negotiations with differing tax jurisdictions and are not opposed by Labor.However, Labor is concerned at what it sees as the continuing slowness by the government on two fronts concerning our international agreements network: firstly, putting Australian firms on a level playing field where they invest overseas, compared to the generous deal Australia gives foreign investors here; and, secondly, the negligence concerning international tax avoidance through the use of these treaties which the current government has, at least to date, not rectified.Let me deal firstly with the unfairness of current dividend withholding tax arrangements. The recent Ralph committee's final report covered this issue at pages 677 and 678. The recommendation is:That in negotiating double taxation arrangements, Australia endeavour to reduce dividend withholding tax rates on non-portfolio investments.Non-portfolio investments are those where the investment represents 10 per cent or more of a business. So Mr Ralph has recommended to the Liberal government that it undertake specific action concerning DTAs to overcome situations where Australia is more generous to foreign investors than the particular foreign nation is to Australian shareholders. I emphasise that we need to be overcoming the situations where Australia is more generous to foreign investors than the particular foreign nation is to Australian shareholders.Certainly, in the debate about business tax reforms, it is often emphasised that Australia is less competitive compared with many of our trading partners and international competitors, and at least in some situations Australia is in fact more generous than many of these overseas countries. As Mr Ralph notes at page 678:Since 1994 Australia has sought lower foreign dividend withholding tax rates on non-portfolio dividends . . .So Labor started to address this problem. The treaties before us today do deal with this issue because they are following the policy established by Labor. For example, proposed article 10(2)(A) of the South African agreement does obtain fair treatment for Australian shareholders with investments in South Africa. This is because the Liberal government is following Labor's policy lead.The real issue—the most important aspect of this anomaly—is with the nations with which Australia has the largest investments. The two major nations are, of course, the United Kingdom and the United States. The United Kingdom has fixed the problem through its domestic law but not through the DTA, so at least at the moment the problem does not occur in Britain. But in the United States it is still happening. In the US the current DTA arrangements allow the unfair situation whereby a 15 per cent dividend withholding tax is imposed on Australian businesses remitting dividends from taxed profits from the United States, whereas Australia does not levy such a withholding tax on US investors out of taxed profits from Australia. This is a clear example—despite the often repeated claims, most of which are generalised in the Australian community—that we have less competitive tax arrangements than the United States, for example.What are the government doing about this anomaly? To date they have been completely silent on this matter. I would just emphasise this again. In respect of the United States, we have the unfair situation where a 15 per cent dividend withholding tax is imposed on Australian businesses remitting dividends from taxed profits from America. Australia does not levy such a withholding tax on US investors out of taxed profits from Australia. This is an example of where Australia's economic interests are being damaged by the poor international relations conducted by the Howard Liberal government. There have been some other examples of this in recent times, but they relate to other matters and I will not go into them here today.We should have more clout in Washington than we have at the present time. If we did, perhaps we could make some progress in renegotiating this treaty. Unfortunately it seems that the current Prime Minister, Mr Howard, does not have a great deal of clout, at least with the current administration in the United States. This is an area to which urgent attention should be given because of the disadvantage to which Australian businesses are being put. Furthermore, the Treasurer's introduction to the United States, which I think most would recall, where he inappropriately and publicly talked about his meeting with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve had the unfortunate side-effect of diminishing our credibility with some of the key economic policy makers in the United States.Secondly, the Liberal government has not legislated to close the enormous loophole under Australia's DTAs which has arisen because of the decision in the Lamesa Holdings case in 1997. This decision means that foreigners can take free capital gains on holdings of Australian land and mining ventures through utilising a simple chain of companies. Let me emphasise the central concern about this case again. The decision means that foreigners—not Australians—can take tax free capital gains on holdings of Australian land and mining ventures through utilising a simple chain of companies. There has been no legislation, despite the fact that the Treasurer issued a press release promising to do something about this loophole on 27 April 1998—approximately 18 months ago.Let me deal, in some small detail at least, with the decision in respect of Lamesa Holdings. The Lamesa decision was handed down by the full Federal Court on 20 August 1997. It dismissed an appeal by the tax office concerning a significant loophole in Australia's ability to tax gains arising from Australian real property, including mining rights. The court held that the existing double taxation agreements, DTAs, which give Australia the exclusive right to tax profits arising from the alienation of real property situated in Australia—and this includes shares in companies that hold interests in real property—did not apply in the situation where multiple layers of subsidiaries were interposed between the non-resident holding company and the Australian real property. The disposal of the interest in the Australian asset was accomplished indirectly through selling one of the interposed companies rather than the asset itself.The effect of this decision, if unaddressed, is to make simple the avoidance of tax on gains made by the non-resident through holding Australian real property. All real property assets held by non-residents can be restructured into a multiple, interposed structure and a significant Australian tax base would then be at risk. It is not just this; there is also the particular problem of the unfairness with respect to Australian resident taxpayers, who do have to pay the appropriate level of capital gains tax. Yet we have the continuing situation where, potentially, the foreign owners—the non-residents—can minimise or even eliminate their capital gains tax on property and some mining interests.Rather belatedly the Treasurer issued release No. 39 on 27 April 1998 which announced that, from that time, indirect alienations of Australian real property, as occurred in Lamesa, would be subject to Australian tax. This was justified, and quite correctly, as being a move to shore up Australia's existing taxing rights rather than create a new tax base. The result was announced as being achieved by Australia unilaterally amending its international tax legislation in respect of all DTAs rather than individually renegotiating each DTA. I would just remind the Senate that we do not have the legislation yet that deals with the commitment and the announcement made by the Treasurer, by press release, promising to do something about this loophole—and this announcement was made on 27 April, 18 months ago.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—Order! Honourable senators, may I suggest that if you want to hold a meeting, you do it outside the chamber, please.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I am about to conclude, so hopefully the discussions that are going on will lead to a resolution of the legislation that is outstanding in respect of some other matters. It is considered that this response is the only feasible one to protect the revenue, but this government has not as yet done that. I emphasise the unfairness of Australian resident taxpayers paying appropriate capital gains tax on real property situated in Australia, including shares in companies that hold interests in real property, when foreign residents are not paying the appropriate level of capital gains tax.I hope that phone call has been answered to try to sort out the particular negotiations that are under way. It should be seen in that context.Senator McGauran interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That was not my mobile phone, by the way.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—The protocol, Julian, is that you people should have your program sorted out.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Mr Acting Deputy President, I have been provoked to rise on a point of order about the matter that just occurred. I attempted to overlook it but I think it is important to make this statement. I ask you to take back to the President the incident that just occurred: a mobile phone went off in the chamber and the offending senator picked it up and started to talk into it. Is there any such protocol with regard to mobile phones inside the chamber?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, but I will take it back to the President, Senator McGauran.Senator Murphy interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator Murphy.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a further point of order. You indicated to Senator McGauran that you would take it back to the President. I suggest to you that there is a protocol that relates to the use of mobile phones or carrying mobile phones in the chamber. It is clearly spelt out and most senators do know about it, but on some occasions they may forget. I suggest to you that there is nothing to take back to the President on this because what we do with respect to mobile phones is already a common practice.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, I reiterate that to Senator Murphy.Senator McGauran interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator McGauran. Are you rising on a fresh point of order?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I can't pretend that I am.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator McGauran.Senator McGauran interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I understand Senator McGauran has indicated he is going to withdraw his request. It was an unfortunate interlude but, as Senator Murphy highlighted to the chamber, there have been some fairly strenuous negotiations going on about the program. I think that the unfortunate occurrence of the mobile phone ringing should be seen in that context.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Are you still speaking to the bill?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, I certainly am. I was speaking in respect of the unfortunate interlude that occurred, which was part of my speech which I maintain is relevant. I am about to conclude my remarks. As I was emphasising before the interruption, it is very unfortunate that we have a situation in Australia where foreign residents who own property in Australia can avoid capital gains tax through interposed entities and restructuring of their various companies. Australians cannot do that. It is a very unfortunate situation, and the opposition makes that point and urges the government to deal with that matter as expeditiously as possible in the legislation coming before this place.I conclude my remarks by saying that the Labor opposition support this legislation. It enacts double taxation agreements with South Africa, the Slovak Republic and Argentina. We support it because it is appropriate to have fairness and equity—a level playing field—in the international arena to avoid incidences of double taxation. This agreement adds to that and adds to the large network of DTAs that were negotiated when the Labor Party were in government. Albeit with a number of suggestions and criticisms that I have referred to in my speech, we are pleased to see this legislation being extended to these three particular countries. We therefore support the legislation.11:50:0010161Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Firstly, in regard to Senator Sherry's comments about the Lamesa legislation, as honourable senators are aware, the Treasurer issued a press release on 27 April 1998 announcing that the government would take action to deal with effective alienation of Australian real property, as in the Lamesa case. The government remains committed to dealing with the issue and asserting Australia's taxing right in such cases. The press release referred to announced the change would apply from 27 April 1998, the date of the press release.I thank honourable senators who have participated in this debate. The International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 will provide legislative authority for three new comprehensive double taxation agreements with South Africa, Slovakia and Argentina and an amending protocol to our existing agreement with Malaysia. The new agreements are consistent with agreements previously concluded by Australia in recent years.The government believes that conclusion of these new agreements and protocol will go a long way to strengthening the trade investment and wider relationship between Australia and each of these countries. The agreement and protocol will enter into force respectively when diplomatic notes are exchanged advising that all of the necessary domestic processes to give them the force of law in each country have been completed. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills10162r91710162Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.11:53:0010162Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 relates to two issues. Firstly, it adds members of the Western Australian Anti-Corruption Commission and the Queensland Crime Commission and authorised staff members of those commissions to the list of people who may apply for interception warrants. Secondly, it removes from the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Act 1997 the sunset clause on the provision that allows members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue interception warrants. The Australian Democrats have no concerns in relation to the granting of the power to apply for warrants to members of the Western Australian Anti-Corruption Commission or the Queensland Crime Commission or to authorised staff.The reason that I want to speak briefly to this bill today is to recount our views in relation to members of the AAT issuing interception warrants. This issue was debated in September 1997. The view of the Australian Democrats at that time was that, rather than reposing this power in members of the AAT, we would have preferred that it be reposed in state Supreme Court judges. Additionally, we took the view that, before a member of the AAT was nominated to perform this function, the minister should have first made an assessment whether the number of judges performing the function was sufficient or insufficient. The Australian Democrats are still of the view that it is preferable for this function to be performed by judges rather than by members of the AAT who are, with respect, ultimately, administrative officers of the executive government.The Australian Labor Party did not support either of the amendments I have outlined when my colleague Senator Murray first moved them in 1997. They have again indicated informally that they would not do so on this occasion if they were moved again. I will not be moving those amendments again, but I would like it to be noted for the record that the Australian Democrats very much retain a preference for warrant applications to be dealt with by members of the judiciary rather than officers of the executive. The 1997 amendment act included a requirement that the annual report for 1999-2000 include a review of the amendments by the act. The Telecommunications Interception Policy Review, prepared by Mr Peter Ford of the Attorney-General's Department, makes the comment that, by all accounts, the conferral of the power on nominated members of the AAT had worked well in practice and that the AAT members who have been nominated have a high status and are independent of the executive. He stated that they bring to the task a seriousness of purpose and commitment to principles of accountability which serves the public interest well.The Australian Democrats are pleased that this is the case, and I am unaware of any specific problems arising out of the decision to allow members of the AAT to issue interception warrants. That report goes on to refer to the proposed new Administrative Review Tribunal, which will replace the AAT, and to suggest that members of that tribunal will continue to perform the function of issuing warrants. I understand that amendments will be required to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 before that can occur, and I would ask the minister or his representative to inform me if my understanding of that is correct.I submit that the government are being very presumptuous if they think it is a foregone conclusion that members of the new ART will simply pick up where the members of the AAT left off in terms of issuing warrants. I signal to the government that the Australian Democrats would be very careful in assessing the nature of the role of members of the ART and their qualifications before we would even consider allowing those members to perform this extremely important function.The report also refers to the creation of the federal magistracy and the potential for federal magistrates to be nominated as persons who will be able to issue warrants. Again, I understand that this would require an amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, and I again note that the Democrats would be very careful in ensuring that nomination of federal magistrates in that circumstance would be appropriate. Subject to these comments, the Australian Democrats support this bill.11:57:0010163O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I rise to very briefly indicate that the opposition support the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 . I want to make a couple of comments as to why we are dealing with it now and not at 12.45 p.m., given that it was intended that we deal with a message relating to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . There was an exchange in this chamber because that bill was pulled by the government with, apparently, as I have subsequently ascertained, some consultation with the opposition in the House of Representatives. I will acknowledge that Senator Ian Campbell was correct when he said that there had been consultation, and I wish to put that on the record.It should be on the record that there was a request from Mr Tuckey's office for the opposition to agree to pull the bill—or the message, I should say—today. The opposition's position is that it is a matter for the government to arrange their business in this chamber, and the government have done so by making a decision to pull the consideration of the message relating to the Regional Forests Agreement Bill. It is a matter for the government as to when that bill proceeds. I indicate that the opposition is ready, willing and able to deal with that bill at any time. As I say, it is a matter for the government to decide when that bill is dealt with and it is a matter that the government will be obliged to clarify should there be any question as to whose decision it was to pull the bill. I say again: the bill was pulled by the government and the opposition has acceded to their request, as it is the government's decision to proceed or not with the message, and the opposition is ready, willing and able to proceed with that matter. In relation to the bill before the chamber, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 , my understanding is that the opposition is supporting that bill and obviously, if the Democrats are not proceeding with amendments, we do not need to consider those matters now. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills10163r75010163Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.12:02:0010164Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 makes a number of amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and seeks to address various concerns raised in the Industry Commission's report No. 57 into private health insurance by making changes to the operation and powers of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. The main elements of the bill relate to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. The proposals that are now before us extend the regulatory powers and the independence of PHIAC from the department and the minister in all but matters of policy. Schedule 1 of the bill will transfer further functions and powers from the Department of Health and Aged Care to PHIAC to enhance its role as an industry regulator, and this includes the power to register funds, cancel registrations and approve mergers.Schedule 1 also has a number of other amendments that give PHIAC further functions, including (1) requiring health funds to be incorporated as companies—this will ensure a professionalism in the health funds and will ensure that funds are subject to the financial rigour that members could legitimately expect in any membership arrangement; (2) amending the act to require health funds to hold health insurance as their primary business so that health fund moneys are spent on health insurance matters; (3) making sure that business decisions must now be made acting in the interests of members, and this also gives the courts powers to set aside transactions which are not in the interests of members of the fund; (4) there will also be a new civil penalty regime for directors where serious contraventions have occurred without them taking reasonable steps to avoid them.The opposition supports all of these amendments because we believe they will make the industry more accountable and more in line with the expectations of their membership. However, we believe the government should go further, and that PHIAC should be made a stronger and more independent authority. The huge rebate the government is now pouring into private health insurance adds weight to that argument and that there needs to be effective monitoring of the spending of that rebate.The powers in relation to the prudential regulation of registered funds are dealt with in schedule 2 of the bill. At the moment the minimum reserve requirements do not adequately reflect the reality that a number of funds have operated within these for a number of years. It is proposed to strengthen PHIAC's role by giving it increased power of oversight and the power to order the appointment of an administrator or the wind-up of a fund. It is worth noting that, as at 30 June last year, PHIAC reported that five out of 44 funds were in breach of the solvency standards—down from nine in the previous year. It is unsettling to the opposition that this number of funds are in breach of these requirements. This bill will require PHIAC to set a standard, which may differ between various health benefit organisations, in writing. PHIAC is required to consult with the Australian Government Actuary in that process, and these standards would be a disallowable instrument of this parliament.The involvement of the Government Actuary is a key to the success of these arrangements in the view of the opposition. We believe it is the appropriate body from which PHIAC can draw advice over capital adequacy and solvency standards, but under the legislation there is no requirement for PHIAC to actually follow the actuary's advice. Again I am drawn to my point relating to the experience and skills base in PHIAC currently. The opposition has put forward an amendment to require the council to publish its reasons if it decides to reject the advice of the Government Actuary, so that the council's decisions will be transparent.With regard to schedule 3 of the bill, these measures deal with a number of changes that arise out of the defects and unforeseen consequences of the 1998 private health insurance rebate legislation. This bill will remove the requirement for annual registration for receiving the rebate—meaning that, while we may have some incorrect payments, the administration becomes much simpler. In keeping with Senator Harradine's amendments, should a fund not offer no gap or no gap policies by July 2000, the minister will have the power under these amendments to have them wound up. The Health Insurance Commission will be required to pay claims within 14 days. Fund members who have had a claim rejected will be able to seek a review by the Health Insurance Commission before having to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as currently applies.While we agree with these amendments, this serves to underline for us the rather ham-fisted and excessively hurried approach the government has had to the health rebate legislation. The point that needs to be made is that the government keeps making change after change to private health insurance without ever planning out what it wants to do or how it will get there. I refer the government to the Industry Commission report No. 57 into private health insurance. On page 364 of that report it states:The overriding purpose of any regulatory regime should be the protection of consumers and not the protection of inefficient funds.This is one of the key objectives of the opposition in relation to the private health insurance legislation, and I am pleased that the government has accepted the opposition amendments to give a stronger set of consumer rights for those with health insurance. Under the opposition amendments, the council will have a clear set of objectives which require the protection of consumer interests and the minimisation of premium increases.Other important changes include: public reports will show the price increases for each fund and each state, which will allow consumers to shop around between health funds; rule changes will no longer be allowed to be made in secret; all members will receive an explanation of changes in plain English before they become effective; appeals will be allowed against decisions of the Health Insurance Commission to recover overpayments of the 30 per cent health rebate; and a waiver will be allowed where the overpayment is due to incorrect information or administrative error. These changes will give consumers more power and will force the industry to be more competitive.We have also proposed amendments to improve the accountability of the industry regulator, the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. Council members will no longer be able to be drawn from people managing or working for a fund in order for it to operate at arms length from the industry. These changes will make the bill stronger, and this will be good for the long-term health of the private health insurance funds. I indicate that we will support the bill, and we hope that other senators will support the amendments we move today.12:08:0010165Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—This piece of legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , proposes a significant revamp of the responsibilities of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, also known as PHIAC. The Democrats support this piece of legislation and congratulate the government on the work in it. We will also be supporting the ALP amendments. We believe that the role of PHIAC is particularly important, given the large amount of money that is now finding its way into private health insurance through the rebate—I understand it is around $1.6 billion a year. We certainly support the independence of PHIAC from both the government and the private health insurance industry, to ensure that it can operate in a transparent and accountable manner, free from any political interests and free from any pressure from the health insurance industry. We therefore support the provisions of this bill, which will protect consumers by strengthening the prudential regulation of the private health insurance industry.We will also be moving some amendments to this bill to further strengthen the accountability and transparency of the regulation of private health insurance. These amendments relate to the appointment of members of PHIAC and the appointment of the Private Health Insurance Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The Democrats are concerned to ensure that, wherever appointments are made to public authorities, the process by which these appointments are made is transparent, accountable, open and honest. The practice of `jobs for the boys' should be well and truly behind us as we move towards the year 2000, but unfortunately not much seems to have changed. Certainly in the public perception of how appointments are made, there is still a lot of work to be done. The perception is still very much one that appointments are based on anything but merit. The perception of how appointments to boards such as this are made can damage the bodies, as, in the public eye, they are seen as having in their membership people who lack the appropriate independence and possibly the appropriate skills as well.It is still the case in Australia that appointments to statutory authorities are left largely to the discretion of the minister who has the relevant portfolio responsibility. In the absence of umbrella legislation to correct this situation in a systematic fashion, the Democrats have moved these amendments time and time again, arguing for them as each piece of legislation that deals with such bodies comes before us. We are attempting to set up an accountable regime concerning appointments made by ministers. I have forgotten how many times my colleague Senator Murray has moved a similar batch of amendments, but he has done so on many occasions.The Nolan committee, which reviewed the process for making public appointments in the United Kingdom, led to the establishment of an Office of Commissioner for Public Appointments. That allowed for external scrutiny of how these appointments are made in the United Kingdom. The commissioner subsequently developed a code of practice for public appointments, which came into force in the UK over three years ago, on 1 July 1996. The code regulates appointments to non-departmental public bodies and sets out seven principles on which such appointments must be based: ministerial responsibility, merit, independent scrutiny, equal opportunity, probity, openness and transparency and proportionality. The code provides mandatory guidelines for the application of these principles.A comparison of these reforms with the current practice here in the federal sphere of Australia shows very clearly that we lag well behind the United Kingdom in this respect. Not only do we lack the external scrutiny mechanisms, in the form of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, but, more fundamentally, we do not even have basic procedural safeguards. The Democrats believe that this should be addressed by government as a matter of high priority. The public must have confidence that ministers will not allow improper procedures and will not allow largely irrelevant considerations or, perhaps, personal interest to get in the way of their decisions or to influence public appointments. This relationship is, in some respects, analogous to those of a financial nature, such as the relationship between a trustee and beneficiary, in that it is founded on a high degree of trust and confidence. Where a breach of duty occurs in a fiduciary relationship, the person to whom the duty is owed has access to a range of remedies, but this is not the case where the minister acts in an improper way. There is no avenue for redress. This omission is addressed in the amendments that I will be moving and I look forward to support from other senators for these amendments.Also in the amendments is a further provision, which requires that, even where the code of practice has been adhered to in determining an appointment, the minister be further obliged to consider the impact of the appointee on the overall complexity of the authority. In the case of PHIAC, this is particularly important. The provision prevents the capturing of a body by a particular sectional interest. Certainly the risk here is that the private health insurance industry—which has a lot to gain or, perhaps, lose—has considerable influence, and there is considerable potential for vested interest to seek to influence this regulatory regime. I say again clearly that our amendments further increase the transparency and accountability of prudential regulation of the private health insurance industry.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10166The bill.12:15:0010166Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—In order to ensure timely passage of this legislation, the government will not oppose the amendments from the ALP. However, I would like to place on record the government's concern regarding amendment (6). The government plans to table a statement of reasons for our concern at a later time today. I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the bill. The supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 27 September. I seek leave to move amendments (2) to (12) together.Leave granted.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I move:(2) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 29), after item 47, insert:47A Saving provision pending establishment of new prudential standards (1) In this item: new prudential standards day has the same meaning as in subsection 4(1) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act. Principal Act means the National Health Act 1953 . (2) Despite the insertion of paragraph 72A(ca) of the Principal Act by item 11, the Principal Act continues to have effect until the new prudential standards day as if that insertion had not been made. Note: The heading to item 48 is altered by omitting "Saving " and substituting "Other saving ".(3) Schedule 2, page 21 (after line 5), after item 1, insert:1A Subsection 4(1) Insert: new prudential standards day means the day on which the Council establishes: (a) a solvency standard for the purposes of Division 3A of Part VI of this Act; and (b) a capital adequacy standard for the purposes of Division 3B of that Part.(4) Schedule 2, item 3, page 23 (line 4), omit "is to establish", substitute "must, as soon as practicable but, in any case, not later than 1 January 2001, establish".(5) Schedule 2, item 3, page 26 (line 25), omit "is to establish", substitute "must, on the same day as it establishes a solvency standard under section 73BCB, establish".(6) Schedule 2, item 43, page 41 (line 20), before "there", insert "on or after the new prudential standards day".(7) Schedule 2, item 43, page 41 (line 22), before "there", insert "on or after the new prudential standards day".(8) Schedule 2, item 43, page 42 (line 19), after "section 73BE or", insert ", on or after the new prudential standards day,".(9) Schedule 2, item 43, page 81 (line 20), before "there", insert "on or after the new prudential standards day".(10) Schedule 2, item 43, page 81 (line 22), before "there", insert "on or after the new prudential standards day".(11) Schedule 2, item 43, page 82 (line 19), after "section 73BE or", insert ", on or after the new prudential standards day,".(12) Schedule 2, page 97 (after line 35), after item 47, insert:47A Saving provisions relating to new prudential standards (1) In this item: new prudential standards day has the same meaning as in subsection 4(1) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act. Principal Act means the National Health Act 1953 . (2) Despite the repeal of section 73BAB of the Principal Act by item 2: (a) that section is taken to have continued in force in relation to registered organizations until the new prudential standards day as if it had not been so repealed; and (b) any regulation or other subordinate instrument made under or for the purposes of that section that was in force immediately before the repeal of the section continues in force until the new prudential standards day unless, before that day, that regulation is disallowed, or that regulation or other instrument is revoked or varied in accordance with the section as so continued in force. (3) Despite the repeal of section 73BAC of the Principal Act by item 2: (a) that section is taken to have continued in force in relation to registered organizations until the new prudential standards day as if it had not been so repealed; and (b) any exemption under that section that was in force immediately before the repeal of the section continues to have effect, according to its tenor, until the end of the period specified in the exemption or until the new prudential standards day, whichever first occurs, unless that exemption is earlier revoked under the section as so continued in force; and (c) any application for such an exemption made before the repeal of the section that had not been dealt with before the repeal is to be dealt with, on and after the repeal, in accordance with the section as continued in force. (4) Despite: (a) the amendment of subsection 73BEB(1) of the Principal Act by item 4; and (b) the repeal of paragraph 82G(1)(c) of the Principal Act by item 5; and (c) the repeal of paragraph 82G(1)(q) of the Principal Act by item 8; the Principal Act continues to have effect, until the new prudential standards day, as if that amendment and those repeals had not been made. (5) Despite the repeal of paragraphs 82G(1) (f) and (g) of the Principal Act by item 7, the Principal Act continues to have effect until the new prudential standards day as if item 7 had not repealed and replaced those provisions but had provided instead solely for the repeal of subparagraph 82G(1)(g)(ii) and the substitution of the following subparagraph: (ii) to take such action as is appropriate;Amendments agreed to.12:16:0010168Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 19), after item 26, insert:26A Subsection 78(3) Omit "or (2)", substitute ", (2) or (7)".26B At the end of section 78 Add: (7) After receiving notification from the Secretary that the Minister has not made a declaration under subsection (4) in relation to a notification by an organization, a registered organization must take all reasonable steps to notify each affected contributor, explaining (in plain Eng lish) the change before the change takes effect.(2) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 19), after item 26B, insert:26C At the end of section 78 Add: (8) The Minister must cause a report of changes in the rates of contribution by contributors of registered organizations to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the end of a quarter. (9) The report shall relate only to changes in rates of contribution by contributors: (a) that have been notified by the registered organization to the Secretary in accordance with subsection (1); and (b) in respect of which the Minister has not made a declaration under subsection (4). (10) If, during any quarter, there has been no notification by a registered organization of a change relating to rates of contribution by contributors, to which paragraphs (9)(a) and (b) apply, there is no requirement for a report under subsection (8) to be provided to the Minister in respect of that quarter. (11) In this section: quarter means a period of 3 months beginning on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October of any year.I do not wish to delay the committee. I have outlined the arguments for the amendments and other parties have indicated their attitude. These `consumer' amendments require more consumer protection to be included in the bill. I urge the committee to support these amendments.Amendments agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Lees) not agreed to:Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 5), after item 36, insert:36A After subsection 82F(1) Insert: (1A) Guidelines made under subsection (1) must: (a) set out general principles on which appointments are to be made, including, but not limited to: (i) merit; and (ii) independent scrutiny of appointments; and (iii) probity; and (iv) openness and transparency; and (b) set out how these principles are to be applied to the selection of members, including the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. (1B) The guidelines must include a requirement for any person appointed to make a declaration if he or she is a member of a political party. (1C) Not later than every third anniversary after guidelines have been made, the Minister must review the guidelines. (1D) In reviewing the guidelines, the Minister must invite members of the public to comment on the guidelines.36B After section 82F Insert:82FA Independence of the Council In appointing members of the Council, the Minister must ensure that the balance of interests on the Council is such that no one interest may dominate the Council or derogate from its independence.12:17:0010169Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (3) to (9):(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 23 (after line 14), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) If, in establishing a standard, the Council decides: (a) not to adopt advice concerning a standard from the Australian Government Actuary; or (b) to adopt advice concerning a standard from the Australian Government Actuary with variations; the Council must publish in the Gazette a statement that sets out the Council's reasons for not adopting, or for varying, that advice.(4) Schedule 2, page 30 (after line 10), after item 4, insert:4A After section 82B Insert:82BA Purposes of Council (1) The Council is established for the following purposes: (a) to regulate registered organisations in accordance with this Act, other laws of the Commonwealth and any directions given by the Minister; (b) to develop policies about the performance of its regulatory functions. (2) In carrying out its purposes, the Council must take all reasonable steps to achieve an appropriate balance between the following objectives: (a) the objective of fostering an efficient and competitive health insurance industry; (b) the objective of protecting the interests of consumers; (c) the objective of minimising the level of health insurance premiums; (d) the objective of ensuring the prudential safety of individual registered organisations.(5) Schedule 2, page 30 (after line 10), after item 4A, insert:4B At the end of section 82D Add: (4) A person cannot be appointed as a member of the Council if that person is a director, officer or employee of a body regulated by the Council.(6) Schedule 3, page 110 (after line 14), after item 55, insert:55A After subsection 18-15(1) Insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the *Managing Director may make a determination under paragraph (1)(b) if the Managing Director is of the opinion that information given by or on behalf of: (a) the Commonwealth; or (b) a *health fund; to a person from whom an amount is recoverable about that person's entitlements under this Act was incorrect or misleading in a material particular.(7) Schedule 3, item 56, page 110 (after line 26), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) If the HIC decides to make such a set-off in respect of a person or his or her estate, the *Managing Director must serve on the person or his or her legal personal representative or the legal personal representative of his or her estate a notice of the decision.(8) Schedule 3, page 110 (after line 31), after item 56, insert:56A At the end of Division 18 Add: 18-25 Reconsideration of certain decisions under this Division (1) You may apply to the HIC for the HIC to reconsider the following decisions: (a) a decision that an amount is recoverable as a debt due to the Commonwealth under: (i) paragraph 18-5(1)(a) or (b); or (ii) paragraph 18-5(1)(f) in respect of a payment made to an individual; or (b) a decision under subsection 18-20(1) to set off a debt against an amount otherwise payable to a person or his or her estate. (2) The application must: (a) be in writing; and (b) set out the reasons for the application. (3) The application must be made within: (a) 28 days after the day on which you are notified of the decision; or (b) if, either before or after the end of that period of 28 days, the HIC extends the period within which the application may be made—the extended period for making the application. (4) Upon receiving such an application, the HIC must: (a) reconsider the decision; and (b) either affirm or revoke the decision. (5) If the HIC revokes the decision, the revocation is taken to be a decision: (a) in the case of a decision mentioned in paragraph (1)(a)—to waive the debt; or (b) in the case of a decision mentioned in paragraph (1)(b)—not to set off a debt against an otherwise payable amount. (6) The HIC must give you a notice stating its decision on the reconsideration together with a statement of the reasons for its decision. (7) The HIC must make its decision on reconsideration of a decision within 28 days after the day on which it received an application for reconsideration. (8) The HIC is taken, for the purposes of this Division, to have made a decision confirming the original decision if it has not told the applicant of its decision on the reconsideration before the end of the period of 28 days.(9) Schedule 3, page 114 (after line 7), after item 61, insert:61A At the end of section 19-10 Add: ; (g) a decision by the HIC under section 18-25 on reconsideration of a decision: (i) that an amount is recoverable as a debt due to the Commonwealth under: (a) paragraph 18-5(1)(a) or (b); or (b) paragraph 18-5(1)(f) in respect of a payment made to an individual; or (ii) under subsection 18-20(1) to set off a debt against an amount otherwise payable to a person or his or her estate.These opposition amendments seek to strengthen the role of the council and make its operations more transparent.Amendments agreed to.Amendments (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add: (6) Item 1 of Schedule 4 is taken to have commenced on the same day as item 44 of Schedule 1 to the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Act 1999 , immediately after the commencement of that last-mentioned item.(13) At the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 4—The professional services review schemeHealth Insurance Act 1973 1 Section 19B Omit "106T" (wherever occurring), substitute "106TA".2 Subsections 106KA(1) to (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (2A), if, during a particular period (the relevant period ), the circumstances in which some or all of the referred services were rendered or initiated constituted a prescribed pattern of services, the conduct of the person under review in connection with rendering or initiating services during that period in those circumstances is taken, for the purposes of this Part, to have constituted engaging in inappropriate practice. (2) If the person under review satisfies the Committee that, on a particular day or particular days during the relevant period, exceptional circumstances existed that affected the rendering or initiating of services by the person, the person's conduct in connection with rendering or initiating services on that day or those days is not taken by subsection (1) to have constituted engaging in inappropriate practice. (2A) However, subsection (2) does not affect the operation of subsection (1) in respect of the remaining day or days during the relevant period on which the person rendered or initiated referred services even if the circumstances in which the referred services were rendered or initiated on that day or those days would not, if considered alone, have constituted a prescribed pattern of services. (3) The regulations may prescribe, in relation to: (a) a particular profession; or (b) an identified group or groups of practitioners in a particular profession; circumstances in which services of a particular kind or description that are rendered or initiated constitute, or do not constitute, a prescribed pattern of services for the purposes of subsection (1).Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.10171Bill (on motion by Senator Newman) read a third time.Bills10171r64610171Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Senator Ellison: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.12:19:0010171O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—This is a rather extraordinary occurrence. We have gone through a process where the government sought to reorder the business and proceed with other matters and indicated that there was some agreement that consideration of this message not proceed today. As that information had not been conveyed to the opposition in this chamber, I and Senator Evans indicated that we were proceeding on the basis that we were effectively accepting what Senator Campbell had told us. Subsequently, I advised this chamber that we had been advised there had been a communication from Mr Tuckey's office to the opposition in the House of Representatives with regard to the processing of this message today, that the government was requesting that this matter not proceed today and that the opposition's position was that it was a matter for the government as to whether this message proceeded today or not. The opposition accepted that, as it was a matter for the government, we would not be standing in its way.We now see that this message has been brought back on for debate today. The opposition is ready, willing and able to deal with the matter today as outlined. But we have lost a considerable period of time to deal with this matter. I do not propose to take a great deal of time at the moment in this debate, other than to point out that any delay in this process is not a delay occasioned by a request of the opposition and if there is any attempt to misrepresent the position then it will be just that—a misrepresentation of the position. Having said that, the opposition is ready to proceed immediately. I have taken the opportunity of advising other parties who I am advised did not know that this matter was coming back on now—and, hopefully, there is no disadvantage. I have taken that step but apparently the government had not.12:22:0010171Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I have never heard such extraordinary claims about a piece of legislation and its value. The minister for forests would have us believe this is the be-all and end-all for everything related to forestry; that it will guarantee Tasmania will get a pulp and paper mill; and, indeed, it will guarantee that somehow we will have sustainable forestry as a result. The minister's representative, the parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, said a number of things in here yesterday. She said:. . . 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. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I did not already know that the parliamentary secretary knows very little about this matter, I would accuse her of deliberately misleading the Senate.The fact is that woodchip exports are dealt with under the Customs Act. There is no way that a delay of this bill, its non-passage or the amendment of it will have any impact on the government at a Commonwealth level or state governments getting approval for woodchip exports. That is simply the fact. Nothing that the parliamentary secretary said yesterday could be further from the truth, but I forgive her because I know she does not really know the processes relating to the granting of export woodchip licences. She went on to say:The mere fact that Senate approval was required would prevent a woodchip exporter from processing residues.Again, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts; no way is that the case. She further said: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.She got the last part right, because residues do play an important part in the cash flow of small sawmills.Nothing in this bill, amended or otherwise, will have any impact on that. The biggest impact on small sawmills in this country are the decisions made in the boardrooms of North Forest Products, Boral and others. That is where they stand to lose, because those people take decisions about the amount of money they pay them for residues. Indeed, even under the Customs Act, there is nothing that can prevent the domestic processing of wood in this country. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has no control over the domestic processing of wood, that is, the processing of timber in this country.I am sure some senators would recall the debate about the Wesley Vale pulp and paper mill. If they do recall, they will understand what the facts are in respect of this matter. The minister said that unless we passed this legislation Tasmania would not get a $2 billion pulp and paper mill. What a load of rubbish. The parliamentary secretary said:There would also need to be a freeze on industry development . . . Even with RFAs there has been a freeze on industry development. There are a whole range of other reasons, which I will go into further if I get the opportunity. The parliamentary secretary further said: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.Nothing in the RFAs will allow the Commonwealth to get on with the job of restructuring the industry.Although this legislation may claim to do a number of things, essentially it is designed to do one thing. It commits the Commonwealth to the payment of compensation should the Commonwealth breach a regional forest agreement. That is essentially all it does—nothing more, nothing less. A regional forest agreement is a signed agreement between the states and the Commonwealth and it is already in place in some states. It is an agreement regarding the conservation and preservation of certain areas, and other areas which are available for commercial forestry.I say to the parliamentary secretary: read the bill. That is what it does. The parliamentary secretary says that the effect of the amendments proposed by the opposition will bring the forestry world to an end. What a load of nonsense. It has no effect. It is a disapproval process. A constitutional question was raised by the parliamentary secretary. As I understand it, the Constitution indicates that the Commonwealth cannot make a law for part of a state or a law that has different application to other states or parts of other states, but in this case the amendments would not have the effect of making a different law. There is nothing wrong with the parliament reviewing a process. We do it with a number of other acts and processes when we review what is proposed to be put in place. With regard to the constitutional aspects of this matter, at the end of the day a state or a region within a state gets an RFA. It may not be the RFA that was initially proposed for whatever reason, and I have my own personal views about that process. However, the reality is that we ought to deal with the facts in this place.Finally, I did not think I would ever hear this statement, but somehow the $2 billion trade deficit in the pulp and paper industry has been thrown up at us. If the government is really serious about doing something about that, it would not be worrying about a major debate on this piece of legislation. It would get on with the job and actually give this industry some direction. The government would take the sort of direction that can be taken at a Commonwealth level in conjunction with the states and bring about some real industry development.This piece of legislation will not guarantee that. We have had a regional forest agreement in my state for 12 months. Despite the grand claim made by the former minister—I think it was Anderson—along with the Prime Minister that a thousand jobs were going to be created, not one has been. In fact, we have probably lost 500 or 600. Let us not try to concoct stories about how important this piece of legislation really is. It is important for one reason; and at the end of the day it is not all that important for that reason, because the opposition in this place, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, cannot stop the government from paying compensation to a state.Remember, it is the government that has to make the decision to take action against the state if it feels it has not complied with the regional forest agreement. It is the government; not the opposition, not the Senate. If you read the bill, there is a certain process even for the Commonwealth to terminate a regional forest agreement. But at the end of the day it is the government that makes that decision, as it is the government that will make the decision to issue woodchip licences, if it deems fit, for the export of woodchips from areas that are covered by a regional forest agreement, whether or not it is certified by regional forest agreement legislation in any form. It is about time that this minister and a few others around this place stopped saying that somehow this legislation is the fundamental underpinning of the future of the forest industry in this country—because it is not. We proposed an amendment other than the one for disapproval, and that was to set up a Wood and Paper Industry Council. To my mind, it was one of the most important aspects of this legislation because it would have put back into regional forest agreements something that would have had some effect, to actually lead this industry to some appropriate development. But, oh no, we could not get that. The Democrats—some of whom indicated to me that they would support that proposal and who I thought were going to support the proposal—did not support it.Senator Brown did support it. Despite the fact that I have had many disagreements with Senator Brown over time, his environmental credentials are way ahead of those of the Democrats. He at least was able to grasp the nettle in respect of the relevance of having an industry council that actually, from my point of view—and I know he understood this—gave workers the opportunity to have a say, albeit limited, in the future direction of the development of their industry. But that was lost on the Democrats. So we now propose another amendment which goes to the setting up of another form of a council.I have to say to Senator Greig that he has to understand that despite the fact that he may have a view—and I know Senator Brown has the view—that we should not be harvesting wood from native forests, the reality is something different. If we are going to have harvesting of native forests—and whether you or I like it, at this point that is not going to change—what we ought to do is put in place a mechanism through which there is some say about the utilisation of the wood that we take from those forests. That is what we ought to do. That is why we ought to have a Wood and Paper Industry Council in the legislation—not a stupid advisory council proposed by the government that is not unlike the one they set up before, even though they gave a commitment to the national forest policy process that they would adhere to the council to which we, when last in government, gave a commitment. I say to the Democrats that that is why we want a Wood and Paper Industry Council—because it is the one small aspect of this whole process whereby you might be able to drive some appropriate utilisation of a very valuable resource that in many respects right now is being wasted.I ask the Democrats to think about that because it is an important aspect. I agree with the Democrats that in looking at the use of commercially available forests, that is, where you harvest forests, be they native or plantation, then environmental issues ought to be taken account of. That is an important aspect of it. That commitment is even in the government's bill in terms of ecologically and sustainably managed forests.So I have no problem with any suggestion about including environmental representatives on an industry council, but what is important is that we move towards sustainable utilisation of the wood that we take from our forests. We have no guarantee that that will be the case in a regional forest agreement. We have no guarantee in this legislation, without an amendment that goes to the setting up of a forest industry council. That is why, when we proposed our amendment, we wanted it in legislation—not something that the government proposed to set up by regulation, because it will not work. It did not work before; it is just another farce. I say to the Democrats: think very long and hard about that because fortunately we have been given the opportunity to move the amendment again and I would hope that after consideration you will support it.I say to the parliamentary secretary: you had better understand clearly what this bill is proposing to do because I think at the moment you do not. We will question the government. I will ask you at some point where you think one of the amendments that we propose to move will block export woodchips. I want you to provide some evidence of that.12:37:0010174Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—We are here today, of course, because the House of Representatives, having returned its message to us, has stated that at this point in time it will not tolerate the amendments which the Senate made not so long ago. Ultimately the question before us is: are we going to persist with those amendments?I had the opportunity to make what was my first visit to Tasmania last weekend, having been invited there by a range of industry and community groups to discuss issues within my portfolio responsibilities with the Australian Democrats. It took me, in part, to the dockside of Burnie and the breathtaking beauty of the Meander Valley, where some local landcare management people showed me the hillsides and hilltops of such places as Mother Cumming's Peak and Quamby, where for the first time I had the opportunity to view for myself the obscene destruction of the rainforest within that region and, more appallingly, the environmental damage that has resulted.I was taken, amongst other places, to what was a small creek known as Dunning's Rivulet, which would now be more appropriately named Dunning's Canyon because of the disgraceful environmental damage that has clearly resulted from clear-felling in that region. And while the logging industries continue to deny that they have had any effect or impact on that, it is blindingly obvious to anyone who goes there that there is a direct cause and effect between the destruction of the rainforest in that region and the subsequent destruction of the surrounding lands. The further result of that through environmental degradation is that the run-off from this region is now depositing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt into the Tamar River and surrounding regions.I make this point because it continues on from my personal experiences of the destruction of both the forests and the biodiversity within the south-west region of my home state. Ultimately, the point I am making is that I think we are losing sight of the issue. For we Democrats, the issue before us is not so much jobs, although we accept that that is important, but that the best way to appropriate jobs within what is the logging industry is not through the continued destruction of our native forests.Senators have said here this afternoon that Democrats must accept the reality that logging of native forests will continue whether we like it or not. I guess in part we accept that. It is clear that both the government and the opposition continue to support the notion that destroying our native forests for logging and/or woodchipping is acceptable to them. It is not to us.It has been proposed that Labor will again seek to introduce the amendment to establish its Wood and Paper Industry Council. Well, we have had that debate and, at that point in time, we Democrats proposed a raft of amendments in which we agreed to the notion of having such a council to investigate and utilise the best use of natural resources in regard to timber, but we argued then, as I argue again today, that no such council has any mandate from the Australian people unless it is genuinely and sincerely balanced with regard to logging and industry and environment and biodiversity. Labor's proposal does not do that.It was suggested in the chamber yesterday by Senator Forshaw that we Democrats ought to accept Labor's proposal for their council because, if we did not and if that were to fail, then it would support the government's proposal. Well, then, so be it. If that is the concept to which you want to sign up, it is all yours; we want nothing of it. Having said that, if Labor were to accept the Democrats' amendment to make such a council and a proposal genuinely environmentally responsible and genuinely accessible to the people and their concerns in relation to biodiversity, ecotourism, water catchment and so on, then we would support such a council. So I am indicating that the Democrats have absolutely every intention of reintroducing our amendments to Labor's amendment such that any proposed Wood and Paper Industry Council is genuinely balanced.In that sense, I guess there are—unless the debate continues further and tangents again—essentially two questions before us. Firstly, what, if anything, will be the nature and structure of the opposition's proposal for an industry council? Secondly, what has the Senate to say on the House of Represen tatives' refusal to accept its amendments? In summary, I state that our argument on the question of an industry council is unchanged. If our original amendments to be resubmitted were accepted by the opposition and such an industry council can become a genuinely balanced and environmentally responsible body, it would have our support.The bill as a whole regarding the regional forestry agreements is, of course, as I have said before, an obscenity. It is built on a lie. Anybody who has been to either Tasmania or East Gippsland or the south-west of Western Australia can see for themselves that the alleged argument of sustainability within our native forests is utterly ridiculous. Our resolve is unchanged. We Democrats remain utterly committed to the preservation of our ancient and native forests and continue to argue for reasoned debate and reasoned legislation with regard to the logging industry as it relates to alternatives, most particularly regrowth and plantation.12:43:0010175Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I appreciate those comments from Senator Greig, but I echo the interjections from the Labor Party that it was the Democrats who, before Senator Greig came, supported the RFA legislation and the majority of the impact of it by giving their numbers to the government to put through, in June, the environment legislation which effectively strips the minister of the power to protect Australia's forests. This legislation is not going to undo that; it is going to compound it.I will take this opportunity to also put to the parliamentary secretary the question I was going to ask yesterday afternoon about the article in the Australian on Tuesday, 5 October 1999, headlined `An odd choice for sponsor' by Mark Butler. It is a reference to Mission Australia, the latest in the `Australia on CD-ROM' series, which is funded by the federal government to showcase Australia's multimedia talent. It says that, as one of the few surviving legacies of the Keating era, the series aims to provide eight entertaining but thought-provoking pathways into Australia's environmental problems, their causes and possible solutions, with an overwhelming emphasis on the role individuals can play in causing and repairing the damage.The article goes on to point out that a sponsor of this particular CD-ROM is North. It then says:Other members of the development team were Landcare Australia, Environment Australia and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, but North's influence is evident throughout. Mr Butler says, `I could find no discussion about the devastating environmental effects of mining in Australia in the past hundred years, for instance. Rather, the emphasis is on the benefits mining brings to all of us. `Mining always has been and continues to be an integral part of Australian life.' End of quote and end of discussion. He says that North's involvement hopelessly compromises the integrity of the disc as a whole. In fact, North scores its own entry in the Mission Australia database, which is a collection of texts, narrated video and stills relating to key environmental topics.Mr Temporary Chair, if you look at the game options, you see you can choose one of eight zones on a landscape: estuary, farm, coast, city, rivers, wetlands, rangeland, arid and mountain. The related character for the zone gives a brief overview of the situation, which can be replayed. No mention of forests there. But, as we know, North is the biggest woodchipper in the Southern Hemisphere.I have a question for the parliamentary secretary: why is forest not mentioned in this production? Why is mining given such a particularly favourable run? What amount of funding did North put towards the production of this CD-ROM? What support did the federal government put into it? And what arrangements were made to have this co-host process with the other entities I have mentioned proceed? On the face of it, it is North, which is also a major contributor to the government's electoral funding, having influence on a government production, an influence which is entirely unwarranted and unacceptable. It means having an environmentally based production in the hands of one of the most environmentally damaging corporations in the world, North Ltd—from its mining of uranium at Jabiluka to the destruction of the world's tallest hardwood forests in Tasmania. An explanation is required. I will be pursuing this matter in the parliament until the facts about the production of this CD- ROM and the influence of North come to light. I will be pursuing that further in this committee stage, and I hope that, in the meantime, the parliamentary secretary will be able to produce some answers.I want now to add to the contribution I made yesterday about amendments. I do prefer the council proposal that has been put forward by the opposition. I have one amendment to that, which has not been circulated yet but which would put a member from the Australian Conservation Foundation onto the Council. That was acceptable last time around, as I recollect, so I hope it will be this time. Senator Murphy will know that I am not an avid proponent of this council because I believe we ought to be having the sort of council that the Democrats are putting forward, one that really looks at all the ecological factors, the opportunity lost, the tourism industry's interests and those of local councils. But I can count. We are going to get some sort of council somewhere down the line, and I want to see that there is an environmental voice on that council because of the enormous importance that people right around the country put on the environmental component of forest management in this country.Finally, I thank the staff for making this quickly available. I make reference to the Saturday Hobart Mercury and the item, `End of a long haul for truckies as mill jobs go.' Twelve Tasmanian log truck owner/drivers are going to the wall after the Prime Minister made a promise, inherent in signing the regional forest agreement, that these true servants of the woodchip corporations would be looked after. They have been dumped. What does Mr Tuckey have to say about his failure to protect these jobs? Has he gone to Tasmania to reason with the logging corporations that have dumped another 12 people who put a great deal of faith and investment into the machinery which saved the log corporations like North Pty Ltd from running the financial risk?Why is the Hon. Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, silent on this one? Or is it that he is prepared to dump anybody, including the people he says he is going to defend, if it is expeditious to do so in the interests of a few woodchip corporation heavies sitting in their velvet-lined chairs in St Kilda Road? That is how I would put it. It is pretty disgusting. But that is the problem that riddles this whole industry; that is the problem with this legislation. It is not here for the workers. They are not going to be compensated. The compensation clause in this legislation is here for North Broken Hill and the big entities that regularly make big donations to the government as they go down the line. I will be looking forward to seeing the votes that are coming down the line and to following this debate as it unfolds in the next couple of days.(Quorum formed)12:55:0010177Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That the committee report progress and seek leave to sit again.It is appropriate at lunchtime on Thursdays, where people have made plans, that legislation that is controversial not be dealt with during this timeslot. There is an agreement between all honourable senators that no quorums or divisions would be called during this timeslot. Clearly at least one senator has indicated that he is going to call quorums during this time, and it may well be that there would be a division on some of these issues at some stage. So I think it is totally appropriate that the committee report progress and seek leave to sit again.Question resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Miscellaneous1017710177The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Order! I would point out that there are a number of rulings about displaying things in the chamber. I regard the badges being worn as being items of that nature—in contrast to the Amnesty badge which I am wearing, which is a different category—and I would ask that such things be not displayed, as is customary in the Senate.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I was just wondering if you would concede that, as these badges are a prompt to the ministers to assist them with their answers, they may still be worn.10000The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—They should not be worn. I would ask senators to remove them.Questions Without Notice101771017710177Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm claims made in the media this morning that stamp duty taxes apply to the GST? Isn't it a fact that, under an insurance contract with the GST applied to the premium, this total cost including the GST will be the dutiable base against which stamp duty will then be applied? Was this part of the Howard government's deal with the Australian Democrats: that the states would be able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in additional stamp duty revenue by allowing the GST to have stamp duty applied to it? What is the rationale for this tax on a tax, which the Howard government claimed would not occur under the GST?10177Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Yes, like Senator Cook, I did read an article this morning—I think it was in the Financial Review —regarding this matter. Let me make it absolutely clear there is no budgetary reason why the states should impose their stamp duties on GST inclusive prices—none whatsoever. Let me make it quite clear that this is merely a revenue grab by state governments. I would also point out that the states will be key beneficiaries from the new tax system: the Commonwealth will pass all the revenue from the GST to the states and the Commonwealth in particular has guaranteed that the states will be no worse off under the new arrangements.If Senator Cook is referring to the Financial Review article this morning, I would draw his attention to a comment by the National Farmers Federation. They put out a press statement today on this particular issue. The National Farmers Federation says the decision by the state governments to apply stamp duty on GST will result in `an unnecessary increase in costs for every household in Australia'. I would have to say that in the end the state governments will have to answer to their own particular constituencies but—from the Commonwealth's point of view in relation to the matter raised this morning—there is no need for that, and of course the states get all the revenue from the GST.10178Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question of the Assistant Treasurer. In view of that answer, is the minister also aware that on 23 September the Acting Premier of Western Australia, Mr Hendy Cowan, said in the WA parliament, and I now quote him from Hansard :As the GST is to replace the current WST regime, it is appropriate that stamp duty be based on the GST inclusive price, value or consideration.Are you now saying that Mr Cowan, the Acting Premier of WA, misled the Western Australian parliament and Western Australians about the federal government's intention on the GST?10178Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have made it very clear what the Commonwealth position is in relation to the matters that were raised in the Financial Review this morning. In the end, of course, the state governments will have to answer to their own particular constituency. But I make the point that the Commonwealth will pass all the revenue from the GST to the states. The Commonwealth has guaranteed the states will be no worse off and it seems to me, unless other information can be given—RF4COOKSenator Cook—On a point of order, Madam President, on a question of relevance. I asked a specific question: did the Acting Premier of Western Australia mislead the parliament in view of the earlier answer by the minister? It seems to me that is a question that has a yes or a no answer. It does not have a maybe answer and it certainly does not have an answer which is an excursion about what the Commonwealth might do. There was a specific question. It was not a question that raised a broad subject for wide canvassing. It requires a yes or no answer. Could you ask the minister to actually answer the question and not dodge it, Madam President?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot direct him to say yes or no, Senator. There is no point of order. WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I think Senator Cook is guilty of overacting again. If Senator Cook had listened to my answer, he would not have asked such a completely irrelevant supplementary question. There is no budgetary reason why the states should impose their stamp duties on GST inclusive prices. Senator Cook, are you listening?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Yes, I am.WW4Senator KEMP—This is merely a revenue grab by the state governments.1017810178Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. The government's initiative of using the Army to work with indigenous communities in providing basic services has been an outstanding success. Will the minister inform the Senate of the Army's latest achievements under this program?10178Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank my fellow Queensland senator for the question because I am pleased to be able to inform the Senate that the Australian Army has just completed extensive work totalling $1.4 million in the rural Aboriginal community of Murriupo, known as Jumbun. Jumbun is a community of about 110 people located about 200 kilometres north of Townsville, where my esteemed colleague, Senator Ian Macdonald, has an electoral office.While the Army has now completed a number of very successful projects in remote communities in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, Jumbun is the first Queensland community to be assisted under the government's $40 million ATSIC Army Community Assistance Project. The Army involvement at Jumbun has proven to be just as successful and popular with the local indigenous community as all the other pilot projects. This is great news considering that the initial $15 million project, when it was announced by the government in 1997, was dismissed by some as `a whitefella solution'. I am pleased to say that the outstanding success of the initial project prompt ed the government to expand it in last year's budget to a $40 million project over the next four years. This program is bringing much needed infrastructure and training to indigenous communities through major improvements in basic living conditions.The major focus of the Army's 17th Construction Squadron and the 19th Chief Engineers Works was the upgrading of the Jumbun sewage treatment system and water supply with funds provided by Townsville Regional Council. Members of the Aboriginal community are being trained to operate the plant and a maintenance contractor has been engaged for the first two years to ensure successful continued operation. The Army also upgraded the wet areas of community housing, which included the replacement of floor coverings. The close cooperation between ATSIC and the Army has enabled ATSIC to coordinate maintenance work funded under other ATSIC programs with work undertaken by the Army engineers. The community houses will be repainted later in the year, with the work going to a local contractor.The Army is constructing a medical clinic in the community, with funding for the building materials provided by the Queensland health department. It is hoped that the clinic will be fully operational by the end of the year, leading to measurable improvements and health outcomes for all residents. Throughout the project, the Army ensured that trade training was provided for community members. These skills will ensure there is a skills base to maintain the upgraded infrastructure and it is expected to enable some members to obtain employment outside the community. Nine community members took part in traineeships in Jumbun, with training in water supply and sewerage and in housing repairs and maintenance.There is no question that ACAP has been a tremendous success by any measure. For that reason, I am delighted to inform the Senate that the Army, despite its heavy commitment to East Timor and the Olympics, will be able to fulfil its obligations to complete another two projects next year. As I have already stated, we have committed $40 million to the project and we will stand by that commitment, even if we have to consider extending the program for another 12 months should that become necessary given the Army's current commitments. While I cannot commend the Army enough for its commitment to this program, I would also like to praise the staff within ATSIC and the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health within the Department of Health and Aged Care for their hard work, management and dedication.1017910179Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, my question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the claims made by the minister for health, Dr Wooldridge, that he initiated the requirement for statutory declarations from providers wishing to access Medicare funding for MRIs? Is the minister also aware that the minister for health still claims to have initiated the Health Insurance Commission investigation into this scam? Can the minister confirm that, in estimates hearings at which he was present, the department and the HIC clearly indicated that statutory declarations were a normal requirement in such matters and that the HIC initiated their limited investigation without reference to the minister? Is it not true that for 18 months the minister for health took no real steps to pursue concerns about this issue and is now desperately claiming credit for routine processes and a limited investigation in which he played no role?10179Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, I well remember the estimates committee and it is true that Mr Watzlaff referred to the investigation that he initiated. That same question was asked by Senator Faulkner the other day and yesterday I tabled an answer to that question. I would suggest that Senator Forshaw read yesterday's Hansard because the answer was given yesterday. It is not true that the minister delayed inordinately in initiating an investigation. He has done everything that is necessary and required of him as a minister to protect taxpayers' money. The minister has answered questions on this in the other chamber and it is completely false to suggest that nothing was done about MRI applications until now. The minister said previously that, since the May 1998 budget announcement, there has been action taken at every step to ensure that we would not be permanently left without too many MRI units.10180Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, just who is telling the truth here? Is it the minister for health, Dr Wooldridge, or is it the departmental officers who appeared before the estimates committees? As you acknowledged earlier, Minister, you were present at the estimates hearings where the department and the Health Insurance Commission clearly contradicted the minister for health over his role in the MRI scam. Which version of events should we believe, Minister—that of the minister for health or that of the officers of the department and the HIC?10180Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—When this question was first asked I said that both may be correct, and I stand by that.1018010180Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—Madam President, my question without notice is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Newman. The government has a strong commitment to fostering and supporting women through a range of programs and projects in their family life and also in their working life. Can the minister please inform the Senate of any alternative approaches to fostering women in the workplace?10180Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, Senator Payne would know that the Howard government has a strong commitment to providing real choices for Australian women to stay at home to raise children, to remain in the work force or to have a bit of both at different stages of their life. I found it interesting to read the comments of the Secretary of the New South Wales Labour Council, Mr Michael Costa, about the type of candidate that should replace the outgoing ACTU President, Jennie George. He is reported to have said that the 45-year-old woman chosen to succeed Ms George as President of the ACTU is too old. What do the women over on the other side of the chamber say? It is a shameful thing. With comments like that, it is no wonder—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Who said that?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Michael Costa said that. The membership of women in unions is at an all-time low; they are largely sitting on the benches opposite. And it is declining because of attitudes like that. Only 16 per cent of executive positions in unions are held by women after all these years. Why is it so? This ageism—and I suppose sexism—is bad enough, but Mr Costa went on to say that the unions need `our own Natasha Stott Despoja'. Now we know why the Labor Party are so dark about having chosen Cheryl Kernot as their saviour when Gareth Evans and Kim Beazley wooed her to defect. The Labor Party obviously made a big mistake; they should have wooed Senator Stott Despoja. I noticed they were doing some wooing in here yesterday, so maybe they are at it again.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Can they do a swap?BE4Senator NEWMAN—You can't return defective goods. According to the Labor movement, Senator Stott Despoja would have been better value for money because, according to them, Mrs Kernot would have been too old to do the job. Ms Stott Despoja might have had the time to get out and do her job in the shadow ministry. They might be looking at that now. As I said, I saw them at it yesterday.I also read with interest that the union movement has meetings in secret about its future leadership and does not tell its current leader, so that is a very interesting dimension too. I wonder whether the Labor Party will mimic this approach of the unions in the near future as well—after all, Simon Crean is the former ACTU president. I challenge the women of the ALP: what is your position on this ageism? What is your approach to the sexism in the ACTU and the union movement? Is that why you have taken refuge on those red benches? To get away from it all?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Can I ask the minister at the table: from which script was he reading her gags? 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You may ask!1018110181Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to Minister Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Does the minister recall his statement yesterday that, as a result of the multimillion dollar rebates for MRIs, `MRI scanning has become available to a much larger number of Australians'? Can the minister confirm that the new arrangements were in response to a report which found an oversupply of machines in cities and a lack of machines in rural and remote areas? Can the minister now confirm that only three of the 52 new machines introduced through the government's failed arrangements are currently operating in rural and remote areas? Isn't it true that most of the new MRI machines will be installed in major capital cities? Apart from allowing the rorting of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, isn't it the case that Dr Wooldridge's new arrangements fundamentally failed to address the primary goal of ensuring equality of access to MRI machines?10181Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, I certainly recall saying that. I recall saying that the big initiative of the government was to make MRI scanning potentially available throughout the country. Under their regime, the Labor Party restricted to 18 the number of MRI scanners for the whole of the Australian population. The Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee put forward the suggestion that more MRI scanners should be made available, and it was within that context that we said they should be made available. It is true that there is a considerable delay in the decision to purchase an MRI scanner and the time of its commissioning, but the principle is correct; there is no doubt that what the government is doing is absolutely correct.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—The practice is appalling—it's a rip-off.VW4Senator HERRON—There has been no rip-off, Senator Crowley. These machines have not even been installed yet, so once again we get the great beat-up. MRI scanning is four per cent of the diagnostic imaging budget, and suddenly it has been beaten up into an enormous scandal. There is no question that the cases have been referred to the DPP, and they will be investigated in due course, so the minister has undertaken correctly every action that is possible—not on a smear or innuendo but by proper investigation. He has now referred it to the Auditor-General, and that process will occur in its correct fashion.10181Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what has happened to the promised announcement of relocation grants to get MRI machines into unserviced regional areas? Weren't these grants due to be announced in the first week of September? How is it that the Minister for Health and Aged Care approved of a policy that has failed people in rural and remote areas, failed the taxpayer and benefited a handful of radiologists?10181Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The minister has not failed the taxpayer whatsoever. I am not aware of, nor do I have a briefing on, specific grants. I will get back to Senator Mackay with an answer from the minister to the question.1018110181Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm reports that the Prime Minister has quashed the decision by all Australian and New Zealand health ministers to label genetically modified foods? Does the minister realise that this will place Australia out of step with many of our major trading partners, including Japan and the United Kingdom, which has implemented a much stricter labelling regime and has avoided prohibitive compliance costs? Is it the case, as the ACT health minister, Michael Moore, has stated, that the Prime Minister is `pandering to big business and does not understand the ramifications of this issue'?10181Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that at its meeting in August the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council—which is made up of the health ministers of the Commonwealth, the states and territories and New Zealand— decided in principle to adopt a requirement for universal mandatory labelling of genetically modified food. To assist in formalising its decision, the council asked for advice on a number of issues, including the costs entailed for industry and enforcement agencies. An intergovernmental task force, representing all Australian states and territories, New Zealand as well as the Commonwealth and ANZFA, provided that advice to the council. The task force also approved terms of reference for a cost consultancy. KPMG consulting was engaged to undertake that, in consultation with the food industry and enforcement authorities in Australia and New Zealand. KPMG has now provided its report, which will be considered by the council tomorrow.In advance of that meeting, it would be inappropriate to release the report or its findings. It should be said, however, that KPMG undertook its work on the assumption of conscientious implementation of a universal mandatory labelling requirement across the food industry. The estimates reflect the situation of manufacturers wishing to assure their products as non-genetically modified in the market and to assume rigorous separation of genetically modified commodities and ingredients for other materials and the use of extensive testing to confirm the presence or absence of such material in foods.10182Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer and ask him to table in the parliament the report to which he referred. Given that it has had public attention today, it would be appropriate for the minister to table that report from KPMG before the end of question time. I also ask the minister: what is the basis for the estimates, to which he referred, of those unlikely calculations in relation to compliance costs when, as I mentioned, the United Kingdom has implemented a more rigorous regime without the same compliance costs? What is it that would make a government come up with a rationale that places the compliance costs higher than the costs of public confidence in a food regulatory system and above the costs to consumers and the issue of public health? Why would you price those issues of com pliance above public and environmental health considerations and public confidence in a food regulatory regime?10182Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, I certainly will not be tabling that report. Senator Stott Despoja did not listen to my previous answer. I said that it was an intergovernmental task force, representing all Australian states and territories and New Zealand as well as the Commonwealth, which provided that advice to the council. The task force approved the terms of reference for a cost consultancy, by KPMG consulting, to undertake that report. I am certainly not by the end of question time going to contact the New Zealanders and all the state and territory governments and ask their permission to table a report for a consultancy that they commissioned.1018210182Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Has the minister's attention be drawn to a report by the well-respected Martec Automotive Consulting on the impact of the introduction of the GST on the vehicle industry? Is the minister at all concerned that Martec is forecasting a 12.6 per cent reduction in vehicle sales this financial year? Is he concerned that Martec's forecast for the second quarter of 2000—that is, the three months immediately before the GST becomes operational—is for a 17.6 per cent decline over the second quarter of 1999? How many more statistics does the minister need to have put in front of him before he will begin to concentrate on saving the car industry rather than saving the Queen?10182Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Another fatuous question from the fatuous Senator Campbell. I have spoken on this subject time and time again.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Minister, you should not use that adjective in relation to a senator. I ask you to withdraw it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Could he use the adjective `George', at least.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.JX4Senator MINCHIN—On the matter of the car industry, earlier this week I quoted the chamber itself, in Peter Sturrock, saying at the Sydney Motor Show that the car industry had a magnificent medium- and long-term future ahead of it. The chamber continues to forecast sales this year of 760,000 units, which will make 1999 the second-best year ever in the history of the Australian car industry, following 1998, which was the best year ever, and following 1997, which will become the third-best year ever. In our 3½ years we will have had the three best years in the history of the Australian vehicle industry. We have been criticised by that mob over there, who are insisting that Australians continue to pay 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on their cars and be denied a reduction of some two and a half thousand dollars in the price of their motor vehicles. Peter Sturrock went on to forecast that, under the tax reforms we are introducing, by 2003 this industry will have sales of some 950,000 units—about 50 per cent more than it ever had under the previous Labor government. The tax reforms we have brought in, and which come into effect next year, are fantastic news, as acclaimed by the industry itself.I have said repeatedly that of course we are working with the industry to monitor sales over this critical period leading up to 1 July. But they are still running ahead of 1997, except for September. We had Mike Kable in the Australian the other day say that of course there was going to be some slackening off after the incredible year we had in 1998, but that 1999 continues to run at second-best record levels.10183Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister at all concerned about the most recent ABS statistics on car registrations, which show that in the category of vehicles that Australia manufactures—passenger vehicles—registrations were down by 15.9 per cent in July and by 13.6 per cent in August? Perhaps the minister might answer the question with some relevance rather than some rhetoric. 10183Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Facts are not rhetoric. As I said, sales are forecast by the industry itself to be 760,000 this year—the second best ever on record. That is a fact, Senator George Campbell. That is a record that your government never got anywhere near. If we stuck with your tax system—the wholesale sales tax at 22 per cent, which you in the most deceitful act ever by any government increased from 15 per cent to 22 per cent immediately after the 1993 action—this industry would be devastated. Thank God for the industry we won the last election, not you.1018310183Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. It relates to the minister's seminal speech to the National Press Club on 29 September 1999 and the statement she made in that speech that:It is important to have a close look at disability payments in relation to other welfare payments to ensure there are no unintended incentives built into disability income support.Can the minister outline to the Senate what she might see as an unintended incentive in the disability support pension and what so-called unintended incentives the government is considering removing?10183Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am asking the people of Australia to engage in that debate and I am asking those questions of them. But I would draw your attention to the fact that when we came into government there was, in effect, a financial incentive to encourage young people to be unemployed rather than to take up training. The reason for that was that young people who were unemployed had access to rent assistance, in particular, and also the pharmaceutical allowance, et cetera, and students did not.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You are blaming the victim.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I am not blaming any victim. If the senator took more notice of these things instead of bleating on about his old portfolio all the time, he would realise that this government has spent a great deal more money to intro duce the youth allowance so that students as well as young unemployed people would be on the same entitlements.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You cut support.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, you are behaving in a disorderly fashion.BE4Senator NEWMAN—We have not cut support, and the senator interjecting is disgraceful in his ignorance. These are the sorts of things that, in a caring and effective welfare system, we should not accept should continue. I am asking people around Australia who look at these things in a serious fashion—as obviously Mr Mark Latham from the other place does—to look at what things are incentives and what things are disincentives in the existing system.10184Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister's suggestion in her speech considering measures such as those that were just discussed, can the minister indicate if she has given any direction to her welfare reference group as to whether they have to consider the potential budgetary impacts of any proposed changes? Is the government willing to consider proposed changes to the overall welfare system which would lead to an increase in government expenditure?10184Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have already in my speech put down the principles on which any reform would be looked at and I have also released the terms of reference. That is the extent of what the reference group has available to them at present. As I already told the Senate a week or so ago, there is a discussion paper which will be released to the reference group and then to the Senate and then you will be able to see for yourselves what I tell them.1018410184Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Has Taskforce 2000, the review into Australian sport instigated in June by Minister Kelly, been directed to investigate ways to wind back Commonwealth funding for sport after the 2000 Olympic Games? Is it true that their report—the so-called sport white paper—is being withheld because it actually recommends an increase in government funding for sport?10184Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Madam President, I have a brief here from Minister Kelly which does not indicate that any of the assertions made by Senator Lundy have any validity whatsoever. What Senator Lundy is describing is, as far as I can tell, mere speculation. I guess she is free to speculate, but there seems to be no basis for that speculation. I am advised that the task force has sought an extension and is due to report back to the minister for sport in mid-November. I suggest that Senator Lundy, like everybody else, wait until we get the report.10184Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Why has the Australian Institute of Sport informed at least eight Olympic sports that their programs will be cut after 2000 because of a lack of Commonwealth funding? Which Australian Olympic athletes will be celebrating a successful Games in Australia only to have their career paths immediately cut short by the Howard government's slashing of funding?10184Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I am advised that the federal government has in fact increased the base funding for the Australian Sports Commission for the years 2000-01 through to 2002-03 and, overall, an additional $148 million will be provided to the commission over the next four years—more than meeting our electoral—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Madam President, I raise a point of order on the question of relevance. I asked a specific question of the minister, and I ask you to direct him to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Madam President, I have nothing more to add except to say, as I said, that we have provided more funding for the Sports Commission and it will be getting an additional $148 million over the next four years.1018410184Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate of how CD prices have moved as a result of the government's decision to remove parallel importation restrictions on sound recordings? Is there any justification for the scare campaign mounted by those opposed to cheaper CDs? Is the minister aware of any alternate policy approaches? What would the impact of these be if they were implemented?10185Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thank Senator Tierney very much for that question because it gives me the opportunity to point out just what has happened since that very important legislation went through the parliament some 12 months ago. Top 40 CDs, which probably make up the great bulk of sales in this country, have gone down $4 to $5 since that time. Target department stores are now selling them for $24.95. Chaos Music is selling top 40 CDs for around $23. In fact, consumers can now buy Powderfinger's Internationalist for $26.90, Blink-182's new CD for $17 and the Corrs' latest album for $18.95.So there are obviously very big bargain opportunities as a result of this very important legislation. Of course, 80 per cent of Australian adults do regularly purchase CDs, so this has been very good news for consumers. What did we get beforehand? We were told not only that the sky was going to fall in but also there would be a massive increase in piracy. There was not.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—There has been.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am pleased to see that the wholly owned subsidiary for ARIA is interjecting—we will come to her in a moment. We were told the domestic industry would collapse; it has not. We were told that the Australian industry would not benefit; it has. We were told there would be job losses of more than 50,000; of course the fact is that there are fewer than 5,000 people in the industry anyway. But, more specifically, we were told by people like Senator Lundy that there would be no winners from this proposal and that consumers would not enjoy cheaper prices. Mr Beazley said: `The Prime Minister has given his personal pledge that prices will fall, and we in the Labor Party and the consumers of Australia are going to hold him to it.' We are delighted that he has; it is one of his biggest achievements to date. Senator Stott Despoja said that the Democrats were not satisfied that the prices of sound recordings would fall if parallel import restrictions were removed. They have fallen, and you know it. If you look at what is happening in the industry, you now find people like Strathfield Car Radios selling Billy Joel's hits for $15.95. I am personally delighted with that. It would never have happened if you had had a Labor government.Senator Hill interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—As an Elton John fan, you can do just as well, Senator Hill, if you visit Strathfield Car Radios! I know that everyone out there who is interested in buying cheaper CDs will be forever grateful. That is why it is a tragedy that we had this huge scare campaign. Senator Lundy played the union card. She said that this will place at risk hundreds of jobs in the freight industry. If you believe that line you would believe that every tanker going up and down the Hume Highway was carrying nothing but CDs; don't worry about tankers and food distribution! Of course, nothing has happened at all. It has basically been an absolute damp squib to the point where we had the New South Wales Director of the Australian Music Retailers Association saying: `The legislation has had a very positive effect. I was surprised at how rapidly the Australian record companies adapted to the new way of doing business. They are able to change the way they operate so quickly; the consumer is better off and retailers are better off.'Doesn't that just show what a monumental scare campaign it was? Doesn't that show how it had absolutely no substance and how it spooked both Labor and the Democrats and that only this government was prepared to stand up and fight? We did not just go along to ARIA opening nights; we did not just want to get our heads on the television screen at all times; we did not just want to be standing alongside a few pop stars who made us feel young and important. We actually stood up for sensible policy changes. I say to the opposition: it is not too late; look at the facts and accept you got it wrong; come out on the side of the consumers for a change and stop pandering to vested interests. That really is where the Labor Party gets it wrong every time. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors1018610186The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of former South Australian senator Tony Messner. Welcome to the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice101861018610186Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Herron representing the Minister for Aged Care. Does the minister recall saying on 31 March this year that the Productivity Commission's report into nursing home funding `raises a number of issues that the government will consult on and make a decision about in coming months'? Is the minister aware of the of concerns of government backbenchers from Queensland over the failure of the Minister for Aged Care to respond to the Productivity Commission report into nursing home funding and, as a Queenslander, does the minister share those concerns? Has he approached the Minister for Aged Care in an effort to get her to do her job and respond to the many issues raised by the Productivity Commission? Exactly what has the minister done since 31 March 1999 to ensure that a response would be forthcoming, as he promised, in the `coming months'?10186Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Hogg is obviously referring to a newspaper article that was reporting on a party room meeting. I normally do not comment on party room meetings; in fact, I should not, but in this instance I will make an exception. I can confirm, Senator Hogg, that in the party room we discussed that unemployment was down to seven per cent—the lowest since 1990. We compared that with the Labor Party's unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. We talked about the inflation rate being 1.6 per cent; it has now been less than two per cent for over two years—in fact it has been the best in 30 years. We discussed the lowest home mort gage rates in the last 30 years. We discussed the growing economy.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: no doubt those matters were discussed, and also Dr Wooldridge's problems with the MRI scam and all sorts of other issues, but this question is about Senator Herron's responsibilities representing the Minister for Aged Care. Consistent with rulings you have made, which are that answers must be relevant at least in the area in which they have been asked, I would ask you on this occasion to direct Senator Herron either to answer the question or, if he has got nothing to say, to sit down and take it on notice.10000The PRESIDENT—I draw Senator Herron's attention to the question.VW4Senator HERRON—I have a lot to say and it is good news. It is bad news for the opposition; I appreciate that they do not like hearing that. Specifically in relation to Senator Hogg's question, yes, I am concerned and have expressed that concern but, on the other hand, I respect what the minister is doing. Since the Productivity Commission report was handed down, the minister has consulted with all sides in relation to this issue. She is particularly mindful of the impact on the industry and on those older Australians who live in nursing homes.Another part of the good news that I can report is that this government has increased the funding for nursing homes by 42 per cent since we were elected in 1996. The Labor government spent $2.5 billion on residential aged care across Australia; our outlay in the 1999-2000 budget is to be $3.5 billion—a 42 per cent increase. The reality is, and Senator Hogg may not be aware of this, that the amount of funding that has gone to Queensland has increased. I was delighted when the minister told me that. It has actually increased as part of that funding and increased disproportionately.The minister will respond to the coalescence part of the Productivity Commission's report when she has finished consultation. She had consultation with two industry groups this week, for example. The minister will give a considered response to that report, taking into account all factors. She will do it in her time and at her pace, because it is important that the correct decision is made. I respect the industry in Queensland and the approaches that they have made to me. I have certainly made representations on their part, as have all the Queensland senators and House of Representatives members. We are all waiting on that decision. But more importantly, we believe that the correct decision needs to be made and the correct decision has to be in the interests principally of the people within the nursing homes themselves.10187Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in respect of my question on the statement that you made on 31 March, you addressed the part where you said, `raises a number of issues that the government will consult on', but you did not address the part where you said, `and make a decision about it in coming months'. Does the minister agree with Uniting Community Services which in relation to the minister's inaction on this issue has stated:. . . older Australians deserve a better deal, especially in the lower income and remote areasWhy are we still waiting for a response nine months after the Minister for Aged Care received the report? I ask you to address that.10187Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Again, Senator Hogg did not listen to my previous answer. I said that she was addressing it. She is having consultations. She had consultations this week. I think it is more important to make the correct decision than an ad hoc decision on the run, and I respect her for doing that.1018710187Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to the Bulletin this week which draws attention to the Telstra float—as the Democrats have done many times in this place—and the fact that the federal government sold the first third of Telstra too cheaply; in fact, $16 billion too cheaply. Does the minister agree with Mr Fahey's remarks in relation to Australia's record on privatisation generally and the sale of the last part of the Commonwealth Bank specifically, when he said:Never a greater conflict of interest have I struck in my life.Why does the government continue to take and to pay hugely for the advice of investment banks when they have a vested interest in getting the share price down? Is this minister intimidated in setting the share prices, as Mr Fahey was, by threats from the global investment giants?10187Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—No. I do not think either of us is intimidated by what is put to us. Obviously there are people who have very substantial interest in the outcome of issues and they argue their case robustly. I can certainly say my portfolio has its fair share of players in that category. But that is a far cry from intimidation. I think it is perfectly legitimate for them to argue the case strongly.I read that article. I saw Mr Fahey's comments about conflicts of interest. I think your question suggested that we should not pay for this sort of advice and that somehow we should either expect it to be given for nothing or we should have had it offered more cheaply. This is all in aid of this broken record line from the Democrats: with that wonderful 20/20 hindsight, when anything rises in price after the float, by definition you sold it too cheaply. If you were listening to Mr Fahey in question time yesterday, you would have heard him when he gave the example of CSL which Labor managed to float for $2 and which is now at about $18. Quite clearly the Labor Party would not be pleading guilty to having deliberately underpriced it. It happens all the time.The fact is that many people had confidence in the quality of the Telstra stock and were very much of the view, particularly taking a long-term perspective on it, that there was a lot of potential in the share price. You do the best you can at the time and we took the best advice that was on offer. Mr Fahey quite rightly draws attention to the conflicts that prevail, but the challenge is really to separate those out and to understand where people are coming from. He certainly gave a proper account of the process and one that the government very much defends. None of that in any shape or form justifies this line that Senator Allison has been peddling for years. These were the people who, as I recall it, told us to call off the float because they thought that we would not get the price we were asking for. They had absolutely no idea. I am sure you would offer your advice for nothing but I can assure you we would not take it.10188Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, doesn't the Bulletin article suggest that your government is too weak to meet that challenge you referred to and to get a fair deal for the Australian public? Does it not suggest that you should forget about selling any more of Telstra? Is the Bulletin correct in saying that a public relations firm is being used to answer questions put to the federal minister on the Telstra 2 float? Is it the case that this PR firm is also acting for ABN, AMRO and Rothschilds? Who is paying for this PR firm to say what big investors want said and how much are they charging for the service?10188Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer is that their clients are paying. Once again, I would be fairly confident in saying that the services would not be provided for nothing. Once again, the fact is that the Democrats do not believe in privatisation. They have no idea what it is about because they think that it is much better if you control the whole game. This is a huge area of risk with the uncertainty attached to new technologies.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I rise on a point of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, you asked me whether we were too weak and whether we should not go ahead with privatisation.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, my point of order is that the minister is debating the matter—though in fact, not the matter I asked the question about. I ask you to direct him to answer the specific questions that I raised.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There were a number of questions within the supplementary question and in the time it is unlikely the minister will cover all of them. But I am sure the minister is aware of the range of questions.LD4Senator ALSTON—If I had all day I would get on to all of them. But I was answering the question: shouldn't we forget about privatisation? The direct answer to that is no. It is very much in the interests of consumers. It is very much in the interests of taxpayers. It makes the company more efficient. You can look after all the things that you ought to be concerned about, like quality of service, instead of having an ideological obsession that opposes any form of privatisation. You ought to look at the rest of the world. You ought to look at what Albania and Cuba have done. I do not want to go on and on about it today. But you are not interested in debating the merits of it. You simply want to take the view that, firstly, you get it wrong whenever you go down the privatisation path and, secondly, if the price actually rises then you have got it wrong. I am sure you would say the same if the price went south. (Time expired)1018810188West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I ask: does the minister recall yesterday having no idea what Senator Lundy was referring to when she asked about the number of women on the Howard government's advisory committees on the GST? Is the minister aware that the ATO's Charities Consultative Committee has one woman member out of a total membership of 15; the New Tax System Advisory Board has one woman out of seven members; and the community sector panel of the GST Start-Up Assistance Office has only one female member out of a total membership of six—giving women a pathetic 10 per cent representation on these public committees?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many senators on my right interjecting and Senator Newman and I both need to hear the question.1X4Senator WEST—Did the minister really not know what Senator Lundy was referring to yesterday, or was she just not revealing the Howard government's dismal performance on women's representation?10189Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Let me make it quite clear that the question that Senator Lundy tried to ask me yesterday simply referred to advisory committees and when I asked her which committees she was talking about, she had no idea. So how was I to answer that question?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Senator Lundy should outsource her questions.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Hill is absolutely right. That is brilliant advice. Could you charge her for that advice? I think it is worth charging for. Yesterday I went away after question time to try to work out what it was Senator Lundy was actually talking about. I do have some information about this, and, if Senator West would like me to add to the sum of the Labor Party's knowledge, I am happy to do so.The government has been very strong. Since we have been in government we have been very determined to make sure that women are appointed to boards and committees that are within the control of the Commonwealth government. As Senator West would no doubt know because she has been in parliament a long time and she was in government, sometimes women's organisations do not get as many opportunities to be heard as they would like. Under this government they have been advising me and have been involved in consultation with this government for the 3½ years we have been in government. We are pretty proud of the record that we have had in appointing women to boards, committees and senior positions. I could bring in here a folder of women who have been appointed to senior positions by this government. I will pick out one statistic that I think is particularly significant and that is that the foreign minister appointed either 14 or 16—1X4WESTSenator West—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My question related to the membership of women, or the lack thereof, on the consultative committees in relation to the GST. The department of foreign affairs has, from my understanding, very little relevance to the GST. I would like the minister to actually refer to the New Tax System Advis ory Board or the community sector panel on the GST, not the department of foreign affairs.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Minister, I do draw your attention to the substance of the question.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, what I am so proud of is the high number of women who had been appointed by this government to head up Australia's posts abroad. Australian women would be very keen to know that, even if some of the noisy fellows on the other side of this chamber do not want to know.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber and I would ask senators to abide by the standing orders.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I turn now to the specifics of Senator West's question, which I am very happy to do. The Office of the Status of Women is continually involved in consultation about appointments to all sorts of boards, committees, advisory groups, et cetera. The New Tax System Advisory Board which Senator West has just mentioned has seven members of whom one is a woman, and that is Carol Schwartz from the Sussan Corporation. The Business Advisory Panel has six members, of whom two are women—Wendy Craik, the executive director of the National Farmers Federation, and Angela Ryan, the tax director of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants. The Community Sector Advisory Panel has six members, of whom two are women—Pauline Iles, director of the Australian Nursing Homes and Extended Care Association, and Di Mildern, the chair of the Non-Government Schools Funding Review Committee. We believe in finding women who are appropriately skilled for the jobs that we ask them to do, and we are very committed to continuing that effort and improving the level of women on all the boards, committees and advisory councils which we ask to work for us.10189West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that 72 per cent of employees in the non-residential community services sector are women, and 60 per cent of emergency relief applicants are female, why isn't there some representation on these committees, something relating closely to the number of women recipients? Why is the government not doing that? What action is the minister taking? She says they are taking action, but will she outline precisely what action the minister and the Office of the Status of Women have taken and are going to take to ensure that the government's stated commitment of equal representation on public committees is met?10190Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—At this stage our commitment is to do a dash sight better than the Labor government, and that is what we have been doing and we continue to do by all sorts of things, like the Executive Search Pilot Program to assist women into these activities. We have done a number of things. I have answered you here over and over again. I have told you when you would not listen. I find that when I try to give you the news of what the government is doing for the status of women, the tactic on the other side of this chamber is simply to make a devil of a lot of noise so that you do not have to hear.1019010190Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—My question is to Senator Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Justice and Customs. The Australian Customs Service's annual report shows a 50 per cent increase in the seizure of illicit drugs at the border. The minister and the Customs Service are to be congratulated on this performance. Will the minister outline to the Senate how the policies of this government have further strengthened the good work already done by the Australian Customs Service?10190Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Tchen for the question and for persisting in asking it over the usual barrage of rude interjections coming from the other side who are most ungracious to a relatively new senator, but that is what we expect from the bullyboys on the other side. On Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend the commissioning of the third new Australian Customs vessel, the Holdfast Bay , one of eight vessels which this government has funded to renew the Customs marine fleet at a cost of $58 million. It will strengthen our marine response capabilities and is a very timely addition to our front-line defence. Australia is facing, as are other countries, unprecedented levels of organised criminal activity in drugs, illegal immigrants and electronic fraud. On this side of the chamber, we recognise those challenges and are doing something about them. Unlike the previous government, this government is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. We are determined that the Australian Customs Service will have the tools they need to do the job: $34.5 million to improve our coastal surveillance capacity in the Torres Strait; $35.4 million for much improved X-ray equipment for large scale container searches—Senator Schacht interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Schacht—a former Customs minister—would be pleased to know that we are buying the X-ray equipment that was never bought by his government. We are putting $27 million into new technology to improve surveillance coverage which, when he was Customs minister, he failed to do; $6.5 million for increased demands brought about by the Olympics; and $124 million through the Prime Minister's task force on coastal surveillance—all in all, a lot of extra resources to the Customs Service.The Customs Service annual report shows that seizures of illicit drugs—sometimes by Customs alone, sometimes in cooperation with the Federal Police—have increased by more than 50 per cent. For example, seizures of cocaine went from 78 kilos to 292 kilos, heroin went from 138 to 508 kilos and ecstasy went from 32 kilos up to 89 kilos. These figures reflect the success of the government's strategies to intervene at the border. Seizures of performance enhancing drugs have almost doubled, from 558 to 968 kilos—a very important contribution by the Customs Service. Not only do they protect us at the borders from drugs and illegal immigrants but on Monday we revealed an attempt which was foiled by Customs to smuggle 30 snakes and four iguanas into Australia from the United Kingdom.Honourable senators interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—We already have some over here, as Senator Newman says; we do not need any foreign ones! Customs often face a very difficult task. Last week in Sydney they seized a crocodile skull, a couple of monkey skulls, a giant scorpion, some deer antlers, some coyote fur, giraffe bone salt and pepper shakers, some clam meat and a couple of alligator heads.Honourable senators interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—They could have gone over there to get some of this sort of stuff!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! While it is very nice to hear everyone so happy, we should keep the level of noise down.7E4Senator VANSTONE—The Customs Service are happy because they are better funded and better serviced by this government than they ever have been; unlike when the opposition was in government. They had no vision, no policies, no inspiration and no comprehensive law enforcement strategy whatsoever. You did not have it in government—it is one of the reasons you were kicked out—and you have not developed it in opposition.1019110191O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Can the minister confirm that pages 183 and 187 of the department's annual report, tabled yesterday, confirm what Labor has been saying on the Howard government's record on child care and the minister has been denying for some time; namely, that actual Commonwealth expenditure on child care has fallen again this year and that the number of long day care places in both the private and community sector has fallen? Will the minister finally acknowledge that her own department's figures prove that expenditure on child care and the number of places available to Australian families are declining?10191Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The number of places available to Australia's families is not declining and the expenditure on child care has not been declining.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Are you saying it went up?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!AW5CARRSenator Carr—What does the annual report say?BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am coming to what the annual report says because it is very interesting. I would like to make sure that Senator Evans, the opposition spokesman—who was not silly enough to ask this question—understands exactly what has been the situation with funding on child care. The government spent $989 million on child-care support in 1998-99. That figure was published in the final budget outcome 1998-99, which was released on 23 September. Reporting expenditure for 1998-99 is complicated due to the creation of the Department of Family and Community Services on 20 October last year.The balance of expenditure on child care is in the annual report of the Department of Health and Aged Care. The department in fact is providing more accountable information than has ever been provided on both an accrual and a cash basis. Accrual figures for child-care support are at page 183 of the report and cash figures are reported in the financial statements. The government has spent $3 billion on child care in the last three years, which is 20 per cent more than Labor's last three years in office. The last year of the Labor government saw a reduction of $88 million less than had been projected by Labor as take-up—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Has funding gone up this year?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Evans obviously does not want to listen to the information. Perhaps he already knows and does not want anybody else to hear. In Labor's last year in government, money provided by the Labor Party was not taken up to the extent of $88 million. Surprise, surprise! The same thing happened in the last year. There was $88 million less taken up than was actually appropriated, the same as in Labor's last year, but the money appropriated was increased, and more expenditure has been made in the three years we have been in government than you provided. The only problem is you can't read financial statements.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, on a point of order: Senator Evans shouted across the chamber the whole time Senator Newman was speaking. I ask you to call him to order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I had.10192O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer, but she did not address that part of the question that went to the number of full-time child care places and particularly page 187 of the report, which shows that the number of operational places by services in Australia for long day care has fallen from 194,600 to 190,300. Would the minister care to address that part of the question?10192Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The number has not gone down at all.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice101921019215:08:0010192Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—On 18 October, Senator Allison asked me a number of questions with respect to the education of children of East Timorese asylum seekers. I can say that a distinction needs to be drawn between two categories of East Timorese in Australia. There are those that arrived in Australia as a result of the post-referendum difficulties and those that have been temporarily resident in Australia for some years and who are seeking recognition as refugees and resultant permanent residence in Australia.The East Timorese that arrived in Australia following the recent referendum in East Timor hold temporary humanitarian stay visas—visa category 449. This is a similar visa type to that provided to the Kosovars and brings with it a recognition—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: it is competent for the minister obviously to read this into the Hans ard record. I did make a point earlier that it is much more appropriate that they either be incorporated or read into the Hansard record as opposed to tabled, and I appreciate that. In this case, Senator Allison, who I understand asked the question, is not here. This is another example where I think—unless other agreements have been reached that I am not aware of—an incorporation would be more appropriate than what the minister is doing, in the absence of Senator Allison's, who asked the original question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Are you speaking to the point of order, Senator?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Madam President, I did give notice to Senator Allison that I would be answering this at the conclusion of question time. This is an important answer which I think needs to be heard.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is for the minister to determine. He may seek to have it incorporated or he may read it.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—As I mentioned, this is a similar visa type to that provided to the Kosovars and brings with it a recognition of the special needs facing these people. School age children covered by this visa are educated within the safe havens in which they live. There has been no waiting period for access to these education services. Since 1992, however, a number of East Timorese have entered Australia on short-term visitor visas and subsequently applied for protection visas and permanent residency. These people accepted the conditions that applied to the other holders of such visitor visas, including a condition that holders of visitor visas will not undertake more than three months study while on that visa. This is a normal condition for visitors and is noted on the visa.With over 3.5 million visitors to Australia each year, it clearly would not be in Australia's interest to offer unrestricted study opportunities to visitors. To do so would have enormous implications for Australia's full fee paying overseas student program. It is also consistent with the government's approach to entry to Australia that the primary purpose for being in Australia should be reflected by the visa issue. Where a person applies for a protection visa, the Department of Immigra tion and Multicultural Affairs issues a bridging visa which provides the applicant with the capacity to remain in Australia lawfully while their application for protection is considered. It is important to note that about 80 per cent of applications for protection visas are rejected on the grounds that applicants do not meet the criteria to be considered as refugees. It would therefore not be sensible policy to offer free access to the full range of government services to visitors who may apply for this form of permanent residency while onshore.There is a body of litigation before the courts affecting the East Timorese asylum seekers holding temporary visas. The majority of East Timorese on bridging visas are currently residing in Victoria. The Catholic Education Office in Victoria has indicated that schools do accept enrolments on compassionate and humanitarian grounds in individual cases which may from time to time include school age children from East Timor. The decision to charge fees or not depends on individual circumstances and can involve community or church sponsorship of children or families.The Department of Education in Victoria has indicated that government schools are able to accept the enrolment of school age children on bridging visas provided supporting documentation from DIMA is provided to verify that the student is part of an application for a protection visa. Australia is providing educational opportunities for school age East Timorese children in Australia, whether through education programs for those students brought to Australia temporarily or through the offer of public education for those seeking permanent residency in Australia.1019315:14:0010193Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I was also asked a question yesterday by Senator Faulkner, and I will also reply to that in full. I have been asked to also read into the record a letter from Dr Wooldridge, the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I took up Senator Faulkner's matter as he put it to me yesterday. In relation to fundraising, the member for Casey stated in Hansard :Any money that has been raised has been raised in accordance with the Liberal Party's fundraising guidelines and has been properly disclosed.In relation to candidate returns, the member for Casey submitted a candidate return for the 1998 federal election on 9 November 1998, which I have sighted. The candidate returns for the 1998 federal election are now on display for public inspection at the AEC in Canberra and capital city offices. I have now received a letter dated 21 October 1999 from the Minister for Health and Aged Care:Dear MinisterIn relation to Senator Faulkner's question yesterday, he states: "confirmation by the Minister for Health and Aged Care that certain radiologists who have profited from the MRI Medicare rebate have attended fund raising functions for Dr Wooldridge."Senator Faulkner hasn't read the transcript of Hansard very carefully. The two people referred to in the House of Representatives (most scurrilously and cowardly I might say) were as follows.Dr Jack Best, who by imputation by the Labor Party in the House of Representatives, was appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council because he had organised dinners for me.Dr Best is, in fact, a public health physician and has nothing to do with radiology. Secondly, Dr Best has never organised a fund raising dinner for me. Thirdly, Dr Best was first appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council under the—RF4COOKSenator Cook—I raise a point of order. Under the standing orders, it is quite explicit that, in question time and in answer to questions, ministers will not debate the matter. This is a matter clearly being debated. Secondly, the standing orders are quite explicit on another matter, that is, in answer to questions, you will not use that opportunity to make ministerial statements—the implication being that question time is for actually answering the questions put.Under the guise of answering a question, we have both debate and a ministerial statement, with imputations. It may well be that the government feel embattled in this matter. They should. It may well be that they want to try to make a ministerial statement to clear the air and, if they do, that would be welcomed because it would enable the chamber to then debate it. But this device is a misappropriation of the use of question time and/or of supplementing answers to questions. It is appropriate that the matter be incorporated, as is the normal practice. If the minister wants to make a ministerial statement, he should seek leave and do so. But he should certainly be restrained, and refrain, from debating the matter as he is also attempting to do.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—On the point of order: Senator Faulkner asked the question and, in doing so, made imputations against Dr Wooldridge but, more importantly, also against two very well respected members of the medical profession. He did that on television and on radio; he made those imputations and defamed these people. When Senator Ellison attempts to clarify the matter and to put on record the record of these doctors and of their great contribution to society and refutes completely the imputations and allegations made by Senator Faulkner, the Labor Party want to stop that. They want to prevent people in the gallery—we are not on broadcast at the moment—and those people who heard the allegations made by Senator Faulkner from hearing the truth of the matter.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That's not true.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—It is true, and that is why you want to stop this being made public. You are pretty good at defaming people but, when we want to put on record the great contribution these people have made, you want to gag the Senate and gag the minister. That is why it is important that this very important answer be given and given fully.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: in question time yesterday, I directed a question to Senator Ellison about whether he had satisfied himself about certain matters. Of course, there were no imputations contained in the question and, if there were, I would have expected a senator in this chamber to take a point of order or Madam President, who was presiding at the time, to call me to order. Of course, none of that took place at all. That is, of itself, an imputation, but I do not really care about that. What I do care about is the fact that we now have the government using this device, which indicates its unwillingness to incorporate answers in the Hansard record. It is particularly inappropriate when you are dealing with an item of correspondence. I have no idea whether this correspondence is relevant to the issue or not because my question went to Senator Ellison about his responsibilities. It did not go to Dr Wooldridge.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—It did.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It was not a question directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The point here is that, particularly when you are starting to quote a letter, it is far more appropriate to table it as part of the record or incorporate it in Hansard , as opposed to the minister reading it into the record like this—deliberately using this device to waste the time of the Senate in this particular way.Of course there is an opportunity for senators to take note of such answers, but the opposition has pointed out to Madam President that we think it is inappropriate that answers to questions or additional information in answer to a question be tabled after question time. I gather informally that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, agrees with that and has indicated that he would encourage his errant ministers not to table further information but to incorporate answers in Hansard. That is appropriate in this particular circumstance.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—What do the standing orders say?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I will get to that shortly, Senator Macdonald.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—When you are reading out a letter, surely the point is reinforced even more clearly that the matter ought to be incorporated properly in Hansard , as opposed to being tabled. I am not arguing that it is not competent for a minister to verbally provide more information—obviously that can be done. But this is a deliberate abuse of process by Senator Ellison, who obviously has very little to do with his time. Hopefully, he will learn from this experience that he ought not to abuse the processes and forms of the chamber in such a way again.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I was wanting to rule on this. There is in fact no point of order. There is nothing in standing orders that actually enables ministers to fill out an answer at the end of question time. It is something that has arisen from practice and the indulgence of the Senate. So, Minister, I would ask you to complete your—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are on indulgence, basically, so why don't you behave properly?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I am. Madam Deputy President, I was asked yesterday about the fundraising activities of the member for Casey.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is not competent for you to answer it now. Sit down.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—It is. I will continue with my answer.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is not competent, without leave of the Senate, for Senator Ellison to continue this abuse. That is the point of order I am taking: is it competent for Senator Ellison to have the call without leave of the Senate?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: you have quite clearly ruled that there was nothing in Senator Faulkner's previous point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—This is a different point of order.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—In the previous one—in which case, of course, Senator Ellison should continue the answer that he is now three-quarters of the way through.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, I think you should have listened carefully to what I did say, that it is with the indulgence of the Senate that ministers provide the—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And you are not getting it.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—How are we not getting it?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are not getting it until due process takes place.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It is with the indulgence of the Senate and it is the practice of the Senate that ministers provide additional information—it is not in standing orders.BH4HILLSenator Hill—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: obviously you are correct because by definition you are correct. But on the same point of order—RF4COOKSenator Cook—What is your point of order?BH4HILLSenator Hill—I am speaking to the point of order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—The point of order has already been ruled on.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I take it that Senator Hill is taking another point of order.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Obviously indulgence was given, because he commenced answering the question and there was no objection to it. That is in accordance with usual practice. If ministers have further information pursuant to a question that was asked on a previous day, the normal practice in this place is that they are welcomed to provide that information. The Senate appreciates the fact that they provide that information. It is a courtesy to honourable senators that they provide that information. In this instance, of course, the circumstances are slightly different because within the question there was obviously inherently a suggestion that Dr Wooldridge had been in some way abusing the fundraising provision.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is not relevant. The question was directed to Senator Ellison.BH4HILLSenator Hill—The question was directed to Senator Ellison to satisfy himself as to certain circumstances relating to the behaviour of Dr Wooldridge. It was implied within the question that there was some misbehaviour on the part of Dr Wooldridge. If it was not so implied, the question would not have been—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why didn't you take a point of order, if there was such an imputation?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Senator Faulkner is missing the point. He technically was able to ask the question in the form that he asked it. We all know how to do that. But the implication within it was that there had been some misbehaviour. That is why it was asked. That was the politics for the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. What is extraordinary is that, when the minister comes in here and seeks to provide the additional information, the Labor Party now attempts to prevent him putting that information before the Senate in full today so that the defence of Dr Wooldridge can be broadcast to all honourable senators interested in the matter today.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: I have indicated informally to Senator Hill after the last couple of question times my concern about the practice that has been occurring in relation to the way ministers have been providing additional answers to questions. I have indicated to him—and I made this point procedurally through the device of a point of order on a previous sitting day—that the normal way this has occurred is for answers to be incorporated in Hansard . I do not believe they should be tabled, and I think most senators would agree it is appropriate that material be incorporated. That is true on this occasion. It should be incorporated.This is an abuse of process. If there is a view that there is some other matter in relation to my question or my behaviour or anybody else's that should be taken further, there are other forms of the house that can be used to allow that to take place. This is an abuse. It is not the ordinary practice. It is not the normal practice, which I am very keen, as I think the record shows, for ministers to conform to, that is, to incorporate answers. Probably this minister has indicated informally, because he does not care about accountability, that he will not provide an answer if he can only incorporate it. So be it. That is a matter for this particular minister. But I believe he requires leave for this. If a minister is to behave in this way, I think that you, Madam Deputy President, should seek the view of the Senate in relation to whether leave should be granted. When you do that, on this occasion leave will be refused because the minister is abusing the forms of the house.BH4HILLSenator Hill—On the point of order: if Senator Faulkner wants to express what he understands to be acceptable practice, I want the same right to do so myself. In relation to these answers, ministers, as we know, have a right to table them. Honourable senators, however, generally prefer that the content be incorporated so that there is more ready access to that information. I think that one should meet that reasonable request of honourable senators. Where an answer or additional information is brief, it is also common practice for that simply to be read in rather than incorporated. Where it is lengthy, it would normally be incorporated. But where it is an answer to an implicit attack upon the personal behaviour of an individual—in this case, Dr Wooldridge—I would have thought that Senator Ellison would have every right to read into the transcript Dr Wooldridge's answer, and to do so at the first available opportunity. The fact that Senator Faulkner believes that he should not have such a right causes me considerable concern.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He should incorporate it or table the letter, and it should be on the public record.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner! Order! It is the practice for ministers to provide the answers at the end of question time. It is done with the indulgence of the Senate and it is the normal practice in this place that, where it is a long answer, it is incorporated. I would ask the minister to speedily wind up his giving of the oral answer, please. He has had a lengthy time.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam Deputy President, I wish to take a point of order as well. I refer to standing order 203 and I take this point of order purely and simply because in the previous point of order Senator Faulkner made the point that, if in fact the point of order was not taken at that particular time, his question should be considered to be fair and legitimate and aboveboard. He made that point on a couple of occasions.I take this point of order because I believe that, under standing order 203, the Leader of the Opposition's behaviour—particularly when our leader, Senator Hill, was speaking—when he was shouting across the table to Senator Macdonald and Senator Ellison was totally out of order, a total breach of standing orders. His own position in his argument that he put before us at that particular time was that in fact, if a point of order was not taken and that was not challenged at that particular time, his activity was aboveboard; it was legal under standing orders and it was acceptable behaviour in this particular chamber.I do not believe it was, Madam Deputy President, and I believe that, on that basis and on what he said on the previous point of order, he should be brought to order in terms of his particular behaviour and that screaming across the chamber that occurred at that particular time, disrupting our leader and being quite unfair in terms of what he said as far Senator Macdonald and Senator Ellison were concerned.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I called Senator Faulkner to order. He has come to order. There is no point of order. If yesterday something was considered to be unparliamentary, I am in no position to be able to judge on that now.UW4CRANESenator Crane—He is misbehaving and he has been misbehaving.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Crane! The whole chamber's behaviour has not been particularly edifying.UW4CRANESenator Crane—I had not said a word until I took a point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You should be quiet.UW4CRANESenator Crane—You know your behaviour was disgraceful.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!RF4COOKSenator Cook—I rise on a point of order. The audible interjection of Senator Winston Crane is an offence to the chair and should now be withdrawn forthwith with apologies.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I did not interpret it as being directed at me. I interpreted it as being—Senator Cook interjecting—Senator Crane interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook! Senator Crane, resume your seat. I am on my feet. I interpreted that interjection as one of the continuing disorderly interjections that are taking place across the chamber between honourable senators. I did not interpret it as being directed at me, but I would ask all sides to come to order and I would ask Senator Ellison to wind up his answer.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: it is not competent for Senator Ellison to add to his answer or provide this information without the leave of the Senate. He has leave to incorporate his answer and any supporting material he cares to from Dr Wooldridge or from anybody else.You would be aware, Madam Deputy President, that in relation to the incorporation of answers to questions, the opposition does not insist on seeing the material. Anything you want to add to an answer can go into Hansard via incorporation—that can occur now. But I do not believe he can do this without leave of the Senate. He can incorporate and he will get leave of the Senate to do so, as far as I am concerned and—I am sure—as far as all senators are concerned. He can table anything he likes without leave. I think it is more appropriate to incorporate it, and he will get leave to do that. I do not think he can speak without leave, but I ask you to rule on that specific point.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I am going to rule that this is getting to be a very long answer and therefore getting to be very close to being a statement which would require leave. That is why I have asked you to wind up or seek leave, Minister.BH4HILLSenator Hill—On a point of order: how do you come to that?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is practice and indulgence, Senator Hill.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. The letter continues:Thirdly, Dr Best was first appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council under the Labor Government by Graham Richardson as Health Minister. I reappointed him. The second person who they claimed has had fund raising dinners for me was Dr Ronald Meikle. Dr Meikle has never organised a fund raising dinner for me. He informs me the only function he has attended was a Melbourne Cup Calcutta in 1995.With respect to the disclosure of monies, perhaps Senator Faulkner is judging me by his own standards. I would have thought the answer is entirely self evident. The candidate returns for the election held on 3rd November 1998 contain the following advice from the Australian Electoral Commission:. A donation received by an endorsed candidate, but passed to the party, is not required to be disclosed in this return.. A donation received by the campaign committee of an endorsed candidate does not need to be included as it is to be included in the return lodged by the party.If Senator Faulkner wishes to make these scurrilous and derogatory allegations that impugn people's motives over matters relating to money, the government would be quite at liberty to examine the role of individual, senior members of the Labor Party and certain corporations, or the role of the ALP more generally with a particular industry. I do not believe these sorts of allegations and imputations do any good at all.Miscellaneous1019815:36:0010198Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to table some documents and to make a short statement on an order of the Senate which was made yesterday in relation to a motion which I think was moved by Senator Carr.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You do not need leave to table.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I seek leave to make a short statement.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—How long is it going to take? Given we have had consecutive abuses by the minister, I would like a time limit on the short statement. It is reasonable to give leave for these sorts of matters but it is normally done, I might say, after taking note of answers to questions. Isn't that the case? Is this in relation to a question?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—No, it is in relation to an order.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The minister can table documents any time and seek leave any time.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I know he can, Madam Deputy President.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—He can seek leave to make a statement.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes, I am aware of that, Madam Deputy President, but ordinarily the opposition has consistently taken the approach that such leave should be given after debate on—BH4HILLSenator Hill—The order was to table the documents by 3 o'clock.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Unfortunately, it is this minister who has been on his feet since 3 o'clock who has not allowed that to take place.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It would be helpful, Minister, if you could give some indication as to how long you are going to be. If it is going to be lengthy, then there are often occasions when it is left until after taking note.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I will take between two and three minutes to make the statement.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, no, but leave will be granted after taking note of answers to questions. Those are the usual forms in this place. You ought to start learning them.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I will table it after taking note.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes, exactly. Do it then.Leave not granted.Questions Without Notice101981019815:38:0010198O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—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 by Senators West and O'Brien today, relating to the participation of women on advisory committees and to child care funding.I was really interested to observe the minister's response to questions asked today. Some might have called it a lecture that the minister sought to give to the opposition—to Senator Chris Evans and to anyone who dared to ask the minister a question about the financial situation in her portfolio. Frankly, the figures from her own department indicate that what the minister has been telling the Australian people about expenditure on child care and on the availability and utilisation of child-care places is absolutely wrong.It was not so long ago, in fact it was 10 August, that the minister released a glossy publication regarding child care in Australia which extolled the alleged virtues of this government in relation to their administration of child care in this country. One can say that the publication released by the minister, Child care in Australia, was totally self-serving and, when compared with her own department's publication, the 1998-99 annual report of the Department of Family and Community Services, it is an absolute misrepresentation of what has been occurring in child care. It is quite clear from her own department that the estimated expenditure, on an accrual basis, from appropriations was $868,831,000 and the estimated full year effect was $818,619,000—in other words, a difference of over $50 million.The minister sought to explain that away and said we would have to go to some other portfolio—I think it was the Department of Health and Aged Care—statements and annual report and that might give us the total picture. Isn't it incredible that her own department would publish statements on expenditure relating to child-care support without an annotation for the department of health. I see here that some of the amounts do refer to the department of health but they say they cannot get the figures at this time. The minister is prepared to go public and claim, in her own publication, Child care in Australia, that marvellous things were being done. But in terms of her own department's document, they show a reduction of $50 million and the figures from the department of health are not available. When I asked the minister a supplementary question, I think all was revealed. One could see it in the face of the minister when I asked the supplementary question, which was to answer the second part of my question which related to the utilisation of child care in long day care places in this country. The minister had no idea. Her own department's publication, on page 187, in table 2, entitled `Number of operational places by service type in Australia', shows absolutely clearly, without one question of a doubt, that the number of those operational places between June 1998 and June 1999 fell from 194,600 to 190,300.Let me break it up for you, just so there is absolutely no question about it: community long day care, 51,700 to 50,600; private—and this is the area the government claims is doing so well—129,700 to 127,100; and employer and non-profit, 13,200 to 12,600. She is damned by the figures of her own department, because the glowing picture that the minister has sought to portray is shown to be clearly false. It is shown to be untrue. If her own department says that the number of places has fallen by 4,300, then the minister is effectively playing a confidence trick on Australia in her publication Child care in Australia. Frankly, the minister ought to be censured by this Senate for misrepresenting the case so blatantly. I was not surprised by the minister's reaction to my supplementary question. (Time expired)15:43:0010199McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—There is probably no need to respond to what we just heard from Senator O'Brien across the chamber because there seems to have been a lot of enthusiasm taken out of this take note of answers. It is now a quarter to four and we have only one Labor Party opposition member left in the chamber to take up enthusiastically—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Hey!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Carr, are you going to tell us that you would dare get up on this subject?AW5CARRSenator Carr—This has been your problem—you've never been able to count.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Carr.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I thought you were going home to Victoria, Senator Carr, to join— Senator Carr interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I will have some order. Senator McGauran, you will address the chair and roughly some of the questions and answers that were given.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, I do not want to descend into the unsavoury moments we had between 3 and 3.30 p.m. led by Senator Faulkner, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Do not reflect on another senator, either.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I would have to say it was one of the worst scatter gun question times I have ever seen—and that is really saying something. There seemed to be no point to their question time. Perhaps it was an open question time.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Bring back Senator Ray to organise them.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—In a sense, Senator Patterson is right. The lid is really being lifted now on Senator Faulkner's leadership. It was an absolutely hopeless question time where people like Senator O'Brien would ask questions over the top of and through the responsibility of Senator Chris Evans, who should be asking those questions. What is more, your question was so estimates based. Just to finish on Senator Patterson's interjection, Senator Ray is needed to bring back a bit of discipline, because the lid is now really being lifted off Senator Faulkner's leadership. It is rowdy and it is undisciplined. You should have seen the faces of the people in the gallery. For the first time, I actually cringed.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think that even Senator Ray would object to being linked with taking note of the answers to questions on child care. I know he has an interest in the matter, but I think Senator McGauran is drawing a long bow to link my motion with Senator Ray and what he might think whilst he is out of this chamber. I fail to see the relevance. I think the senator should be drawn back to the motion.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—This is usually allowed to be a fairly wide-ranging debate.Senator Lightfoot interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lightfoot, you might like to withdraw that reflection.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Madam Deputy President, I personally do not think that that was within such an area that it ought be withdrawn.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Lightfoot, given the mirth that your colleagues expressed, you were obviously casting an aspersion, or it was interpreted that way. If they have interpreted it that way, you had best withdraw, please.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—I will withdraw, Madam Deputy President.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran might like to tailor his answer somewhat to the answers given by the minister.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—The point I was trying to make was about question time, and it related to the child-care question. Senator O'Brien is noted for his questions on minutiae in any committee he is on, let alone in this chamber, but his question was on such minutiae it should be saved for the estimates committees. Senator Newman hit it out of the ballpark, as she did with her answers to other utterly frivolous questions.Senator Lundy is going to get to speak on child care, I believe, but she should put a minute aside to discuss the very point that Senator Newman made about Mr Costa's discriminatory and sexist point. Mr Costa—who is 43 years of age, I note—believes that a woman of 45 years of age is far too old to take over the reins of the ACTU. Senator Lundy, I know the punch has been taken out of this taking note of answers to questions, but you would do well to put a minute aside—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, the answers that we are taking note of are the answers given by the minister to opposition questions.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I quickly make the point: could you put a minute aside to answer that? You cannot let Mr Costa's comments go unchallenged.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That of course was an answer to a dorothy dixer; it was not an answer to an opposition question.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Quite right. Senator Lundy, don't do yourself a great injustice. My knowledge of child care is in relation to the government's tax reform package and the simplification of the whole child-care assistance program which will be introduced on 1 July 2000. The tax reform proposals include a single child-care benefit to replace the child-care rebate and child-care assistance. You are quoting old statistics. We are talking about the future in child care, which will begin on 1 July 2000 in party with this government's tax reform package. It is anticipated that families with one child in full-time care who are eligible for the maximum rate of the CCB will receive $120 per week—that is, $2.40 per hour—in government subsidy.Senator Lundy and Senator O'Brien, what about a bit of credit for the government's plans for child care and for our tax reform package? What about a bit of balance in this argument in regard to the $3 billion that this government spends per year on child care? This is 20 per cent more than you put in in your dying days—in your last three years—in government. A bit of balance in this argument would go a long way. (Time expired)15:50:0010201Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I would certainly like to participate in this debate on taking note of Senator Newman's answers, and I do so on the basis that Senator Newman has been loose with the truth. Today we heard again from the minister that there has been no reduction in child-care funding by this government, but we know from facts released in the annual report from the Department of Family and Community Services that child-care funding has fallen from $999.438 million to $935.692 million over the last two financial years. That is a fall, which is in direct contradiction to what Senator Newman said today in this place. There are a couple of other pertinent facts I would like to draw to Senator McGauran's attention—given his comments in this debate—including the number of long day care places, which has fallen. In offering this information, again taken directly from the annual report, it is worth noting that previous information provided in this place by Senator Newman is completely exposed as a doctoring of statistics.Let me explain to the Senate exactly what I am talking about. The number of places for community long day care fell in the last year by 1,100. In private long day care the number of places fell by 2,600. That is a total of 3,700 places. Explanations previously afforded by Senator Newman used a rounded figure which incorporated the number of out of school hours care places to boost that figure. You cannot deny the fact that the number of long day care places in this country has fallen, and you cannot deny the fact that funding has fallen.These two issues, I think, do make Senator Newman look as though she has continued to persist with her efforts to be misleading with respect to the government's position on child care. Her determined efforts today and the massive confidence booster, the artificial mirth, that emanated from behind her every time she responded to a question—which was then completely exposed and I think reiterated by Senator McGauran's acknowledgment that maybe we should turn our attention in this motion to take note to that confidence boosting afforded Senator Newman today—show one thing and one thing only: that Senator Newman is weak not only on child care but also on all issues of policy that affect women in this country. For the last two weeks we have seen Senator Newman stumble and fall over very simple, basic questions relating to women in this parliament, the role of women in Australian society and the capacity of the government to deliver what they need within the community.Let us reflect on a couple of these issues. First of all, there is the reduction of support by the government, through the Office of the Status of Women, for grants to incredibly important community organisations that are run by women for women. The government have shown an appalling persistence to defund and disarm groups in our community that stand up for women and that oppose their policies. We saw the most blatant example of that most recently with the defunding of a number of women's organisations. Today, I heard those organisations excluded from the women's roundtable, including the National Women's Justice Coalition and the National Network of Women's Legal Services, tell their stories about how they have been defunded and about how they have been excluded from consultations. And the minister comes in here and pretends that the government have done something worthy for women and worthy for child care. Come on! What we saw today was a pathetic effort by the minister to try to throw back something at this side of the chamber. In fact, she has been so completely undermined through questioning in this place and by her appalling performance in representing women in the federal parliament that she is obviously taking the coalition government to a place of complete and utter disrepute on their record of representing women.I would like to finish on a positive note, and it relates directly to child care. I had the great privilege of attending a wonderful event just recently here in Canberra, when the inaugural ACT child care awards were presented and brought much needed recognition to workers in the child-care sector. I would like to acknowledge the work of Judy Small and her committee, who took the initiative to stand up and be proud for the services that these women, these people, provide to Australia—to children, to women and to their families. (Time expired)15:55:0010202Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I think it is rather a pity that someone like Senator Lundy should deliver such unmitigated rubbish at the same time as denigrating one of the best ministers that this parliament has ever seen with respect to child care. And I want to take this opportunity to rebut Senator O'Brien's needlessly negative contribution this afternoon, too. He said that we, as a government, were `playing a confidence trick on Australia with respect to child care', and that Senator Jocelyn Newman should be censured. Let me read something on which Senator O'Brien and Senator Lundy based their most appalling statements here this afternoon with respect to the government and our child care policy. It provides some background to that and it reads:It is anticipated that families with one child in full-time care who are eligible for the maximum rate of CCB—that is, child-care benefit—will receive $120 per week ($2.40 per hour) in Government subsidy.That is a heck of a long way ahead of what Labor's policy was for 13 years. At the same time as delivering benefits to families and the children of families, more importantly, Australia's greatest asset, incidentally, we have fixed up the big black hole that you people left. You simply could not deliver because you could not handle the economy. That is why you could not deliver on child care. That is why you could not deliver in other areas of social services, because you could not handle the economy.Let me read on:Maximum assistance will be available for families with incomes under $28,200 per annum, tapering down to a minimum rate of $20.10 per week for 50 hours of care when family income reaches $81,000 per annum. The payment will be proportional to the number of hours of care paid for a family each week.The CCB will continue to provide loaded rates of subsidy for families with more than one child in care.Labor did not have that system in place. You lived off plastic credit. You put it on the tick. You left a $10 billion debt for us to fix up. We not only fixed that up but also delivered—we deliver in all areas and we deliver in all areas of child care.It goes on:For a family receiving maximum CCB, this loading will provide an additional $11 per week where there are two children in full-time care and an additional $32 per week where there are more than three or more children in full-time care.And you say that we are going backwards. It continues: The CCB will further assist families by providing a 10 per cent loaded rate of assistance to families using part-time centre-based care, in recognition of the higher fee charged to families using this type of care.We have tried to encompass everyone, even those people who may slip through the social service cracks. Let me go on again:. extend qualification for Family Tax Benefit Part A . . . to families with children up to age 21 who fail to qualify for Youth Allowance (YA) due to the parental means test or who receive low levels of YA;. abolish the assets test for family tax benefits;We had to abolish one of your particular implementations, which worked against families. It continues further:. provide about $13 billion per year of personal income tax cuts and about $2½ billion per year of additional family payments.The Labor opposition are talking about censuring Minister Jocelyn Newman. You are talking about the government playing a confidence trick on the Australian people. We know who is playing the confidence trick. We know that you spent too long in power. We know that you mishandled the economy and, when you mishandle the economy, you cannot deliver the goods. I believe it will be a long time before the Australian people trust those inept people on the other side—those people who depended on propaganda to get where they were during those 13 appalling years of hard Labor. I believe the Australian people will think long and hard before they ever put those sorts of people back into federal power again. (Time expired)16:00:0010203Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—We are debating a motion to take note of the answers from Senator Newman today, who once again was unable to address the issues that were before this chamber, other than to provide us with the normal, supercilious, condescending and patronising—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please do not reflect upon another member in this place, Senator Carr.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I am not; I am just indicating the method by which these questions have been attempted to be addressed by a minister who clearly finds it important for us to get a clear sense of her views of correct behaviour in such a way that allows her not to have to actually address the questions that are before the chamber at the time. She was asked whether or not her own department's report had in fact now identified that actual Commonwealth expenditure on child care had fallen again this year. She was also asked whether or not the number of long day care child-care places in both the private and the community sector had fallen again as well. She could not address those issues, other than to try to criticise members of the opposition in, as I say, a very condescending manner.The truth of the matter is that the reports of her own department reveal the facts on these questions. This is a government that is into its second term. Quite clearly, it has had a policy over the life of both those terms of government of reducing support for child care, of reducing the opportunities for working Australians to enjoy the benefits of child care and of reducing the benefits to children. Of course, the whole point about child care is that it provides benefits for the entire family and especially for children. The fact that the quality of provision is falling as a result of the budget cuts that this government has imposed is all too clear for anybody who has any experience of this industry—and many of us do, not just as legislators but as parents.We all understand what is occurring within the child-care industry in this country. We all understand what is happening in child-care centres across the country. The opportunities for children are declining, as parents are obliged to pick up more and more of the costs that were once borne by the taxpayer on the basis that this government believes in the user pay principle. That is fine if you have plenty of money, but the whole issue here is whether or not the government has an obligation to ensure that these services are provided on an equitable basis in such a way as to make sure that the community benefit is exercised, because this goes to more than just individual benefit.This government has confirmed in its own reports that the funding for child care has fallen and that the number of child-care places available to Australian families has also fallen—the number of long day care places has fallen from 194,600 in June 1998 to 190,300 in June 1999. My recollection is that in the first term of this government there were spending cuts of about $800 million in the child-care area. There were cuts of about $600 million with the withdrawal of the operational subsidies for child-care centres. That, of course, had a direct bearing on the quality of service that was provided. We now have before us the evidence, the official confirmation, that the government is withdrawing not only money but also places—and of course one follows the other. Federal government budget cuts to child care have been forcing the child-care industry into decline. The impact of the withdrawal of support for and investment in child care is now showing up in the official figures.When Senator Newman goes on TV and says, `We now have to sort out the differences of interpretation of figures,' she patronisingly claims, `Trust me, I'm from the government.' What the government is now saying is that she cannot be trusted. Her own department is saying that her views cannot be relied upon. Her department's annual report demonstrates that the minister cannot be relied upon to provide the public with a proper reflection of what is occurring. And what would one expect? If you cut the budget and the services, of course the opportunities are going to decline. If the government cuts child-care assistance, it will hurt Australian families and they will increasingly be forced into the informal, casual forms of child care. They will be forced into the unregulated, unaccredited and the lower levels—the bottom end of the market—where the qualifications are not available to be seen to demonstrate that the quality of care can be maintained. As a consequence, the children of this country are going to miss out. I think the minister ought to be condemned for that. (Time expired)16:05:0010204Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—I want to participate in the debate this afternoon because so many misleading statements have been made that the record should not be allowed to remain uncorrected. There is no doubt that the oppo sition does have a duty to test the policy of the government and to criticise where criticism is due, but it does have an obligation not to be misleading. What we have seen this afternoon is a disgraceful attempt to mislead the Australian public.Page 187 of the annual report that was quoted during question time and referred to during debate on the motion to take note of answers tells only half of the story. What in fact has been omitted from the information that has been given to the Senate is that, whilst there is a very different mix of the way in which child care is now put together, the overall numbers have increased from 399,400 to 422,100. We have not heard one single word about the fact that the overall numbers have increased; we have only heard that some of the categories have been adjusted yet other have been increased. The total number of child-care places available to Australian families has in fact gone up every year since the coalition came to office. That is a point that really needs to be emphasised. It is a point that the government is not given credit for when the opposition picks out some isolated figure and seeks to mislead the Senate on what the true position is.The opposition is doing a very little other than cooking the books in choosing to add up only those figures in the table which might suit their claims and completely overlooking and ignoring those sectors which have increased: family day care and out of school hours. You might wonder why family day care and out of school hours numbers have increased. It is because that is where the need is. That is where the research showed the need was and where the need was not being met. These are the services that families both need and use, and that is the reason why the overall numbers have gone up and why there has been an adjustment in some of the categories of child care. It is simply more flexible and suits more children to have a different mix.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Into the backyard!2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Senator Carr, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I would not be interjecting in circumstances where you have been so misleading.If we look at the coalition's achievements and initiatives—I know that the opposition does not like this because it does not suit their argument one bit—you will find that the coalition has allocated more funding to child care than Labor ever did: $5.3 billion over four years to the years 2002-03 to fund 70,000 additional places in each of the coalition's first three budgets. That is a pretty impressive figure, no matter how you look at it. From July 1996 to March 1999, there was an increase of 272 child-care centres across Australia: 491 private child-care centres opened, while 204 closed in areas where there was either no need or where the resources could be otherwise better deployed.Labor simply failed the child-care sector while in government and is now playing politics. This is not a very sensible thing to do. Growth in child care under Labor was simply unchecked and unsustainable, and those on the other side know it. There was no formal planning system for child-care centres, resulting in some areas having an oversupply of child-care places and others having none. The operational subsidy was focused on community-based centres instead of where there was need. Babies were barely catered for; children with disabilities were not properly catered for; children in remote areas were not properly catered for. So do not come in here and read out misleading statements about this report without—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—We are just reading the report.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Well, you must not be able to read, Senator Lundy, because page 187 of the annual report proves quite clearly that you either cannot read or cannot understand.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees10205102051020516:10:0010205Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I present the government's response to report No. 366 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on its review of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98, second quarter, and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE ON JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REPORT 366 REVIEW OF AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 1997-98 SECOND QUARTERRecommendation 3 Paragraph 3.33The Minister for Finance and Administration should address the issue of incentives and penalties related to agency expenditure of Budget appropriations to ensure that agencies' concerns to achieve their expenditure bids do not overshadow the Commonwealth's interest.Recommendation: Supported /Not SupportedUnder the Commonwealth's previous cash appropriation framework, the bring forward of expenditures by agencies to avoid the lapsing of annual appropriations at year end often led to wasteful application of public monies. However, the Commonwealth's accrual budgeting framework from 1999-00 is a key reform in providing greater flexibilities to agencies and requiring more business like and results orientated performance, and will prevent many such dysfunctional resource management practices from continuing.`Departmental' appropriations to agencies for their outputs will in future be paid as those outputs are delivered. Providing budgeted outputs are delivered, agencies will be able to receive their full appropriation in the financial year and retain cash balances in their own bank account. Interest will also be paid on agency cash balances to encourage optimal cash management practices.Annual `Administered' appropriations, typically for subsidies and grants administered by agencies on the Government's behalf, will be for full accrual expenses and will be appropriated by `outcomes' sought by the Government. Where expenses have accrued against these appropriations but payments not yet made, the unspent amount will not lapse and remains available for payments in future financial years.To the extent relevant expenses did not accrue, these appropriations will lapse. Consequently, agencies will generally no longer be able to make payments under these appropriations where the relevant goods and services weren't received, and hence expenses weren't incurred, in that same financial year.Documents1020610206UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—In accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for 1998-99.Committees10206102061020616:11:0010206McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present the 80th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Persons Referred to in the Senate (Board members and staff of Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc.) .Ordered that the report be printed.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I seek leave to move a motion in respect of the report.Leave granted.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I move:That the report be adopted.This report is the 28th in a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be accorded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Senate.On 13 October 1999, the President received a letter from Mr Kimberley Heitman, Chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc., relating to remarks made by Senator the Hon. Richard Alston during debate in the Senate on 30 September 1999. The President referred the letter to the committee as a submission under privilege resolution 5. The committee considered the submission on 14 and 21 October 1999 and recommends that it be incorporated in Hansard.The committee reminds the Senate that, in matters of this nature, it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by honourable senators or persons. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution 5. I commend the report to the Senate.The submission read as follows—RESPONSE BY MR KIMBERLEY HEITMAN CHAIR, ELECTRONIC FRONTIERS AUSTRALIA INC. (ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIERS AUSTRALIA INC.)We, the individuals listed below, wish to seek redress under the resolution of the Senate of 25 February 1988 relating to the protection of persons referred to in the Senate (Privilege Resolution 5). We are readily identifiable as the persons referred to by Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in the Senate debate on the topic "Internet Censorship" on 30 September 1999 (Hansard pages 8953—8955 inclusive), that is, the Board members and staff of Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA):ChairMr Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris Llb, AACSVice ChairMr Greg Taylor, B.Sc, B.Econ, Dip.Inf.Proc.SecretaryMs Irene GrahamBoard MembersDr Michael Baker, BSc (1st class hons), MPhil, PhDMr Michael Malone, B.Sc, DipEdMr Felipe RodriquezMs Jan Whitaker, BS, MS (Education)Mr Danny Yee, BSc (hons)Executive DirectorMr Darce CassidySenator Alston stated that we are "maniacs", "low grade, undergraduate political activists", "have no interest at all in sensible and responsible regulation of the Internet" and are "not in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of the community, whether parents have concerns or anything else". Senator Alston also stated that we approve of offensive material being forced on children and adults and that we are the cause of a problem the Internet Industry Association and the Government have in negotiating a code of practice.All these allegations are unsubstantiated and false. The Senator's remarks impugn our individual good characters, reputations and credentials, and those of the thousands of members and supporters of the organisation we represent. In addition, the Senator's remarks are factually incorrect, and we seek this opportunity to set the record straight.The following facts are pertinent: 1. Senator Alston's description of EFA as "low grade, undergraduate political activists" is factually incorrect, and falsely deprecates the breadth of academic and professional expertise of the EFA Board. The majority of EFA Board members completed degrees in fields including law, education, science, engineering and economics more than ten years ago. None are undergraduates. Three-quarters are over the age of forty. All have been active users of the Internet for at least the last five years, and several are professionally involved in managing Internet services.2. Senator Alston's statement that we are "not in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of the community, whether parents have concerns or anything else" is incorrect. Members of the Board and staff of EFA include responsible parents with a total of 10 children between them ranging in age from 1 year to 27 years. EFA's website has a section entitled "Advice for Parents—Information to guide and inform parents on ways to protect their children in using the Internet". This includes the "Australian Internet Parental Control Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)—A guide to assist concerned parents, legislators, educators, and the public in learning what is available today to protect children". This was compiled by EFA in 1996, long before any government agencies developed an interest in assisting parents. This document was drawn to the attention of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards in our submission of March 1997 and an earlier version was included in our response to the Department of Communications' "Consultation Paper on the Regulation of on-line Information Services" in August 1995. Our concern is for the future of Australia's children and grandchildren—that we as a society not bequeath them with a censorship system that would be a totalitarian regime's dream, enabling the suppression of any dissenting voices on the Internet. The planned regime enables the suppression of voices following one complaint and empowers a statutory authority to suppress voices without a complaint being lodged. EFA has consistently argued that a Government serious about protecting children from online dangers must commit funds to parental education and police resources.3. Senator Alston's statement that "there are these maniacs—these electronic frontiers outfits—running around stirring up trouble, using quaint expressions" is incorrect.The Oxford Dictionary defines "maniac" as "person affected with mania" and "mania" as "mental derangement marked by excitement and violence". Senator Alston's allegation as to our mental stability has no basis in fact. Moreover, we have not advocated or engaged in violence. Last year Senator Alston's office invited EFA's current and then Chairperson to participate in the E-Commerce Enabling Australia Summit in Canberra. Senator Alston's office was aware of EFA's position on Internet regulation having received our detailed written response to the framework issued for public comment in August 1997. EFA's position on the matter has remained stable. The Government's has not.Senator Alston's disparaging reference to EFA as an "outfit" is misleading. EFA is a non-profit national organisation formed in January 1994 and incorporated under South Australian law in May 1994 to protect and promote the civil liberties of users and operators of computer based communications systems. EFA members come from all parts of Australia and from diverse backgrounds.Senator Alston opines that our expressions are "quaint". These are no more quaint than those contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR was signed by the Australian Government in 1972, came into force in 1980 and reservations to Article 19, and to other articles, were retracted in 1984. The ICCPR forms Schedule 2 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. Article 19 of the ICCPR "quaintly" states: "2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."Our comments on this matter are contained in our submission to the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies' inquiry of April/May 1999.4. Senator Alston's statement that "they got themselves over to the recent Berterlsmann Conference and made a big noise there along the same lines" implies that there is something untoward about EFA's attendance at the Conference. This is not so.Mr Jens Waltermann, Deputy Head, Policy, Media Division of the Bertelsmann Foundation invited EFA's Chairperson to attend. In his letter he said, inter alia: "It is with great pleasure that we invite you to be our guest in Munich, Germany. Your participation would be an honour for the Bertelsmann Foundation."Furthermore, EFA Board members have previously been invited speakers and/or panel participants at national and international conferences such as: . OECD Seminar: International Co-operation Concerning Content and Conduct on the Internet, March 1998, Paris. INET 98 Conference: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in Developing Internet Policy, July 1998, Geneva. E-Commerce Enabling Australia Summit, April 1998, Canberra, on invitation from Senator Alston's office. Seventh International World Wide Web Conference, April 1998, Brisbane. IT&T Security Forum Seminar, October 1998, Canberra. EDUCAUSE in Australasia, 1998, Sydney. CFP 99 Conference, April 1999, Washington D.C.. IIR IT Security Conference, April 1999, Canberra. Internet World Australia `99 Conference, August 1999, Sydney. IIR Data Protection and Privacy Conference, August 1999, Sydney. AUUG Conference, September 1999, Melbourne iSEC Australia 99 Conference, September 1999, SydneyFurthermore, if "made a big noise" refers to speaking out on issues of concern, we prefer to call that civic duty. It is the purpose of our organisation, and the expectation of our members, that we do so.5. We reject Senator Alston's allegation that we have no interest in sensible and responsible regulation of the Internet. We believe the Government's approach to content regulation has neither of those qualities. Over the past six years EFA Board members have freely contributed a considerable amount of personal time and expert advice to inquiries concerning Internet regulation conducted by Senate Committees, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the Department of Communications and the Attorney-General's Department. Current Board members were invited to give testimony to Senate Committees at public hearings concerning regulation of the Internet in 1997, 1998 and 1999. EFA has consistently warned that Australian Internet censorship legislation will not protect children but will unfortunately give parents unfamiliar with the Internet a false sense of security as to their children's safety. We note that Senator Harradine acknowledges this is a matter of concern, although Senator Alston will not.6. Senator Alston's allegations as to our views on "mousetrapping" are based on either incorrect information given to him by his staff, or a misinformed guess, not on our statements. Senator Alston stated: ". . . mousetrapping is an issue. . . it is entirely appropriate to put pressure on host countries to clean up their own backyards. That is precisely what we are doing. We are not just saying that we hope that end users, parents, will block these sites. We think it is offensive, the community thinks it is offensive and the industry thinks it is offensive. Electronic frontiers do not".We have never condoned, nor would we condone, pagejacking or mousetrapping or any other means of forcing content on persons who do not wish to view it. Senator Alston's allegation that we do not object to such practices is utterly without foundation. Furthermore, the Senator's implication that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act is necessary to deal with such problems is demonstrably incorrect. It will not have the slightest effect in protecting children or adults from being caught in such traps. The USA FTC and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have dealt with the recent instance using existing laws. Evidently, no new laws are necessary to deal with such problems.7. Senator Alston's allegation that we were or are "feeding lines to that woman from the Civil Liberties Union" has no basis in fact. Presumably Professor Strossen reads Australian news reports and media releases, probably both Senator Alston's and EFA's, which are equally accessible around the world on the Internet.8. Senator Alston states that he does "not find industry opposing [the government's] approach" and that "[t]he industry itself accepts that there should be these codes of practice and this form of regulation. We have been trying to negotiate it for the last three years with the Internet Industry Association. Their problem is that there are these maniacs—these electronic frontiers outfits—running around stirring up trouble".We reject the allegation that we are the cause of any problem the Internet Industry Association (IIA) may have. If IIA has a problem, it apparently arises from IIA's attempts to develop a "self-regulatory" code that "the industry" supports as well as meets with the approval of the Government. Only 60 of Australia's 700 Internet Service Providers are currently members of the IIA according to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman as reported by Fairfax I.T. News on 5 October 1999.We also reject Senator Alston's allegation that we are not "responsible players". The persons Senator Alston quotes as not opposing the government's approach are generally persons outside Australia who will not be affected by the legislation. Silicon Valley stands to gain as Australians and their businesses move offshore. In addition, persons such as the USA CEO of Lotus are computer software developers, not obvious members of the "Internet industry". Moreover, APC Newswire reported on 7 October 1999 that Bryan Simmons, Lotus vice-president of worldwide corporate communications, said that comments by the CEO of Lotus "were meant only to communicate deference to the government's sphere of sovereignty, not support of any government's particular policies". Yahoo have previously denied supporting the legislation. With regard to Senator Alston's reference to a second press release by The National Australia Bank, Arnold Bloch Leibler and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu indicating that they are "happy with the current legislative framework", APC Newswire also reported that "A spokesperson for the group said the second press release had not expressed support for the legislation, but for the Internet Industry Association's (IIA) latest draft code of the Internet Industry Code of Practice". In fact no industry group supports the legislation except the IIA, and its endorsement is conditional upon its Code being accepted.9. Senator Alston states that "[s]eventy-four per cent of Australian respondents [to the Bertelsmann survey] said that the courts and legal authorities, politicians and other agencies all have a part to play in the appropriate supervision and selection of Internet content" and "That is why I find it fascinating that somehow there is this notion that the community is opposed to what we are doing. They certainly are not."Senator Alston's reference to seventy-four percent of Australian respondents is incorrect. As multiple responses were allowed to the question, the only accurate figures that can be taken from Table 13 of the report are each of the individual percentages. Nevertheless, Senator Alston or his staff have added some individual figures: 9 per cent believe that politicians have a role to play, 26 per cent—courts and legal authorities, 39 per cent—other agencies, to find a total of 74 per cent. However, 52 percent believe Internet users themselves are best able to control unwanted content. Adding the figures from different responses makes them meaningless; it wrongly implies that 220% per cent of Australian respondents have an opinion.10. Senator Alston goes on to say "where is this concern, apart from those maniacs I mentioned earlier?"As stated above, the Senator's allegations as to our mental stability are groundless. Senator Alston does not appear willing to listen to the widely expressed concerns. It is a well-known fact that the Senator's advertised email address has returned messages unopened to citizens attempting to make their concerns known. Senators and/or their staff from various political parties have advised constituents that they received an inordinate amount of email expressing concern, a considerable majority of the 100 submissions to the Senate Select Committee inquiry opposed the government's approach, a petition signed by 12,140 persons was tabled in the Senate on 30 June 1999, some 50 pages of comments expressing concern were received in response to a survey conducted by The Age, the list could go on. It is not that Senator Alston is unaware of the wide concern expressed. It is that Senator Alston chooses to disregard such concerns and exercise his Parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech in an irresponsible manner to mislabel persons expressing concern as "maniacs".In summary, Senator Alston's allegations as to our characters, views and intent are incorrect, unjustified and utterly without foundation. Despite his attempts to malign us, we intend to continue to make the "big noise" that Senator Alston obviously finds discomforting until such time as the government's approach becomes, in our opinion, reasonably and appropriately adapted to serve a legitimate end.We tender the above in good faith and request that our response be incorporated in the parliamentary record.Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris Llb, AACSChair, Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc.on behalf of the Board members and staff of Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc.16:14:0010209Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I would also like to speak to this motion. In doing so, I remind senators of the context in which this privileges report was provoked. Senator Alston, whose comments were the subject of this report, took great liberties with his facts and his use of other parties in the context of the debate as he presented the issues in this chamber. This report contains a comprehensive response from Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. provided by Mr Kimberley Heitman, the chair of that organisation.As those in this place can see, it is a lengthy response, because Senator Alston continually cast appalling aspersions on this organisation in his rather flimsy defence of the issue at hand. I would like to read the summary of the words in the response from Mr Kimberley Heitman of EFA. It reads:In summary, Senator Alston's allegations as to our characters, views and intent are incorrect, unjustified and utterly without foundation. Despite his attempts to malign us, we intend to continue to make the "big noise" that Senator Alston obviously finds discomforting until such time as the government's approach becomes, in our opinion, reasonably and appropriately adapted to serve a legitimate end.This report traverses a range of clauses which go to every allegation and aspersion that Senator Alston has cast on this organisation, which diligently sought to express a view of a large number of members of the Australian community in response to the government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999.As a honourable senators would know, this is an issue of ongoing public debate and the Electronic Frontiers Australia organisation will no doubt continue their diligent work in bringing the facts to the forefront of that public debate. They will do what is within their capability to defend themselves in the face of continual abuse by a minister who is obviously far more concerned with trying to drag people's names into this debate and diminishing the debate by personal attacks rather than sticking to the fundamental issues that are so worthy of a public airing and a comprehensive discussion, both in this arena and in the public area generally.I commend this report from the Senate Committee of Privileges. I ask that all senators take the time to read it so that the Electronic Frontiers Australia organisation are fairly represented in their response to Senator Alston's appalling treatment of them.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents102101021016:17:0010210Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber. In accordance with the usual practice, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The list read as follows—Australian Fisheries Management Authority—Report for 1998-99.Australian Greenhouse Office—Report for 1998-99.Australian Heritage Commission—Report for 1998-99.Australian Law Reform Commission—Report for 1998-99 (Report no. 88).Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)—Report for 1998-99.Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post)—Equal employment opportunity program—Report for 1998-99.Australian Security Intelligence Organization—Report for 1998-99.Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Report for 1998-99.Bureau of Meteorology—Report for 1998-99.Defence—Report for 1998-99.Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—Report for 1998-99.Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Reports for 1998-99— Volume 1—Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Volume 2—Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).Department of Health and Aged Care—Report for 1998-99, including a report on the administration and operation of the Therapeutic Goods Administration.Department of the Environment and Heritage—Report for 1998-99, including the report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region and reports on the operation of the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 and the Ozone Protection Act 1989 .Department of the Treasury—Report for 1998-99.Director of Public Prosecutions—Report for 1998-99.Essendon Airport Limited—Report for 1998-99.Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Horticultural Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99.International Air Services Commission—Report for 1998-99.Issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration as a final charge for the year ended 30 June 1999.Medibank Private—Report for 1998-99.National Road Transport Commission—Report for 1998-99.National Standards Commission—Report for 1998-99.Office of Film and Literature Classification—Classification Board and Classification Review Board—Reports for 1998-99.Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 1998-99.Social Security Appeals Tribunal—Report for 1998-99.Sydney Airports Corporation Limited—Report for 1998-99.War Crimes Act—Report for 1998-99 on the operation of the Act.Committees102111021110211The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)10000PON/A10—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Boswell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to and discharged from committees as follows—Community Affairs References Committee Substitute member: Senator Faulkner to replace Senator Gibbs for the committee's inquiry into proposals for changes to the welfare system.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee Substitute members: Senator Crane to replace Senator Ferris on 22 and 25 October 1999, Senator Coonan to replace Senator Ferris on 26 October 1999, and Senator Parer to replace Senator Ferris on 27 October 1999, for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Substitute member: Senator Tchen to replace Senator Ferris for 1 and 2 November 1999.Bills10211r92810211Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Boswell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1021116:19:0010211Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill amends the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. These changes move the primary legislative basis for the employment regime within the Australian Federal Police (AFP) from the AFP Act to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, consistent with the Government's policies for workplace and public sector reform.But it is not just a housekeeping change. This gives a springboard for a vastly more flexible, professional and dynamic organisation.This is the lynchpin for the most momentous change to the AFP since its very creation. The AFP must be a sharp and steely sword against the perpetrators of serious crime—particularly individuals and groups involved in drug trafficking, fraud, organised crime and money laundering.As the Commonwealth's primary operational law enforcement agency, with a key role in the prevention, detection and investigation of the most serious crimes, the AFP is at the centre of the Commonwealth's law enforcement effort.Australia's criminal environment, as with other areas of our society, is being affected by two interrelated factors—the globalisation and expansion of the world economy and advances in information technology and telecommunications.Sophisticated financial criminals are exploiting the increasing integration and complexity of the global economy and differences in national regulatory and enforcement regimes. Information and communications technologies are providing crime groups with extra-geographic reach, more flexibility and an increased capacity to avoid detection.These dangers are grave for our economic future itself. Our role as a major financial centre and player in the information economy must be underpinned by a law enforcement regime capable of countering these criminal threats. Law enforcement is not a secondary issue—a secure and prosperous society fundamentally relies on it.The dynamic and unpredictable nature of the modern criminal environment requires law enforcement to be highly skilled, adaptable and mobile.The Government has recognised the importance of positioning the AFP to tackle the criminal environment of the 21st century. The Government's AFP reform program, announced in July 1998, is providing an additional $115 million over three years to assist the organisation to increase its overall staffing levels, maximise its capabilities and concentrate resources on fighting crime.Under the reform program, significant progress has been made in both management and operational areas. The key to building further on the current strengths of the AFP is to create a more flexible and highly skilled workforce. Currently, highly prescriptive provisions under the AFP Act govern employment in the AFP. Accordingly, amendments to the act and Regulations are required if the reform program is to be completed.This bill amends the act to replace the statutory employment regime with a general employment power vested in the Commissioner.The bill abolishes the existing rank-based structure, facilitating a more flexible and responsive organisation able to accommodate the need to anticipate and respond to rapidly evolving law enforcement priorities.There is a need for the AFP to balance greater operational flexibility with the requirement to remain a disciplined force. The amended act expressly recognises command and discipline issues and distinguishes them from matters relating to employment. The character of the AFP as a disciplined organisation is emphasised in the Commissioner's power to issue binding orders. The obligation to obey lawful orders is now placed in the act. It was formerly in the Regulations. The Commissioner's power to deploy AFP employees and to assign duties is reinforced as an important element of command in a police organisation in relation to both domestic and international policing activities.The Australian community has a right to expect that the highest standards continue to be maintained by all AFP employees and that the organisation has strong anti-corruption measures in place. Accordingly, the bill provides for employees to submit financial declarations and cooperate with drug and alcohol testing.The bill builds on a range of initiatives introduced by the Commissioner across the AFP's management and operations and establishes a framework through which more flexible and efficient workplace arrangements can now be implemented. In this way, the bill complements, and further facilitates, the Government's AFP reform program. The reforms are consistent with the Government's wider workplace reforms and Government policies on workplace arrangements for its own employees.It demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to ensuring the Commonwealth has, in the AFP, a law enforcement agency which is second to none in the world in its fight against crime.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of the summer sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Miscellaneous1021216:20:0010212Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Ellison, I seek leave to table documents relating to the return to order moved by Senator Carr yesterday.Leave granted.Bills10212s23110212Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Jacinta Collins:That this bill be now read a second time.16:20:0010212McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of the government, I resume this debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 (No. 2) presented by Senator Jacinta Collins. The government rejects this bill. It relates to the some 30,000 reservists we have in this country. When this matter was being debated last Thursday, Senator Mason, from the govern ment side, said there has been a long link between the reservists and the regular forces going back to 1901—right back to Federation—when Australia had a military force comprised of militia and volunteers of some 27,000, which is not much different to the figures we have today.We had a permanent force then of only 1,500, so you can see the weights were very much on this particular type of training and force and that the reserves were critical to this country's defence way back in those times. The reserve forces comprised about 96 per cent of Australia's total force. Today they represent far less—about 30 per cent.I should note when taking figures and statistics from Senator Mason's speech that indeed his brother, David, was in the Army Reserve. Senator Mason also said that Senator Ludwig on the other side of the parliament also belonged to the reserves. This honourable profession takes in all sorts of people from all walks of life wishing to do their patriotic duty in our armed forces.Members of the Army Reserve generally spend between 20 and 40 days a year training with their units. However, there is a minimum obligation of 14 days per year for most of the reservists. These reservists need to be on individual alert and readiness at all times. The members must maintain a very high standard of individual readiness. They must demonstrate continued competency in their basic military skills. They must demonstrate continued competency in their trade, maintain high levels of physical fitness and maintain their medical and dental fitness with limited support from the Army health services. In a sense, while they are away from training they must maintain a readiness and alertness. They may be part-time soldiers, but they have full-time skills nevertheless.In her second reading speech, Senator Collins said that this bill aims to amend the legislation so as to give back to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission the power to include leave for reservists to participate in the activities necessary to be a member of the Australian Defence Force. In essence that is what the debate is about today. I have outlined the utter professionalism of our reserve forces and the close historical links we have always had with them. Senator Jacinta Collins is pushing—on behalf of the opposition, no doubt, because this was tabled in the other House by Mr Beazley—something different again. This matter is clouded in patriotism and heartfelt emotion for the reserves, but if you strip it all away, they are just pushing an ideological industrial relations line. Regrettably, the opposition is cloaking this in patriotism. It is the same old political and ideological push to increase the numbers of allowable matters above 20 in the awards. It is an attempt to undermine the government's industrial relations reforms which have been an unmitigated success in modernising the workplace and breaking down the grip the unions have over their own members.Mr Beazley in the other place linked this issue to the situation in East Timor when he said:Now it is critical. It is not going to be possible to sustain this deployment for any length of time without recourse to reserves. Reserves must now be recruited and given certainty in terms of their employment and their capacity whilst in their employment to be trained properly for circumstances of danger in which they may find themselves.To the extent that this statement is true, it in no way relates to the necessity as outlined by Senator Collins' bill to amend the industrial relations laws. The government is blatantly aware the importance the reserves play in the East Timor situation. We do not need the opposition to use it in regard to industrial relations laws. I would have thought it was a little more serious and important than that.In fact, we already have reservists serving in East Timor. Some 38 officers and 49 other ranks are in the Army alone. They are medical specialists, logistics personnel and they hold staff positions. In regard to Mr Beazley's comments that our reserves need to be properly trained for circumstances of danger—and you cannot disagree with that on the face of it—I do not think that the professionalism of our trained armed forces, either reserves or full-time, needs to be questioned in this way. Their performance in securing Dili and subsequently other parts of East Timor has been highly successful, professional and admired by all the contributing nations under Australian authority.Although there are unknown dangers ahead, we are secure in the thought that our Army—that is, the reserves and the full-time personnel—is prepared. Given that Australia's deployment in East Timor will continue for some time—and we truly do not know how long—there is no doubt that the armed forces will rely on our reservists in one capacity or another, as they are now. They will either support in East Timor or support at home. We are reacting accordingly to meet these new and unexpected demands which will inevitably lead to increases in the defence budget. The government's seriousness in regard to our future commitments to East Timor should not be doubted or used as a pawn in an industrial relations game.We will use the reservists who volunteer for full-time service where we need their skills to supplement regular personnel, or where they complement regulars. Reservists who volunteer to serve are paid a full-time military salary and, should they be deployed as part of the peace enforcement mission, they should receive the same tax-free salary and allowances as their regular counterparts. Where the government does not need to call out the Army Reserve to defend Australia, current laws allow reservists to be used on deployment overseas only if they volunteer for full-time service. Should they volunteer, then our preference is to negotiate with their civil employer to allow the reservist to serve. If in a given high priority case this fails, and an employer refuses to release an individual reservist who has volunteered to serve and whom Defence requires, then we would be able to invoke sections 8 and 9 of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 to prevent the employer from penalising or prejudicing their employee because of their service.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—It is inconsistent with earlier advice.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Whose advice?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—That is; earlier government advice that that wasn't available.GB6McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Collins, I can assure you that it is the backstop that we have. What is more, I would doubt that there would be any employer in this country who would prevent a reservist from volunteering or being called up to go to East Timor.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—They are already doing it.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—They are already doing it?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Yes.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—When you make your contribution to this debate—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! There is too much discussion across the chamber. Senator Collins, Senator McGauran is entitled to be heard in silence.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—In a sense, I know that it is against standing orders—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is not a sense; it is against standing orders.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—It is against standing orders. Nevertheless, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I point out that I have heard Senator Collins's interjections. When Senator Collins winds up the debate, she will be able to counter these arguments. She cannot say that something in the Defence Act is not in the Defence Act and it does not work.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—No, I'm asking you for the advice.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I say to you that this is the government's method. You may not like it, you may not accept it, but it has been proven to work.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Where?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Since, as Senator Mason quoted so well, 1901 when the reserves were in full force. It has not been written into the awards per se or into the industry relations aspects of every single award.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—No, it has not, Senator Collins. Rather, the government would prefer the cooperation of the employer, which they have received to date. If necessary, we can invoke the Defence Act.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Give us the legal advice that it works.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—The legal advice would show that that clause stands. These sections of the bill which re-establish the act have not yet had to be relied on.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Precisely.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—They hang there like a sword. You have to admit, Senator Collins—Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Collins laughs because it has not yet been enacted. The fact is that the law is there that it can been enacted.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I invite Senator Collins in her address to answer how many situations we have had of the East Timor nature where reserves have had to be called up to defend their country and supplement the regular force and where we would need to have to enforce this anyway. Firstly, there have been very few situations like this. Secondly, we have never had a situation where the reservists have been blocked from going because of their employment. Unless you can lay on the table hard evidence, no-one is going to accept your method other than to strip it away and reveal what it really is—an industrial relations pitch under the cloak of patriotism.You do not get much worse than that—using the East Timor situation and our well-trained reservists as a political football because you want to get at our Industrial Relations Act. Senator Collins, how did you get dragged into this? I would have thought that you would not have associated yourself with this. I know that industrial relations is indeed one of your specialities. You came in with a record from the trade union—one of the conservative trade unions; an old DLP union, I believe. She has managed to get preselection for the Labor Party with those poor credentials. You come in with a bit more balance than Senator Carr.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Is she a grouper?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—She is an old grouper.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much discussion and interjection across the chamber. A certain level is tolerable, but it is getting out of hand. Can I ask senators to observe the standing orders and give Senator McGauran a fair go.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I was trying to make the point that I would have thought that at least Senator Collins would have come in with a balanced view in regard to industrial relations matters, but it seems not.The act has not been relied on, as I have said. In most cases, if not all, employers have come to an amicable arrangement. It should not be too hard to imagine that an employer would support and encourage such an honourable pursuit. I cannot imagine an employer not doing so. We have evidence of that. There are prominent examples to show that the existing workplace relations regime that we have in place is working: Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—They are discriminating against their employees. Telstra is discriminating.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I can see your look, Mr Acting Deputy President, so I will not pick up that interjection. Telstra has a flexible reserve leave agreement with its employees.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Telstra is discriminating.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Mr Acting Deputy President, I need to pick up that interjection. Senator Collins says that Telstra are discriminating. They have a flexible reserve leave agreement with their employees.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Only to contract employees.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—With regard to enterprise agreements.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—It is outrageous.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Exactly, in regard to enterprise agreements, which you cannot stand. You want to change the whole Industrial Relations Act. That is the point of your motion to introduce this bill.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—You are wrong again.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—If I am wrong again, I will listen with great interest to your summing up. It is not just Telstra but the Commonwealth Bank, the Northern Territory government and Wesfarmers Dalgety that have a flexible reserve leave agreement with their employees. There are several merchant banks that have agreements. So it goes on. The biggest companies in Australia have agreements with their employees with regard to reserve leave. There is no hindrance, and nor should there be.I have not seen any evidence from the other side on this. I read Mr Beazley's contribution in the second reading debate on this matter. He spent half of it complimenting our troops in East Timor, which is worthy but hardly pertinent to this issue. He never mentioned that employers are discriminating against our reservists. Look at Labor's record in this regard in its 13 years in government. You had the chance to implement what you are saying we should implement now. When you were in government 152 out of 3,000 federal awards had written into them a reference to reservists. Of those awards, about 50 per cent were in the public sector. Under Labor, there was no comprehensive coverage of reservists and their leave entitlements.I would venture to say that of all the agreements—enterprise agreements or award agreements—there is greater reference now to reservists' leave than there was when Labor was in government. It is also a matter of consciousness too. Let's face it: we have the issue before us now. Employers are going to be far more conscious than they were. Foreign affairs and defence were off the political agenda up until recently. They were not the centre point of politics or even of employers' thinking—industrial relations was, tax reform was. Now it has come to centre stage, I think you will find that this issue will be taken up by employers. They will see the sense in writing reservists' leave into enterprise agreements.I think you are being unfair to the employers. Not only can you not show that they may be discriminating against reservists but, what is more, it is an issue that has just come to the fore and it does not need this sort of bill to push cooperation. We have evidence that the Queensland government and the New South Wales government—Labor governments—support this government's approach in regard to reservists' leave. They have sent messages to this government that they cooperate in regard to our approach, that there should be a cooperation between the reservists and the employers, that there should be encouragement, but not written into awards.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—They have not said that.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—They have said that.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Prove it. Rubbish!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—You are very isolated on this issue, Senator. I have read your second reading speech. I had to refer to Senator Beazley's speech to try to understand what you are actually trying to push here, whether you are serious at all about the matter. It keeps coming back to the same thing: it is just an ideological push to undermine the industrial relations laws. It has nothing to do with concern for the reservists and the raising of the East Timor issue is really cheapjack.As I said at the beginning of my speech, we on this side of the chamber respect the reservists and know we will be relying on them in the East Timor issue. We know that we have the backstop in relation to the Defence Act if we have to force employers to give the reservists leave, but we know we will not have to. There is a greater spirit in the community than Senator Collins would allow us to believe. Employers are not two-headed monsters. In fact, I think they would see it as an advantage to their employment. I have already listed the number of big companies that see it as an advantage and would encourage people to join the reservists. It adds to their workplace and to the nation as a whole. So we reject this bill before the Senate.16:40:0010216Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Not surprisingly, I too reject the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 completely. I think the speech that my colleague Senator McGauran gave was excellent. He highlighted many points that expose the bill as totally superfluous not just to the reservists but to Australians in general and to employers in particular. That is not to say that I do not believe that reservists should have some protection, but it does not do that as a prime objective.The bill tries to weaken the Workplace Relations Act that the other side detests so much. Speaking as a former national serviceman, someone who was conscripted between the Korean War and the Vietnam War, I must say on reflection—and on reflection soon after I was discharged—that I enjoyed very much indeed the camaraderie, the discipline and the feeling that I was making a contribution to my country. I stayed on the reserve list for some 25 years. I met many lifelong friends there, one of whom was the Hon. Ian McLachlan, former Minister for Defence. We are friends to this day, all these years on.There was no union interference. I do not remember ever getting a letter from the ACTU saying, `You should really join us for protection. We will protect you.' We were not there to be protected in any case; we were the protectors. We were going to protect the people of Australia. We did not need the interference of the ACTU. This is about trying to weaken the Workplace Relations Act to the detriment of Australia. I recall reading in history where unions went on strike and interfered during the Second World War in Darwin and other places and forced officers of the very highest rank to unload cargo so that those fighting ships could defend Australia. This is about the old numbers game—number crunching.When I was in national service in the 1950s, 60 per cent of the Australian work force was unionised. Today it is less than half. That speaks volumes for the failure of the union system. There are adequate laws in place to protect everyone in Australia. The trade union movement is a luxury that Australia cannot and does not need today. Above all it does not need the—Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Senator Collins needs it because she is here by dint of the trade union movement, as is everyone on that side. Everyone on that side becomes a satrap of the ACTU. That is what this is about.I know what the union movement is. I have been in a few unions over the years. I have never derived much out of it at all. In fact, it cost me. I do not know what I got out of it, on reflection. I could not even resign at one stage. It was like Alcoholics Anonymous—you can join, but you never know where to resign. As a consequence, my fees went on for years. At one stage I got a bill from the union movement that I could have built a large double story house for. I had to pay this bill because I did not know where to resign. I was, not surprisingly, in Actors Equity. I was in the Australian Workers Union. I was in the Plasterers Society, as was one of the esteemed members of the Whitlam cabinet who served here, Jim Cavanagh. So I have that background. But as to an ulterior motive of trying to cause problems with our union, I wrote back to the ACTU when I received a letter last week and said that I wanted nothing to do with, and I certainly was not going to cooperate in, bringing about changes. Our fighting boys and women are adequately protected.When Mr Beazley introduced this bill into the other place, he did so based on false premises. They were echoed in this place when Senator Jacinta Collins read in those same amendments to the Workplace Relations Act. She said, inter alia:Senators may recall that in the same fell swoop the government took away the commission's power to make awards on such extreme things—these were her words—as occupational health and safety matters, meal break facilities, amenities for people in lunch rooms and the fact that there should be first-aid kits provided in workplaces, or sexual harassment matters.This sounds like she is talking about some deal in the iron ore fields of Western Australia, some sort of ambit claim. But she is talking about our armed services, about our reservists. I do not suppose Senator Jacinta Collins has spent all that long in the armed services.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I grew up in them.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—You might have grown up in them, but growing up in the armed services and growing up in an armed services establishment is a different thing altogether.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—In the services.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—She should know, even if she grew up in them, that the armed services today and our men and women in those services are amongst the finest equipped people in the world. They do not need the ACTU to protect them or to supply decent meal breaks. They get decent meal breaks, for God's sake. They get decent first aid facilities in all areas. They are second to none in the world. It is no good trying to subvert our armed services with statements like that. It is no good trying to weaken them in the eyes of the public and causing their parents and others concern by saying they need first-aid kits in workplaces. What a stupid thing to say.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—What about sexual harassment?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—The armed services lead the world in anti-sexual harassment practices.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Nobody believes you on that one.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I thought Senator Lightfoot had the floor.10000Lightfoot, Sen PhillipThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Senator Collins, you have been persistently interjecting. You were not interjected on when you spoke.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Since the Workplace Relations Act has been implemented there is markedly less disputation. Also—and this gives the lie to these amendments—there have been real wage increases under that act. There are more people in employment. There is a record number of people in employment in Australia. Never before has Australia employed so many people. There is corres pondingly less unemployment, down considerably from the peak of the appalling Hawke and Keating years. Senator Collins talks about the government's obsession with industrial relations. She may only be reading the same speech the Hon. Kim Beazley read in the other place; I do not know. But let me give some facts about reservists and the government's approach to reserve leave and workplace relations. The document I have says:We are working with employers to ensure reservists' availability for training and service, and employers are willing to cooperate.Senator McGauran mentioned those major companies that are cooperating. Why would we need superfluous amendments like this when we have that level of cooperation from our major employers? To go on:They appreciate the government's constructive approach to let them manage their businesses while contributing to the defence effort.When I was in National Service, my job was guaranteed when I got out. My job was guaranteed when I had to go away on bivouacs or camps. These were compulsory, you must remember. These were not volunteers. Senator McGauran mentioned those volunteers who are in the danger zone, an active service zone, a volatile zone in any part of the world—East Timor.He mentioned Telstra. They have instituted flexible reserve leave arrangements and, following recent discussions, the Victoria Police are considering leave applications on a case by case basis, remembering the important role that they undertake in protecting the people of Victoria. It is not as if they could afford to lose something like 100 or 200 people, so it has to be on a case by case basis. Working with employers and reservists, we are making an effective reserve regime. I was in a reserve regime for 25 years and took it very seriously.In contrast, we have seen the Leader of the Opposition in the other place propose award based, compulsory paid reserve leave, along with other ill-considered amendments. Why would you want to be in a unionised regime if the system is working so well? You on the other side obviously have ulterior motives for doing it. Mr Beazley was asked:Can you understand why employers even more so then would be upset because they say, `Well, all right, I'm losing employee X for two weeks and I've got to replace that person and pay someone accordingly?'The Leader of the Opposition then said:Oh, yes. And that's why it's important that it be incorporated in an award.There seems to be some kind of madness about everyone having to be tied to an award. We are protected by minimum wage regimes. They are protected by the armed services itself with respect to awards.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—But not their jobs.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Their jobs are protected. As I just explained, many of our major employers do cooperate with the armed services. In other words, Mr Beazley—and I suppose Senator Jacinta Collins is the same—is quite open about the fact that his model of reserve service relies on simply forcing employers to comply with his rules. That is diametrically opposed to the highly successful reservist scheme that we have now.I do not understand the logic behind it. There must be something ulterior. There is something hidden here, and what is hidden is obviously not for the benefit of the people of Australia in defence terms. It is obviously not to the benefit of those young men and women who are serving and protecting us, fighting for us and helping us maintain our standard of living, which is envied throughout the world. It is not helping them. This is an attempt to get the numbers in the ACTU up. That is what it is about. It is number crunching in the armed services.I think you should leave them alone. I do not think that Senator Collins, Mr Beazley or anyone else in the union movement should tamper with our armed services. They are running very well. They are a well-greased machine. They do not need the likes of Senator Collins interfering with them and causing them concern, concerning the officers who run that marvellous organisation concern and causing the parents of those men and women who are serving in East Timor concern. Leave them alone.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: you have already called Senator Collins to order. She has interjected consistently. I know it is her bill. She is going to have a chance to speak on it or she has spoken on it; I do not care what she has done.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order, Senator Collins! There is a point of order being taken. Please, order!LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—She has interjected continually throughout Senator Lightfoot's speech. I ask you to call her to order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you. I uphold the point of order. I warn Senator Collins: there has been too much in the way of interjections. Please will you wait your turn to speak at the conclusion of the debate.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. With the award system under Labor, only 152 out of 3,000 federal awards referred to leave for reservists. Of those awards, about 50 per cent were in the public sector, with the rest being principally single industry awards. Once again, I am at a loss to explain why, after 13 years in power, it was not rectified then. Why do you want to do it now? Because you want the numbers now. That is all it is about. I think that is a pretty low way to go about treating our armed services people.In contrast, our workplace relations regime is working. This is voluntary cooperation. Some examples of the major companies that it is working with are: Telstra, which I think my colleague Senator McGauran mentioned; the Commonwealth Bank, the bank that lives here, the icon that you were never going to privatise but you did—you could not wait to get your hands on the money and your sticky fingers in the Commonwealth Bank till; the Northern Territory government; Wesfarmers Dalgety, a great institution in the great state of Western Australia, which has also agreed to voluntarily reimburse and re-employ without loss of seniority those people who choose to take the voluntary reserve path; and Serco Gardner Merchant.There seems to be confusion about whether or not you people want employers to pay their reservist employees while on defence training leave. Perhaps when Senator Collins answers, she could take that on board, because Mr Beazley confirmed he did not really understand the amendments that he was proposing. They cannot be very important or high up in the pecking order if Mr Beazley admitted he did not know what the amending bill was all about.I do not think those opposite have any interest in having an effective reserve for our defence force. I think the opposition's argument is outdated, ideologically driven, about numbers and about embellishing the failing ACTU. You failed your people in the trade union movement. The union movement lost people like me because the union became superfluous. You failed your people. If you proceed with this bill and if you, God forbid, augmented by others in this place, do get it passed, I tell you this: you will also fail those young men and women in our armed services. You will fail those reservists. This is not a bill that assists them; this is a bill that assists the trade union movement and has little or nothing to do with enhancing the employment prospects of those young men and women who so gallantly choose to serve us in the reserve system. They should be applauded and not tampered with, as you people in the trade union movement are attempting to do by amending the Workplace Relations Act.17:00:0010220Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Viewed in isolation, I think that the matter introduced today by Senator Collins in her private member's bill, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 , seeks to address a discrete issue. I think that has to be said.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Thank you, Senator. Some facts at last.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—It is whether leave for participation in service and training as a member of the Australian Defence Force reserves is an allowable matter which may be taken to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation or arbitration. As Senator Collins has been so gracious to me, I will return the compliment by saying that it actually appears after subsection 89A(2) of the draft, which reads:Insert additional allowable award matter: service and training in Australian Defence Force Reserves.Subsection (2A) then says:Leave for service and training as a member of the Australian Defence Force Reserves is an allowable matter for the purposes of subsection (1).That relates to it being able to be brought to the commission for conciliation and arbitration. But one would have to say that it has much wider ramifications, and the debate that has ranged widely over the last couple of weeks is worthy of wider discussion in this place.Not the least of those points is the timing for the introduction of the bill, which I think deserves attention. Without wishing to sound too cynical, it does seem that the Labor Party is at its opportunistic best in seeking to elevate this matter into one of high principle at this precise time, especially when our troops are on an overseas engagement and when sensibilities are aroused. The reason why I think we in the government, and indeed the Australian people, are entitled to draw an adverse inference against the Labor Party for raising this issue at this very sensitive time is that, during 13 years of Labor government, only some 152 out of 3,000 federal awards referred to leave for reservists and actually dealt with the topic. Of those 152 awards, 50 per cent were in the Public Service in any event. I do not think Labor could claim that it has comprehensively addressed this issue when it had the opportunity to do so and was in a position to be able to review the matter. If I get time later on, I will return to the fact that it actually received a report from the unions recommending that there should be a comprehensive review and did nothing about it.So it hardly behoves the Labor Party to now bring to this place a bill which seeks to address issues which they could have addressed had they chosen to do so. Had the Labor Party really wished to champion this cause because of a principled belief in its place in the award system, they could have done so, rather than to use it as a one-off, politically motivated effort. Surely in those circumstances they would have turned their minds to the issue when they could actually have constructively addressed it.The issue at the heart of the matter is the fundamental question whether Defence Force leave is already an allowable matter under section 89A(2)(g) of the Workplace Relations Act. I think we have to say that there might be some doubt about it. But, in the absence of a definitive ruling by the commission, the second question is whether there ought to be an amendment to the Workplace Relations Act to make Defence Force leave an allowable matter. The third question is whether the subject is already adequately dealt with in any event by a provision in the Defence Act and the Defence Re-establishment Act 1965 prohibiting employers from acting to the detriment of, and prejudicing reservists because of, their need for military service and need for leave.I will take these questions in reverse order. It is clear that legally enforceable protection does exist in the legislation to ensure that the employment of those undertaking military training leave is in fact protected—that is, in the Defence Re-establishment Act 1965. I note that there has been some unwarranted criticism of the fact that there have been no prosecutions under the legislation. That is supposed to indicate some weakness. I would have thought that, on the contrary, it points to the opposite conclusion—namely, that it is an effective legal sanction and that people in fact abide by it. I believe that most Australians, and that includes by definition Australian employers, recognise the invaluable contribution that reservists do make to our national defence effort and respect the arrangements that are necessary for related leave. It is a matter of pride, I think, that we can contribute to the national interest by encouraging the support of our reservists and allowing them to be properly trained.As speakers did last week, I wish to take the opportunity to restate, on behalf of all Australians, our support for our troops who continue Australia's proud and distinguished tradition of service overseas. I think it is indeed a shame that we are having anything like a political argument about some of the conditions of reservists. The next question is whether there is any need to have any different approach towards reservists and employees from that of the government's cooperative approach, and I have to say that Labor's attempt to turn back the clock to make defence leave an allowable matter is simply redundant. Not only is it redundant; it also fails to acknowledge the fundamental shift in the way that industrial relations operates now in this country and the way that employers and employees relate to each other.I am the first to acknowledge that it must indeed be very irksome for Labor to have to recognise, even if they do not acknowledge, that the new workplace relations regime—with a streamlined, pared down awards system and the emphasis on voluntary workplace agreements—is actually working, and working very well. Quite simply, the balance in the system has been restored to better reflect the incontrovertible fact that unions now represent only about a fifth of the work force in the private sector. It was a major initiative to pare back dozens of conditions to 20 allowable matters, and this government is not about to agree to additional allowable matters being snuck back in under whatever guise.By now it must be obvious, even to the opposition, that flexibility in negotiation actually allows employees and employers to come to arrangements that suit their particular circumstances, rather than to shoehorn them into a prescriptive straitjacket that suits no-one other than the unions. I know that might not be a fact that the opposition likes to hear, but the figures bear it out.The fact that the government's approach to reserve leave and awards is working can be seen in a number of factors and a number of actual positive outcomes. Telstra has instituted flexible reserve leave arrangements and, following recent discussions, the Victorian police have in fact agreed to look at a case-by-case basis for considering leave applica tions, taking account of Defence's need for particular reservists.Working with employers and reservists is in fact building an effective reserve regime. This is something that the government has done deliberately and constructively, and it is a record that the government is proud of. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition's proposals for award based, compulsory, paid reserve leave—along with other ad hoc amendments to the act—seek to just turn back the clock. The Leader of the Opposition was asked in a recent radio interview this question:Can you understand why employers, even more so then, would be upset because they say, `Well, all right, I'm losing employee X for two weeks and I have got to replace that person and pay someone accordingly?The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, said:Oh, yes, and that's why it is important that it be incorporated in an award. You take a thing like that out of awards and it is very unlikely that people are actually going to be supportive of it.In other words, Mr Beazley is quite open about the fact that his and Labor's preferred model of reserve service relies on simply forcing employers to comply with his rules.We know that, if you have to force people to comply, often that does not work at all. In fact, the cooperative and flexible approach that has been taken is working very well. Under a more cooperative approach, we have seen some very major organisations actually address this issue constructively. Organisations such as Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, the Northern Territory government, Wesfarmers Dalgety and Serco-Gardner Merchant are just some examples of employers with flexible reserve leave. Admittedly, some of these have negotiated arrangements on different conditions—they are not all identical—but each of these organisations has sought to comprehensively address the need to be able to allow reservists to have the training they need.In Mr Beazley's confused remarks about whether or not he wanted employers to pay their reservist employees while on defence training leave—in the self-same interview— Mr Beazley confirmed he did not really understand the amendments he was proposing: he did not know whether it was going to be paid leave or unpaid leave. He is not interested in an effective reserve as part of our Defence Force, which is extraordinary for a member of parliament who has professed for some years a great passion about the Defence Force. Not to have actually addressed this issue and had it clear in his own mind is quite extraordinary.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—He was the Minister for Defence.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—How it fades from memory, Senator Patterson. He is interested, of course, in bringing back nothing other than an outdated ideologically driven award system that certainly did not work then and it will not work now.As I said a little earlier, I have a note here that the ACTU wrote to the government in mid-October this year with a suggestion on reserve matters. It said that reservists called out for the defence of Australia should be allowed to have an allowable award to cover that issue. But, of course, the document was dated May 1995, so certainly the ACTU has not addressed the huge shift—the fundamental shift—in the way industrial relations actually now operate in this country, nor does this document even attempt to address the fact that the successes under the streamlined government system have to be taken into account in looking at any adjustment to the Workplace Relations Act.For the last year of the Labor government this policy suggestion that had come from the ACTU was in their possession, yet no action was taken. I think that really speaks volumes about the bona fides of this particular bill and it speaks volumes about the former Labor government given the fact that this was obviously brought to their attention and yet no action was taken. It simply confirms the suspicion that this current profession of concern for reservists is really nothing much more than crocodile tears.The fact that the government's approach is preferable and that it is working can also be seen in recent messages of support that have been received by none other than each of the premiers of Queensland and New South Wales regarding the reservists. We know that the current deployment to East Timor has seen many reservists volunteer for full-time service in the ADF, and that is the only way, if they did volunteer, that they would be sent. In many cases they have negotiated leave arrangements with their employer and that has been an arrangement that has been allowed. It illustrates the point very well. The messages from the Labor premiers reflect this government's cooperative approach towards reservists and employers, using encouragement and negotiation rather than the opposition's confrontational approach. As I said, a number of organisations are responding positively to requests for leave from their reserve employees to allow them to contribute a period of full-time service.An example is that reservists in the Department of Defence who wish to transfer to full-time services in connection with INTERFET may apply for leave under their industrial agreement. In some circumstances, leave granted for this purpose will be with pay for the first 14 calendar days of service and without pay for the remainder of the posting period. In other circumstances, leave will be granted without pay for the entire period of service. The leave without pay component will count as service for all purposes except annual leave. That is a pretty comprehensive arrangement that does address the need.Reservists on full-time service with the Defence Force will receive a military salary. Interestingly enough, in Queensland and New South Wales the governments have recently outlined leave provisions for reservists wishing to volunteer for full-time service in the Australian Defence Force. That does not sound to me as if Labor governments in Queensland and New South Wales are very supportive of the bill and the initiative that is presently before this house.A number of national and government departments at both state and federal level have expressed their support of employees wishing to join the Australian Defence Force, and around 90 reservists are already serving as part of INTERFET. It illustrates the point pretty clearly when state Labor governments encourage employees to come to these arrangements with their employers. They recognise that cooperative arrangements work, they send messages of support to the federal government for the approach that they are taking and they believe that it will build a competent, trained and cooperative reserve regime.Yet another reason to suspect that the need for this bill is absolutely otiose is the fact that military training can already be reinserted into public sector awards through arbitration, at least for the most part for payment at award rates. So we have to ask ourselves, and indeed speakers from the government are asking: what is the real agenda here? Why is the Labor Party seeking to do this now when they could have taken this initiative years ago to make it comprehensive throughout awards if it really occupied such a prominent place on their agenda? They simply did not. There was no comprehensive coverage. Today in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled `Undermining the unions' the author, Brad Norington, makes a very interesting point. He says:Unions, not surprisingly, have resisted the mandatory stripping back of awards amassed over many years and are still mounting legal challenges—and in the next paragraph—Begrudgingly, however, most admit that their members have not been hurt much by the award-stripping process because the central provisions on minimum pay, annual leave, sick leave, overtime and penalty rates remain untouched.This is a try-on; it is not necessary. I commend to the Senate the approach that the government has taken in a flexible arrangement that is actually meeting the need for our young men and women to get the leave they need to undertake their military training.17:20:0010223Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 (No. 2) which the opposition, through Senator Jacinta Collins, is seeking to put through the chamber. I am disappointed that this is the way in which the ALP is going about their first attempt at policy making. It is a patch of policy. We have not seen anything from the policy free zone opposite. I heard them say recently, `Oh, well, you didn't have your policies out.' I remember a number of times when I was in opposition that we had policies out and on the board for debate. But we do not see any from the other side except this little policy patch.I am disappointed also because, once again, we are seeing Labor's attempts at policy making founder. As Senator Coonan said, they are attempting to politicise an issue which is untimely and inappropriate in the current situation. I think it is also very cynical. Rather than trying to constructively fill the policy vacuum in their party platform, Senator Jacinta Collins's bill is an attempt to attack the reform of workplace relations via the backdoor of politicising Australia's peacekeeping commitment to East Timor.One can see how ridiculous this is. It is just plain crazy. Despite the apparent intention behind Senator Collins's bill, it is a plain old-fashioned attack on the initiatives undertaken by this government in promoting flexible workplace agreements. It is clear that the Labor Party—the dinosaurs on the other side—want to step back in time and go back to the Dark Ages of mass legislation and the coercion of employers rather than allowing employees and employers to come to flexible agreements on things like Defence Force service.Senator Coonan and a number of my colleagues have pointed out that in the bad old days of the Accord, the then industrial relations system—152 federal awards out of a total of 3,000, of which 50 per cent were in the Public Service—had some reference to reserve leave entitlements. That is approximately five per cent of all awards. The Labor Party come in here now and indicate what they want to do, when they had 13 years in government. If they were so concerned about the rights of reservists, especially with regard to pay, they would have done something about it in 13 years in government. Senator Coonan went over this in detail, but I think it is worth reiterating that five per cent of awards made reference to leave entitlements for reservists.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—How many employees?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Jacinta Collins has interjected on every speaker on this side. She asks: how many employees? It does not matter. It matters that one person on one of those awards wanted to engage in reservist activities and did not have it in their award. Don't care about the numbers; care about the individuals. That is what we care about on this side of the chamber. The opposition talk about numbers; we talk about individuals on awards who had no rights—the rights the opposition say they want to put in place now with regard to their activities as reservists.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Five per cent is not relevant unless you know how many employees.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Jacinta Collins keeps interjecting because that is all she can do. You shout louder in interjections if you do not like what is being said. We are telling it like it is—like their policy was. Only 152 federal awards out of 3,000 had some reference to reserve-leave entitlements. There were individuals on awards, maybe only a small number, who did not have leave entitlements. It is crocodile tears on the other side. It is all false: let's have a go at this now; let's make a political issue while our troops are overseas.I know what the two reservists on my staff think about this legislation. I know what they think about what Senator Collins is trying to do. I have two young men on my staff, both of whom are reservists, both of whom have a great commitment to Australia and both of whom think this is absolutely ridiculous. Those are the views of two young reservists on my staff. I do not know how many there are on the Labor side but I have at least two on my staff.Under Labor's compulsory complex system, there was no comprehensive coverage across the award system of young people—men and women—who wanted to participate in the reserve forces, so why should we go back to that system now? Labor want us to go back to a period of complex industrial relations which failed to promote job growth and which saw record levels of unemployment at 11 per cent. Small business after small business came to us saying, `We can only employ our families because, under the current industrial relations system, we cannot afford to employ other people. It is too costly, it is too difficult and we are not prepared to do it.' So they held back from creating jobs, except for family members basically, and they ran their small businesses on the smell of an oily rag because the industrial relations system under Labor was so unworkable for small business. Labor would have us go back to record business collapses, high inflation, low productivity and record high levels of industrial disputes.People on this side of the chamber, and those who have supported us, do not want to see those dark days again. This bill put forward by the Labor Party will put us back to those dark days. It is about introducing more allowable award matters and thereby reducing the flexibility and simplicity of the new system introduced by this government, which has seen unemployment fall to seven per cent.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—You should read the bill. It's just one!LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I do not think I have ever heard a senator interject so long and so often against so many senators in such a short time.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Except you!LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I interject from time to time. Senator Quirke was totally out of order because he was interjecting when he was not in his own seat.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Senator Quirke is not in his seat, but I understand he is leaving the chamber.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—That's disgusting.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—It is appalling behaviour; he ought to leave the chamber. Off he goes. He's gone! The other side is so interested in this they do not even have two members on their side. We ought to call a division now, and they would not have two people to call it. We could move that the bill not be supported and then we could move on, because Senator Collins would not have anybody to support the bill. They are so interested on the other side, so vitally interested in Senator Collins's bill, that she does not even have one other member to support her.Senator Quirke has just come back in to support her. He went out to get a newspaper. He heard what I said and has wandered back into the chamber. Senator Collins is so lucky to have Senator Quirke here to support her. That will make her feel so much better. Two members of the opposition care about this bill.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—None of them want to speak on it.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—None of them want to speak on it. We have not had a speaker from the other side. There is nobody over there to defend this bill and to speak on it. As I said earlier, this bill is really about is politicising Australia's commitment to the peacekeeping operations in East Timor.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—It's your filibuster!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Collins, you have been constantly interrupting speakers on this side.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—She begged for that one!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Collins, I ask you, please. You will have your opportunity to speak later in the debate.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—No, I won't. That's the point.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It may be some time later, but I ask you now to cease interjecting while Senator Patterson makes her contribution.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—And a marvellous contribution at that, Mr Acting Deputy President, despite the constant interjections from the other side.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—Sustained interjections.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Sustained interjections from the other side. This bill politicises Australia's commitment to the peacekeeping operations in East Timor, where some reservists have volunteered to serve. The ALP is seeking to get some mileage for its flip-flop policy on supporting Australia's efforts overseas, a policy which seeks to undermine this government's commitment to the peacekeeping operation there.Let us make it clear: those reservists who are serving in East Timor are protected by sections 8 and 9 of the (Defence Re-establishment) Act 1965, which protects any employer from prejudice against an employee who undertakes Defence Force service.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I do not think Senator Collins should be giving a running commentary on everything that speakers on this side say. I ask you to call her to order. I find it very distracting. I am trying to listen to what the speaker is saying on this side.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have asked Senator Collins if she could maintain some decorum. Senator Collins, I would ask you to be mindful that you will get the opportunity to contribute to this debate at some later stage.10000Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, this act, along with the Defence Act 1903, ensures the protection of Australia's workers by imposing fines under the criminal law against employers who seek to take action against them because of military service. This, coupled with a workplace relations system that allows employers and employees to negotiate flexible working arrangements, ensures that workplace agreements continue to meet the need for reservists to have Defence Force leave with the full support of their employers. I want to refer to a comment made by Minister Bruce Scott in the other place. He said:The Labor Party are saying that we should have made reserve leave part of the Australian workplace agreements. The fact of the matter is that there are now more reserve leave provisions in those agreements than there were in the awards. When I talk to the people out there in business, many of whom employ reservists, they say, `We would rather cooperate with the government and cooperate with the Defence Force than be coerced into employing someone and give them that leave through the award system. We would rather work cooperatively with the reservists rather than be coerced.' That system is working.We know that the Commonwealth Bank have it in their Australian workplace agreements. Telstra have it in their agreements. The Northern Territory administration have it in their agreements. Our system is working. I wish the opposition would get into the real world and see how it is working and get behind good public policy that not only supports small business but also supports the reservists who want to have leave as part of an agreement under the Australian workplace agreements.We in the coalition are about encouraging Australian businesses and organisations to support their employees' community service. We are about allowing businesses and employees the opportunity to create more productive, better paying and higher employment environments in which Australians can get jobs, keep their jobs and be better rewarded for their efforts. But what about the ALP? What are they doing to provide policies which will provide similar outcomes? Absolutely nothing. As I said, they are still in a policy vacuum. If this bill represents any idea of what their policies are going to be like, then I can only pity the `true believers', because their beliefs are absolutely misplaced.I know a number of my colleagues have referred to this interview with Mr Beazley on 6PR, but it has only recently been drawn to my attention. I could not believe it. Had this been a Leader of the Opposition when we were in opposition, that leader would have been vilified. It would have been repeated on every news broadcast and the leader would have been mocked. In an interview on 6PR on Monday, 11 October the interviewer was asking Mr Beazley about this bill, part of the Labor Party's policy. The interview went as follows:Interviewer—Would it work like this, that if you need, say, two weeks off, you get paid leave from your employer? Is that how it works?Mr Beazley—You'd get leave from your employer.Interviewer—You don't get paid leave? Mr Beazley—That would be paid by—the Army would give you pay while you're in there and so you've just got the right to leave there.Interviewer—OK. So it's unpaid leave, in other words?Mr Beazley—Yes.Interviewer—It's paid because the Army pays you.Mr Beazley—Yes, that's right.Interviewer—But from the employer's point of view you're saying to your employer, "I need two weeks' unpaid leave because I'm going on exercises"?Mr Beazley—Yes, that's right.Interviewer—Nonetheless, I suppose you'll have those in industry saying, well, it's all very well and good but I've got to get somebody else to replace that person while they're away and that's going to cost be dough.Mr Beazley—Yes, well, that's right. Sorry. Look, mate, I might have misled you there. It would be paid leave, in a sense, like your annual leave, that sort of thing.Interviewer—So it's paid leave?Mr Beazley—Paid leave, yes.Interviewer—But that's double-dipping, isn't it?Mr Beazley—Not particularly. They don't get paid huge amounts by the Defence Department.Interviewer—But they're still being paid by their employer, plus they're going to get money from the Defence Department.Mr Beazley—That is correct but that's what the case has always been.Interviewer—Well, I get back to the question then: Can you understand why employers even more so then would be upset because they say, "Well, all right, I'm losing employee X for two weeks and I've got to replace that person and pay someone accordingly"?Mr Beazley—Oh yes. And that's why it's important that it be incorporated in an award. You take a thing like that out of awards and it's very unlikely that people are actually going to be supportive of it.Interviewer—All right. Well, what chances do you—Mr Beazley—Oh sorry, mate, I've misinformed you again. It is unpaid.Interviewer—Oh, OK.Mr Beazley—I've got a bloke in here who's sort of waved his hands all over the place and said that that was paid, so in fact as I originally thought, it is unpaid. Interviewer—Right, OK. I think it would have been—Mr Beazley—I thought I must have made a mistake when I initially mentioned it to you—the arm waving—but I hadn't made a mistake, it was unpaid.Interviewer—Well, that's not so bad, because it would have been a case of double-dipping, but that's not the case so that's fine.If anybody knows whether Mr Beazley knew whether the leave was paid or unpaid after that, I will give them a prize.Senator Coonan interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—As Senator Coonan said, `He wasn't waving.' The adviser was waving, but Mr Beazley was drowning. What a performance from the Leader of the Opposition. He has been a Minister for Defence and he does not have a clue. He had a debate in his party room about a bill they are going to put through and he does not have a clue whether reservists are paid or unpaid by their employers. He does not know. He has to second-guess because someone is waving at him outside the interview room. I can remember when opposition leaders on our side of politics made a mistake and they were vilified. Here we have the Leader of the Opposition, who has been a Minister for Defence. That is the bit I cannot believe. No wonder the country went to the dogs when they were in power.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This matter is tedious repetition. It has been raised by every speaker from the government so far. It is tedious repetition of the press release from the minister for misrepresentations.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Collins, refer to people by their proper title.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I will withdraw that. Just to clarify the point, I should say Minister Reith.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, because I do not believe that Senator Patterson is repeating any statements that she has made earlier in her speech. It is her responsibility to make any speech she chooses to make.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I can understand why Senator Collins is sensitive. I would be sensitive too. If my leader had done an interview like this, I would be so embarrassed.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—Hugely embarrassed.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I would be hugely embarrassed. She has to try to explain what her leader was saying—when he had been a Minister for Defence. There might have been an excuse if he were a new shadow minister having just taken on the portfolio, but that performance was something like that of the muddle-headed wombat. That would have been okay on the ABC show that we all used to listen to when we were kids: you know—row, row, row; the Argonauts.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—A wave.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—A wave from the Argonauts—and the muddle-headed wombat has to get the story right. It deserves reiterating by every speaker on this side to just demonstrate how lacking in detail, how lacking in policy and how uncoordinated and undisciplined the other side is. If the Leader of the Opposition—a former defence minister—cannot get the policy story right for his own party's bill—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—He was right.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Collins, you will have a chance to debate the issue later.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—As I said before, Mr Acting Deputy President, when you start to put the pressure on, when you start to put the heat on, when you start to show that they do not know what they are talking about, all they can do is shout louder and interject more because they do not like what they hear. As I said, if the Leader of the Opposition cannot get the policy story right, how can we expect the ALP ever to get the whole policy story right? In returning to the bill before the chamber, let me look at its practical effect.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Good idea.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I wanted to talk about the Leader of the Opposition's absolutely appalling performance on 6PR. This bill will not result in any concrete gains for Australian workers. All it does is enable awards to provide for such matters. It will mean no material benefit for Australian workers. In no way will it dramatically increase the number of reservists available to the defence forces. In no way will it provide any further support to Australia's ability to maintain its commitment to the INTERFET forces and the people of East Timor.The reality is that employers have been supporting the defence reserves under the current workplace agreement arrangements, which provide flexible, workable and mutually agreeable arrangements for Australian business and employers. The simple fact is—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Recruitment has dropped significantly.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—The simple fact is that Labor, the unions and the ACTU have consistently opposed award simplification and the empowerment of workers to negotiate their own rewards. This was clearly shown by their own shadow minister for defence science and personnel, Mr Laurie Ferguson, on 11 May 1999 in the other place when he said:But far from protecting reservists, the government has abandoned them to the marketplace. The coalition's Workplace Relations Act—driven as it is by an antiworker ideology—these people must have come out of the ark—prevents reservists from obtaining defence leave as an award condition.Mind you, he does not actually say that only 152 awards out of 3,000 refer to reservists leave. (Time expired)17:42:0010228Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—The Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 proposes to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Its purpose is, purportedly, to ensure that leave for participation in service and training as a member of the Australian Defence Force reserves is one of the matters which may be taken to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation and arbitration. I said `purportedly' because the real purpose of this bill is of course quite different from what its subtitle describes. Let me say at the beginning that the Liberal Party has always acknowledged and cherished the contributions and sacrifices ordinary Australians have made and are continuing to make for the welfare of our nation by service in defence of it. Defence of the realm is a fundamental issue to this party and this government.It is a historic fact that when the Howard government came to office in 1996 it was presented with a gift of a $10 billion black hole in the budget, courtesy of the Labor government and its last Minister for Finance—none other than Mr Beazley, now the Leader of the Opposition and the proud sponsor of this bill. I draw the Senate's attention to this coincidence of Mr Beazley's participation. It is actually not a coincidence at all, because there is even more to it than that. Mr Beazley was in fact the Minister for Defence in a previous Labor government, when he presided over the decimation of Australia's defence capability on the basis that Australia was not under any foreseeable military threat. I understand `foreseeable' is a term referring to 50 years.The situation has changed. We can understand that Mr Beazley would now be desperate to be on record as a person who cares about the members of our defence forces. What better way to do it—a totally costless and totally irresponsible way—than to put forward a legislative proposal like this bill. He does not have to pay for anything. He does not even have to make sure it goes through. What we have here is a caring, want-to-be national leader. All he wants for the nation is to make sure that the jobs of reservists are protected. Who would not be moved by his concern? However, the right of a reservist is already protected by legislation—by sections 8 and 9 of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act of 1965. Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the fact that it is an act of 1965. Under this act, employers are prevented from penalising their employees because of their service in the armed forces reserves. Under this act, employers would be charged with a criminal offence if they attempted to do so.It is important to note that not only is this legal protection provided but also it is an historic fact that these sections of the act have never needed to be relied on before. In other words, Australian employers are much more compassionate about our nation's defence than the Labor Party is prepared to credit them with. Charity has never been a strong suit with the Labor Party, has it? It is more a case of `If you see a head, kick it as hard as you can.' But let us be charitable about it. Is the Labor Party merely being misguided in their enthusiasm to provide additional legislative protection? Not at all. This bill actually proposes to add an allowable matter to the awards. This is the real purpose of the bill: not concern over the welfare of the reservists but the addition of another matter to be considered in the awards.The real purpose of this bill is to perform another last-ditch act of sabotage against the government's workplace reform program—reform that is urgently needed to bring Australia into a position where it can face global competition in the 21st century. I might add that the need for this reform was recognised by the Labor Party, even though they will be hard pressed to admit it, because this reform process was commenced—albeit in a half-hearted and half-cocked manner—back in 1991 by the Labor government. What this government proposed in the 1996 Act, unlike the current bill before the parliament, takes that reform process to its logical conclusion.This reality is highlighted by Mr Beazley's obvious confusion about the actual status of a reservist's job. For Senator Collins's peace of mind, I will not repeat Mr Beazley's performance on Radio 6PR, in case she is moved to complain again. But the reality is that the issue brought up by this bill is not at all that of the welfare of the reservists.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would like Senator Tchen to read it again because I did not hear it the other 10 times. I would honestly like him to do it again, and I think he should feel free to do it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Senator Quirke, there is no point of order.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—With your permission, Mr Acting Deputy President, I think I do not need to indulge Senator Quirke. I suggest that Senator Quirke read today's Hansard in detail. At no stage has Senator Quirke asked about the description of Mr Beazley's going back and forth, saying, `I'm sorry. It will be paid. It won't be paid' and the people waving at him from outside the broadcasting booth.I would like to talk about something that is a little more serious. I do not want to take the Labor Party to task about how inadequately they are trying to represent the people of Australia, because I understand that the function of an opposition party is to make noise rather than to actually propose policy which the nation can follow. I want to come back to this question of workplace reform. It seems to me that the fundamental issue of the Workplace Relations Act 1996—I know Senator Collins is an expert in this area so I will not try to match her on the intricate details of it—is quite simple. Australia has an almost unique system of workplace relations. It is something that has been built up over the years and it has a history of which we can be proud—regardless of which party we come from.It has given workers good protection during periods of difficulties. However, employers and employees have relied for too long on a centralised system where third parties rather than workers themselves take the initiatives and make decisions about wages and working conditions. If you put into the formula that the employees and employers themselves do not form the first and second parties but each of them is actually represented by other parties, you have a system in which there are not just two players who work in partnership to carry out economic activities to their mutual benefit; you have three, four or five parties all working in their own private interest.As we go into the new century, this system is putting a burden on Australia's ability to compete in the world. One of the elements of the reforms put in place by the Workplace Relations Act 1996 is to define different levels of agreements which would guarantee workers' welfare and also productivity for employers in the workplace. The award system, which has formed the bedrock of guarantees for workers' conditions, has been redefined to its proper purpose as a safety net. The nature of a safety net is that it covers the basic requirements that guarantee workers' conditions.When the 1996 act was passed we had more than 3,200 federal awards in the Australian workplaces. Each of these awards applied to different conditions, different industries and had different complexities. The 1996 act provides for the award system to be simplified. According to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, under the act these 3,200 awards were reduced to about 2,000 awards by July 1999. Also, about 1,200 awards have been identified by the Industrial Relations Commission as being in the process of being simplified. So the process is well in hand. Within the next few years we should have a very good safety net in place which will enable employers and employees to embark on proper enterprise bargaining which will guarantee workers good conditions and employers good productivity.Although this process is developing natural momentum, we find the Labor Party trying to add items to the award process. As I pointed out earlier, this is quite unnecessary because protection for Defence Force reservists is already in place. There is no need to add to it. I would suggest that this is only a mischievous attempt by the Labor Party to, on the one hand, redirect attention from their inadequacy in the past and their inability to make proper provision for Australia's defence and, on the other hand, without drawing attention to it, slow down the process of reform to help their mates in the union movement who see all this reform process as something to be feared because it will either do them out of a job or require them to acquire new skills in representing workers and fighting for workers' needs. As I said at the beginning, what better way to achieve your end than by introducing some elements which have nothing to do with what the nation actually needs? In looking at this bill, let us look at the real purpose behind the proposal. I urge the Senate to reject it.17:58:0010230Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—In the couple of minutes available to me before the time for this debate expires, I want to say something about the private member's bill introduced by Senator Collins on behalf of the Labor opposition, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 (No. 2) . I really could not put it any better than the erudite way in which Senator Tchen has just said it—that this legislation is really a subterfuge. It is a disgraceful subterfuge to reinstall an industrial relations system that might have been all right in the 19th century but certainly had no place as the 20th century progressed and most definitely has no place in Australia as we enter the 21st century. The Labor Party through this legislation is making a disgraceful—Senator Tchen said mischievous; it is certainly mischievous but it is more than that—attempt to misuse Australia's support for East Timor to reestablish this outdated, passe awards system of wage regulation in Australia. And it will fail. (Time expired)Debate interrupted.Documents1023110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the general business order of the day having expired, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents. There are 61 government documents listed for consideration on today's Notice Paper and there is a limit of one hour for their consideration. To expedite the consideration of the documents, I propose, with the concurrence of honourable senators, to call the documents in groups of five. Documents called in each group to which no senator rises will be taken to be discharged from the Notice Paper . Documents not called on today will remain on the Notice Paper . There being no objection, it is so ordered.10231Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Bartlett:That the Senate take note of the document.18:01:0010231O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I wish to speak to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report. It is interesting to look at note 16 on page 187 of that report which sets out executive remuneration. I note that because the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has a great deal of responsibility in looking at the probity of the actions of Australian companies.I noticed that a report of the parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities was tabled by Senator Chapman this morning. His media release on that report says:The Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities has recommended that company annual reports must disclose directors' and executives' remunerations in all its forms, including the value of options granted, exercised and lapsed during the year and their aggregation in the total remuneration package.The table at note 16 of the ACCC report does not attend to their executive remuneration in the same way. Having said that, I am reminded of a contribution I made on 22 September with regard to Airservices Australia—an authority of this government—in which I asked questions of Minister Anderson in relation to a document that had been published which purported to set out the salaries of managers and other staff. I asked Mr Anderson for a copy of a report on the salaries and increments of those staff and that was refused.In the context of the statement by the committee and the media statement by its chair, Senator Chapman, today, it is hard to understand how Minister Anderson can refuse to reveal to the public details of the salaries of the executives of Airservices Australia. It is the case, as with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, that this statutory authority has as its effective shareholders the people of Australia. Senator Chapman said in this regard today:The committee has recommended that new disclosure requirements should apply to listed managed schemes to ensure that the same levels of accountability and transparency apply to these entities.He pointed out that many directors and executives were seeking to use the law as they did not feel compelled to comply with it and felt that the law could be contested. In the case that I mentioned, it is not a question of the law; it is a question of the discretion of the minister. The minister is using that discretion to decline to reveal to the Australian people the very information that the parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities has recommended be required of directors and executives of companies in the private sector.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission should follow the same standards. Much more detail on remuneration should be supplied than is set out in this table, which is merely a list of bands of salaries and the number of officers who lie within them. We were told in the Airservices case that the salaries ranged up to $329,000 for the Chief Executive. Parliamentary salaries have been in the news recently, but they do not go anywhere near the salary that Mr Pollard receives. The General Manager, Corporate and Employee Relations for Airservices is paid $256,214. I see in the ACCC document that no officer receives a salary of that level. I do think that whilst the ACCC document is, in my view, deficient in what it presents—and I am heartened by the statement of Senator Chapman—it is hard to understand why the minister cannot see that the Australian public have a direct interest in knowing what a statutory authority such as Airservices pays to individuals. If newspaper reports are correct, the salaries for those officers are greater than for those in the ACCC. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.10232The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 5 February to 31 March 1999 (First). Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Forshaw debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.National Health and Medical Research Council—Grants for 1999. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Forshaw debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Department of Family and Community Services—Evaluation of stakeholders' experience with the use of the tables for the assessment of work-related impairment for disability support pension—Final report. Motion of Senator West to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Forshaw debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council—Report for 1998-99, including a report for 1998-99 on operation of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Motion of Senator O'Brien to take note of document agreed to.Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust Fund—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed to.Australia New Zealand Food Authority—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Forshaw debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Repatriation Commission, Department of Veterans' Affairs and National Treatment Monitoring Committee—Reports for 1998-99, including reports pursuant to the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 and the War Graves Act 1980 . Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed to.Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed toOffice of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed to.National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed to.Grains Research and Development Corporation and Grains Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed to.Cotton Research and Development Corporation and Cotton Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed to.Sugar Research and Development Corporation and Sugar Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed to.Tobacco Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Denman to take note of document agreed to.Wool International—Report for 1998-99 (Final report). Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation—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.Commonwealth and Defence Ombudsman—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 . Motion of Senator Quirke to take note of document agreed to.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 of Senator Forshaw to take note of document agreed to.Australian Pork Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of document called on. 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 of Senator Forshaw to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Dried Fruits Research and Development Council—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of document agreed to.Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of document agreed to.Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of document agreed to.Pig Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of document agreed to.Australian Dairy Corporation—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of document agreed to.Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Ridgeway to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Forshaw debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Ridgeway to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Forshaw debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Veterans' Review Board—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Ridgeway to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Forshaw debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Employment Advocate—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Ludwig to take note of document agreed to.Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council—Reports for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Cooney to take note of document agreed to.Australian Federal Police—Report for 1998-99, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 . Motion of Senator Cooney to take note of document agreed to.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—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.Department of Family and Community Services—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.Centrelink—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.General business orders of the day nos 16, 19-28, 46-52, 54, 55 and 58-61 relating to government documents were called on but no motion was moved. Miscellaneous102341023418:12:0010234Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—by leave—During the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , the Minister for Family and Community Services said that she would provide at a later hour a statement of reasons setting out the government's concerns concerning amendment No. 6 moved by the opposition. I therefore table the statement on behalf of Senator Newman and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Statement of ReasonsHealth Legislation Amendment Bill (No.3) 1999While the Government supports amendment 6 moved by the Opposition, I table the following statement of reason to express a concern with this amendment.The amendment allows the Managing Director of the Health Insurance Commission to waive a debt owed to the Commonwealth where the Managing Director is of the opinion that incorrect or misleading information was given to a person by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth or a health fund.The Government emphasises that the decision of the Managing Director to waive such a debt is entirely discretionary.The Government notes that it is unusual that the Managing Director of the Commission should consider the waiver of a debt owed to the Commonwealth where incorrect or misleading information was given to a person by a health fund.In such situations the Commonwealth will have the ability to waive a debt owed to it by a person because of the apparent wrongdoing of a completely different party, namely a health fund.Ordinarily, if a person has been given incorrect or misleading information by a health fund, the appropriate course of action is for the person to take legal action against the fund. Committees1023410234The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—26th report—An Agreement to extend the period of operation of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap. Motion of Senator Cooney to take note of report agreed to.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee—Report—Jobs for the regions: Inquiry into regional employment and unemployment. Motion of Senator Mackay to take note of report called on. On the motion off Senator Forshaw debate was adjourned till the next day of sitting.Adjournment1023410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! It being 6.14 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.1023418:14:0010234Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—On Tuesday, Northern Territorians celebrated a most important and auspicious occasion in the Northern Territory's history. Tuesday, 19 October, marked the 25th anniversary of the election of the first fully elected parliament of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory of 25 years ago was still pictured by the vast majority of Australians as the frontier of our great country, a vast region with extremes of climate that was populated by wild and dangerous animals and by even wilder characters.It was viewed as pioneer country, and people who made this their home worked hard, gave a lot to the community and had a lifestyle that many in southern states could only dream of, or in some cases imagine in their worst nightmares. The Northern Territory is still a place for pioneers, but they are pioneers of a different ilk to those of 25 years ago, who were building a modern community and its necessary infrastructure in the face of much adversity.Over the past 25 years we have seen enormous and unparalleled growth in the Northern Territory. Let me outline some of the major achievements and issues as I have seen them over the course of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I was very privileged to have been an initial member of that assembly in 1974, so the 25th anniversary has a very personal and parochial significance for me.There has been an incredible growth in the tourist industry, from a somewhat unsophisticated beginning into something that now caters for all types of visitors in the most professional and friendly manner. The Northern Territory had 1.28 million visitors in 1998-99, with 434,000 of them being from overseas. This compares to only 113,000 for 1971-72, with 12,000 of them being from overseas. The Northern Territory government has facilitated this growth by expanding the number of Territory parks to over 90 and putting in place the infrastructure that is so necessary—such as the Yulara resort—to service the national parks in the Territory. The gas pipeline from the Mareenie field to Darwin is another major achievement that should be noted. This opens up many possibilities. It is pleasing to see the current plans for a major LNG plant in Darwin and the benefits this project will bring.In 25 years we have seen the mining industry expand from one worth just over $100 million a year to one worth $933 million in 1997-98. There have been several new major projects come on line and the expansion over the years of others such as the Nabalco operation at Nhulunbuy. Gold has proven over the years to be a major commodity in the Territory, with various mines expanding or operating. I think of places like Jabiru and the Macarthur River and recent developments relating to diamond mining.Closely related to the issue of mining is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1996 which was introduced by the Fraser government. It is my belief that this federal act has been both a boon and a curse to the Northern Territory. It has certainly focused attention on the plight and needs of Aboriginal people, but at the same time, due to the fact that it traverses traditional land administration, it has created an impediment to mining and land development. Complex land council administration has acted as a hindrance to the social development of many Aboriginal people, and the concentration on acquiring land at any cost has perversely left the vast majority of Aboriginal people living in remote communities still dependent on welfare support income mechanisms.It is interesting to note the parallel between the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act of 1978 and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1976. Both of them over this period that I am talking about have had an important impact on the Northern Territory. It is very significant to note the positive and the negative on both of those issues.Another issue which is of particular recent importance is defence. Over the years we have seen a substantial build-up of defence forces in the Territory. The RAAF base Tindal and the defence personnel and infrastructure located in the Darwin region are proving their worth to Australians and the greater international region. The federal government has continued the build-up of defence forces in the Territory and earlier this year upgraded the readiness of the 1st Brigade in Darwin. This foresight has showed its dividends in the response to the recent East Timor crisis.The Northern Territory government and the community have done much to welcome the defence personnel to the Territory. They have worked hard in conjunction with the forces to make any impact of defence personnel's presence a minimal and positive one for all involved. The Territory's response to the East Timor crisis, both at a government and business level, has shown the sophistication, planning and readiness of the Territory for tasks of this magnitude and the potential of the region as a service centre.In the south of the Territory a major defence installation that is often not talked about is the Pine Gap joint defence facility. This facility has seen a large expansion recently and is vital to our national defence interests and the economy of Alice Springs. The staff numbers in 1974 were 432: US, 226 and Australian, 206. In 1999 there are now 850 staff there, and half are Australians.The creation of a Northern Territory Public Service that escaped the paternalistic management style previously seen from Canberra is another important step in the Territory's development. The Northern Territory Public Service was consolidated by Chief Minister Marshall Perron, who was also instrumental in ensuring that Territory businesses received appropriate government assistance to develop, to expand and to seek new opportunities. Marshall Perron was also instrumental in an important aspect of the Territory's social development prior to his retirement, the Northern Territory's progressive euthanasia legislation. This Northern Territory legislation, unfortunately, was thwarted in this parliament in a manner that constitutionally could not have applied to any state. This issue will be seen as a watershed in the Territory's history and an important factor in the social development of the community.Since 1974 we have seen substantial change in the Northern Territory community. The population is ageing, with more people choosing to stay in the Territory to enjoy the lifestyle opportunities it offers in their retirement. We are seeing increasing numbers of second, third and even fourth generation families in the Territory, adding stability and character and giving much back to the community.On a personal note, it has been a privilege and an honour serving Territorians almost continuously in various political capacities since that fateful day in 1974 when I was first elected to public life. I have many fond memories of the time and some memories that, whilst they cannot be called fond, will always remain with me, in particular memories of Cyclone Tracy, which followed only a couple of months after the election of that first parliament. My first speech to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was made a week after Cyclone Tracy, and it is not hard to guess the topic of that speech—planning and relooking at the lives of many people.A fledgling parliament faced an enormous task in the reconstruction of the social and physical environment of Darwin. I am proud to have been a member of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission from 1975 to 1978 as a nominee of the Territory parliament and can only marvel at the Darwin I see now compared to then. The Territory is an exciting and vibrant place with many projects and developments coming on line or expanding. The people of the Territory have an air of optimism and expectation that is refreshing. This attitude is certainly a factor in the success of business and government in the Northern Territory, along with a willingness to have the foresight to recognise the potential in the region in so many diverse areas. This foresight has seen Territorians pioneering Australia's engagement with Asia, and Darwin becoming a highly sophisticated service centre that is pivotal in the area of regional focus.The Territory pioneers of today are those pioneering our engagement with the Asian region and those who are looking to expand their opportunities nationally and internationally. In the next 25 years, the Legislative Assembly will have much to look forward to. In the near future we will have further infrastructure to facilitate our engagement with the region such as the railway and the continued development of the port and, of course, an advancement into statehood. I predict that the Darwin of the future will be cosmopolitan—a new Singapore—and the social reform of the next 25 years will impact on the lives of all Territorians, particularly with a major health, educational and social improvement for Aboriginal Territorians.1023618:23:0010236Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise tonight to raise the concerns of the Internet Society of Australia specifically, and other industry groups generally, regarding the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999. Since the passage of this legislation in June 1999, the Internet Society of Australia has continued to analyse the impact of the act. Part of this analysis has been an identification of the definitions employed by the act, which demonstrates that the legislation is likely to impact on more organisations than even Senator Alston would have intended it to impact upon.According to legal opinion received from the Internet Society of Australia which was produced by lawyers Andrew Chalet and Lucas Testro of Phillips Fox, the act fails to provide a meaningful definition of `Internet content host', stating only that the term refers to a person who hosts or proposes to host Internet content in Australia. `Internet content' is defined to mean information available for access using an Internet carriage service but does not include email. The act does not state which activities are considered to constitute `hosting' of Internet content. The legal opinion goes on to say:However, the use of the term throughout the code suggests that the code drafters intended the term to refer to entities which provide facilities on which the Internet content of other people can be stored and centrally administered by the host.The reality of web site management these days is quite different from that anticipated by such a definition. These days, many hosts, which are usually ISPs, offer their customers a permanent `direct' connection to the Internet. Senator Alston's ambiguous definition of `Internet content host' in the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act means that these businesses, as well as those people who manage the content of their own web site, despite the wording of the proposed code, may be liable to be served with a take-down notice by the Australian Broadcasting Authority.This also raises the issue of what action can be taken by an ISP or host which provides direct Internet access for its clients if it is served with a take-down notice. In such a situation, a host could only ensure that a small amount of prohibited material is taken down by taking the drastic action of blocking access to the entire web site, preventing any of the customers' material from being accessible via the Internet.While Senator Alston's definition of Internet service provider, ISP, is more substantial than the definition of Internet content host, it is a definition which creates even more uncertainty, according to this advice gathered by the Internet Society of Australia. Under the act, and according to this legal opinion, the term `ISP' includes any person who supplies an Internet carriage service that is used for the carriage of information between two end users outside the immediate circle of the supplier, as defined within the Telecommunications Act 1997, where one person uses an Internet carriage service to view the Internet content of a second person, for example, by visiting a web site. Both of those people are considered to be end users of that carriage service. That is about two end users being defined as being outside the immediate circle. ISP would also include a person who supplies a service for the carriage of information simultaneously to more than one end user, at least one of whom is outside the immediate circle of the supplier.Close examination of this definition demonstrates that some highly surprising and inappropriate entities may, in fact, be considered ISPs under the Broadcasting Services (Online Services) Act definition. As a result, all persons who operate their own web servers, whether for business or personal purposes, appear to be included as ISPs under the act. This is because servers enable such people, through their web sites, to transmit communications simultaneously to thousands of end users. That is the nature of the Internet.However, even if a business does not own its own server, it may still be considered to provide services enabling end users to access the Internet. An example of this, provided by Phillips Fox, would be a business that enters into an agreement with an ISP under which it is provided with access to the Internet and which in turn permits other people to access the services provided by that ISP, arguably providing those people with a service enabling them to access the Internet.On that basis, even businesses which do not own their own servers may, in some circumstances, be considered ISPs under the definitions of this act. Consider, for example, a business which allows its employees to place information on its web site or even to use its computers to place information on Internet bulletin boards unrelated to the business. By doing so, the business is arguably providing employees with a service enabling them to access the Internet and to communicate simultaneously with many people. As it is possible, and practically inevitable, for at least one of those people to be outside the immediate circle of the business, that business is an ISP under the act and could therefore be liable to be served with an access prevention notice by the ABA.Companies providing independent contractors with access to the Internet also appear to be ISPs under the act, according to this legal advice provided to the Internet Society of Australia by Phillips Fox. There are numerous other entities which appear to fall within the act's definition of an ISP. These include specialists to whom businesses outsource management of their IT services, including Internet access arrangements; tertiary institutions which provide Internet access to visitors to the institution; in certain circumstances, trust companies created by partnerships to own the legal interest in the partnership's business infrastructure, such as Internet servers, or to enter Internet access arrangements with ISPs on behalf of the partnerships; and businesses which allow clients to access their intranets, provided a link exists from the businesses' intranet to the Internet, as is usually the case, and this link is available to clients accessing the intranet. In each of the examples mentioned, the entities would appear to fall within the act's definition of an ISP, even if their primary business does not involve the supply of Internet related services.This is the key point. Rather than the mere 650 ISPs referred to in Senator Alston's second reading speech on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999, the true impact of this somewhat ridiculous legislation has now become clear. In fact, figures produced by the Internet Society of Australia clearly demonstrate that in fact some 35,000 web servers could now be considered ISPs for all intents and purposes under the act, due to Senator Alston's failure to accurately and concisely define both Internet service provider and Internet content host. We all know that the explanatory memorandum which accompanied this particular bill, and indeed the minister's own second reading speech, clearly articulated that this bill's definition would be constrained to those 650 Internet service providers, but this legal opinion articulates the concerns that many in industry, in business and indeed in the Internet sector, if you like, have at the depth of the ambiguity that has now been identified. It does require immediate attention by Senator Alston to find some resolution to it.This is just another bad news story for the government in the ongoing saga of mismanagement in relation to their attempts to regulate the Internet. In fact, the government would be far better served by looking for some practical solution, which should include as its primary focus the education and the skilling up of end users of the Internet to resolve some of the community concerns that Minister Alston so often articulates in this place, as though that is justification for a piece of legislation that has had a very controversial history to date and continues down the path of hefty scrutiny by an industry that knows, as Senator Alston should, that its application cannot possibly achieve the outcome that the minister has claimed to the Australian community that it will.1023818:33:0010238Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I rise tonight to speak of the loss of a great Australian, the death of Aaron Ronald Castan, commonly known as Ron Castan, a Queen's Counsel of the highest order. Ron was a man of outstanding integrity who recognised that the Australian legal system was there to represent all, not just a few. He recognised the need for tolerance, but I think beyond that he also understood, in furthering the principles of compassion and decency, that there was a need for understanding in Australia's legal system. His profound understanding of the law enabled him to lead the historic Mabo case and to play an instrumental role in the establishment of the Racial Discrimination Act. Ron was one of Australia's most eminent lawyers who dedicated a significant part of his life to furthering the rights of Aboriginal people. He truly was a great advocate and a person respected by all people of all political persuasions. Much of that respect and my personal admiration were motivated by his exceptional intelligence, capacity and humility—traits that I think are rare from the point of view of being found in one person.Ron said that as a young man he was naive in his understanding of who Aborigines are and what had happened and continued to happen as he grew up. He often spoke of lectures given by Professor Bill Stanner, who spoke of the plight of the original Australians, describing that as the `cult of disremembering' and `the great Australian silence'. He said in late November last year, when reflecting upon what drove his life, that it was what he saw in the history of the Jewish nation, his people. But in wise words he also said:Nevertheless it troubles my conscience now that it took me until 1971 to really commence to see that the determination not to stand by and see the Jewish people downtrodden and persecuted was meaningless if I was standing by and seeing another oppressed people downtrodden and persecuted within my own country.Ron was a person who had an innate goodness, and his ability to bring understanding to complex legal issues was truly amazing in the legal and political life of this nation. I have no doubt that Ron had all the necessary qualities, and more, that would have made him a truly exceptional judge of the High Court of Australia.Looking at his life, I believe it covered everything that Australians stand for and are proud of. He worked with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders but he worked also with the now famous Eddie Mabo and many land councils across the country. He was not bound by any one particular group or any one political party; he worked for all. Ron did work tirelessly on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for nearly 30 years, and he ought to be remembered for that. He displayed fearless tenacity, co-chairing the federal government's national inquiry into racist violence during 1990 and 1991. He was an active member of the Jewish community, senior counsel to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and also involved with the National Indigenous Working Group during the Wik debate. Ron was also the founding honorary secretary of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service. He was a great man who fought for people and for the human rights of Australians. On this occasion I want to extend my deep condolences to Mrs Castan and their three children. This truly is a sorry time for all.Also on behalf of the Australian Democrats and indigenous people in this country, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, I want to extend the deepest sympathy of all to the family of Ron Castan, Queen's Counsel, who died in Victoria this morning. Mr Castan had dedicated a significant part of his life to furthering not only the legal rights of Aboriginal people but also human rights as part of national society. He did play an instrumental role in building up all of the things that are valuable to us and, in my final words, I would say that he is a man that is a great white warrior who fought for all people and fought for the rights of all. For indigenous people and for other Australian citizens it is a sad loss and a sorry time for all.1023918:38:0010239Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—A few months ago I was lucky enough to be invited back to speak to students at the university where I taught. I was, I admit, a little nervous as university campuses are not always full of a Liberal politician's most enthusiastic constituents. But I need not have worried: not only were they a polite lot—I must admit a lot more polite than I had been to Labor politicians back in the early days of the Hawke government—but they were also an earnest, attentive and responsive audience. This is not to say that most supported the coalition; I sincerely doubt that. But their reaction to my speech on that day points towards a changing set of values among young Australians.A particularly notable example of this change is in the area of most concern to them—tertiary education. I remember all too well the great turmoil in the mid-eighties when tertiary fees were first mooted. All of my lecturers were against them. Most, but not all, students opposed them. Tertiary education, it was argued, would be destroyed. The Whitlam view of an accessible tertiary system would be surrendered to the bean counters of the Treasury. University would become the preserve of the rich. Of course, this proved to be totally false.Tertiary fees assisted in allowing governments to expand the number of places available. Accessibility to tertiary education has boomed in the years since the advent of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. Much more importantly, in terms of the change in generational values, today's students believe that they should pay something towards the cost of their education. They realise that they are the primary beneficiaries of a university education and that their education is being subsidised by those unable to attend.But it goes much further than this. Generation X-ers are information technology wise, worldly, sophisticated and ambitious. They are triers who do not look for safety nets. They are lifters, not leaners. A good majority believe in the Howard government's work for the dole scheme. There is a strong belief in mutual obligation, a commitment to help those in need, reciprocated by an expectation that those in need will strive to help themselves.Strangely, not so long ago this belief would have seemed radical, yet now it is accepted as commonsense and obvious by the young. And among the students there was not even one socialist; they did not even know what the term meant. Some thought it had something to do with party-going. I assured them that socialists had not had much fun in recent times. Sir Arvi Parbo wrote recently, in addressing young Australians about this new and evolving consensus:No-one is entitled to handouts just because they happen to be an Australian.He said we should think `in terms of contributions' and `responsibilities' instead of `entitlements' and `rights'. Sir Arvi continued:I would tell young Australians that they face a future full of challenges which offers no soft options for them or for Australia. I would also tell them that that is not a reason for despondency but for eager acceptance, because it means that the future is in their own hands. History leaves no doubt that people who master and accept such challenges benefit greatly from them.Fortunately, the young are not afraid of change and, having spent their formative years during a period—let's face it—of great economic upheaval, they are not threatened by new policies. The essential ingredient lacking in the Australia in which they have grown up is the security that their parents took so much for granted.Their baby boomer parents, born between 1945 and about 1960, are perhaps the luckiest generation known to man. They arrived to a world of unprecedented prosperity and security created by their own parents, whose modest aspirations—born out of childhoods marred by poverty and war—sometimes seemed quite crass and materialistic to their indulged offspring. The world of suburbia, the shopping mall, a family car and brand new appliances might have seemed an unfulfilling spiritual desert to some baby boomers who took it all for granted, but for their parents financial security could never simply be assumed. Many baby boomers grew up with, and helped to entrench, the expectation that the world would provide for them, that there would be free lunches for everyone. The laws of economics and commonsense would no longer apply in the brave new world of the baby boomer future.Again, recalling that afternoon at a Brisbane university campus, I can still hear the fevered clamour of my former colleagues, the baby boomer academics. Weaned on great prosperity and security but beholden to transient, ephemeral and glib fashions, many baby boomers are now increasingly caught within a contradiction: some still seek to undermine and to ridicule the economic system that they will soon depend upon to provide for their needs as the first baby boomers now reach their retirement years.With utopian illusions now largely confined to the baby boomers, responsible and sensible progress is now resumed by their own children, generation X. While in many ways unique, generation X resembles most closely their grandparents, and the challenges facing them today are similar to those their grandparents had to confront more than 50 years ago. Their grandparents, growing up amidst the Great Depression—quite possibly the single most traumatic economic event in Western history—were soon confronted with the task of rebuilding the world after the calamity and destruction of the Second World War. In this monumental task they succeeded splendidly.Their grandchildren, generation X, are growing up at a time that Francis Fukuyama calls the `Great Disruption', a time of social and economic change brought about by globalisation and an information revolution that in many ways can only be compared in its intensity to the early days of the Industrial Revolution. This new generation now faces the task of building the world after the Cold War, a conflict less bloody and destructive than the Second World War yet similarly momentous and significant in its consequences. Having taught many generation Xers, I know they will meet this challenge. With values born of responsibility and determination, and possessing a quiet confidence in their ability to hold their own against all comers, Australia's emerging generation fills me with great confidence that this country is in very good hands.1024118:47:0010241Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Today I would like to talk about how a bank's mismanagement of its processes has ruined the life of a Brisbane couple. Everybody knows about the greed that leads banks to raise their fees and charges, close branches and make jobs redundant. But receiving less publicity is when a bank mistreats customers in normal day-to-day transactions. When banks raise fees, the community hurts as a whole. There is usually an uproar, but somehow we allow ourselves to rationalise the move, accepting that perhaps there are legitimate commercial reasons for it. This is, however, usually short lived as we become dismayed when we hear of billion dollar profits.As I mentioned earlier, although receiving less publicity, there are many instances when banks simply stuff up their procedures or deal with customers with total disregard for the customers' feelings or situation. Banks have a lot of control over other people's money, so when things go wrong in the banks' processes of managing people's accounts, it usually leads to a lot of stress and anxiety for the customer. What is worse is that customers usually have no recourse.The banks, big as they are and insensitive as they are, often reject any blame on their part when something goes wrong. In addition, despite the Howard government's claims, there is a pathetic level of competition in the banking industry. Banks are able to mistreat their customers. Customers cannot so easily walk away either because banks have put high hurdles on leaving. There is little competition and the banks know it. That is why they are so cavalier, callous even, in their treatment of customers.I would like to talk about the tragic story of Mr and Mrs Kurz. Mr Terry and Mrs Majella Kurz, customers of the National Australia Bank, experienced such heartless treatment. Their lives were turned into a nightmare because the bank was less than professional in its dealings with them. It all started simply enough: a straightforward loan with a couple of properties as security. But it would prove to be a Faustian deal—a deal with the devil—where your dreams can be brought to reality, but at a very high price. It was a potential cost that the Kurzes had no inkling of.In July 1995 the Kurzes consolidated their loans from various institutions at one bank—the NAB. The consolidated loan was worth about $135,000. The Kurzes were doing well enough in meeting repayments for the first year until their dry-cleaning business began to struggle. They had hit a bad patch. To help ease their financial difficulties, the Kurzes let their house. While some payments were being made, they fell behind in their obligations. By the second half of 1997 the bank had issued a notice of default, a demand notice and a notice of exercise of power of sale for one of the properties. The Kurzes claim, however, that they did not receive any of these. We may doubt this claim, but this is the beginning of a whole series of anomalies in the bank's procedures, which left the Kurzes confused, frustrated and distressed.The bank had come down hard on the Kurzes. The bank deemed the Kurzes as having failed to live up to the loan agreement. One of the securities to the loan, a block of land, was taken by the bank and sold off for about $33,000 in November 1997. The Kurzes, perhaps naively, believed that this had now saved them from their arrears. Indeed, more than that, they thought that perhaps they might even now be ahead of the required payments. It was difficult for them to be certain. Why? The bank had not provided them with any statement or documentation informing them of the current state of the loan—that is, whether or not they were still in arrears or were now ahead in the repayment schedule. The bank had ceased sending the Kurzes any statement of accounts.The Kurzes took the initiative to approach the bank. They also proposed a new payment arrangement which they believed they could afford and could bring them back on track. The Kurzes, represented by a financial services adviser, negotiated a new repayment schedule of $1,300 a month. The bank agreed. But it would seem that the bank and the Kurzes left the meeting with a different understanding of the arrangement. The Kurzes understood that a total of $1,300 per month would be paid, but the bank, it would seem, thought it would be $1,300 per month on top of the regular repayments.A contract reflecting the latter interpretation reached the Kurzes on 28 January 1998, two days before they were scheduled to make the first repayment of the new arrangement. The Kurzes did not immediately commit to or sign the contract because it did not reflect their view of the negotiations with the bank. Nevertheless, in good faith, they made repayments as instructed by the bank. They made repayments of $1,300 on 3 February 1998, 16 February 1998 and 17 February 1998 despite the misleading claim by the bank in its 13 October 1999 letter that `the next repayment due on 27 February 1998 had not been received by 3 March 1998'.It is on this bank's perception of events that they then pursued possession of the other security to the loan, the house being let by the Kurzes. The Kurzes at this time were still under the impression that the terms of the new arrangements were being sorted out or maybe even being corrected, as per their initial discussion with the bank. This was not the case, however. The bank sent an eviction notice to the tenant on 9 March 1998, without informing the Kurzes beforehand. The tenant had to move out in 14 days. The Kurzes now did not have a source of income, which came from the rent. This put the Kurzes under further extreme financial pressure.They were also now being denied access to make repayments into the relevant account, a situation which they apparently experienced before with the same bank and with the same account. The bank refused to take the deposits, with tellers citing some instructions about not having the authority to accept them. There was one occasion when the Kurzes did manage to deposit money into the account. The Kurzes, conscious of not being able to deposit for the last few months, made a repayment of a lump sum of $4,000 on 25 August 1998. This deposit repayment was accepted. Later attempts at repayments were not accepted.The Kurzes have proof that they endeavoured to make repayments on the loan and that the bank did not accept them. What was going on? The Kurzes had no idea and the bank was not forthcoming with an explanation. The tenant moved out, and the house was left unoccupied. The house sat empty for at least six months—abandoned, uncared for and losing value by the day. In its insensitive fashion, the bank rushed the tenant out the door but did not expedite the sale of the house, nor did it take the effort to initiate further discussions with the Kurzes to address the problem.I understand that the Kurzes did approach the bank, seeking means to rectify the problem. The bank was uncooperative. Indeed, attempts at some payments by the Kurzes were rejected. At this point, the strain and distress had their most significant impact on the Kurzes. Mr and Mrs Kurz separated. Their business closed down. Mrs Kurz was alone, with the exception of the company of her dogs.With no place to go, Mrs Kurz and her dogs moved back into the house in August 1998, without the bank's permission. A month later the bank sold off the house for $70,000. Mrs Kurz was forced out of the house by an officer of the court. Mrs Kurz had no place to stay, had nowhere to go, was without a husband and with little money. With little financial support, finding accommodation that would take two big dogs was extremely difficult. Without a choice, she had to send the dogs to the pound and the dogs were put to sleep.It is difficult to explain how special these dogs were to Mrs Kurz. The dogs helped her through the tragic death of her first husband. They were her faithful company. Now they were dead due to the greed and incompetence of the bank. There is much to comprehend with this sad story. Given the time left available, I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the speech in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Basic recapThere's much to comprehend with this sad story. Let's do a quick recap.In 1995 Mrs Kurz took out a loan of $135,000 from NAB.She and her husband experienced difficulty in repayments, but they endeavoured to meet their obligations.By 1999, Mrs Kurz had paid about $50,000, including $33,000 from the settlement of one of the securities to the loan. But she still owed more than $100,000.To quickly recoup this $100,000 the bank sold-off her home for $70,000.DiscrepanciesOne still might consider the story of Mrs Kurz as nothing out of the ordinary, and the bank was being, well, just like banks.No!This bank acted with malice. Its mistakes seem to have been done with intent to end the relationship and obtain everything she's got.I'll list what the bank did wrong.It gave Mrs Kurz the wrong information about the new repayment arrangement. Remember I mentioned that Mrs Kurz got the impression that she simply had to pay $1,300, as opposed to the bank's interpretation that it was $1,300 on top of regular payments to date.The bank demanded Mrs Kurz make repayments higher than normal but the bank took custody of her home and ended any income from rent. Howcould she continue to make payments. The bank had a strategy to confuse and frustrate. The bank was purely insensitive to the position of Mrs Kurz and made no endeavour to reach an amicable arrangement.There was huge discrepancy in money declared by the bank as being owed in both the writ issued, bank statement and in its notice of demand.The writ issued on 22/12/98 claimed that $131,398.48 was owed.The bank's initial notice of demand on 31/11/98 only reflected $101,469.This is inconsistent with the bank statement which at 30/11/98 had owing only $96,150.39.There's a lot more I can tell you but I will not have time here today.Banking OmbudsmanI have contacted the Banking Ombudsman and they promised to look into the issue. I described the event to the Banking Ombudsman's Office and they believe that issue is within their terms of reference.Senate adjourned at 6.55 p.m.Documents1024310243The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aged Care Act— Certification Amendment Principles 1999 (No. 1). Records Amendment Principles 1999 (No. 1). Residential Care Subsidy Amendment Principles 1999 (No. 2).Corporations Act—Accounting Standard— AASB 1018—Statement of Financial Performance. AASB 1034—Financial Report Presentation and Disclosures. AASB 1040—Statement of Financial Position.National Health Act— Declarations Nos PB 12 and PB 13 of 1999. Determination No. PB 14 of 1999.Product Ruling PR 1999/94-PR 1999/97.Taxation Determination TD 1999/44 and TD 1999/45.Taxation Ruling TR 1999/14.Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act—Digital Data Service Provider Declaration 1999 (No. 1).Answers to Questions on Notice10244The following answers to questions were circulated:10244(Question No. 572)57210244Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the Department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the Department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the Department from other sources.10244Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The total cost to the Department over the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department amounts to $434,115.12.(2) The total cost to the Department over the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice from other sources amounts to $13,114.00.10244(Question No. 1244)124410244O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 11 August 1999:(1) What level of funding was allocated for research into alternative energy sources in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financialyears and what level of funding has been allocated for the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) On what basis, and to whom, was the above funding allocated.(3) What evaluation processes have been in place to assess the effective allocation of the above research funding.(4) What level of funding has been allocated to assist in the commercial application of the above research in the above financial years.10244Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Department of Industry, Science and Resources (ISR) does not administer any programs which specifically provide funding for research into alternative energy sources. However, it does have several programs which provide assistance to firms or organisations that are undertaking research and development. These programs include the R&D Start Program and the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program, which are competitive programs, and the R&D Tax Concession.Each of these programs require applicants to identify which broad-based Australian Standard Research Classification (ASRC) their main research activity is in. This system does not identify alternative energy research as a separate category and that type of research could be classified to numerous categories of the ASRC.It is possible to identify a CRC under the CRC Program which has been established specifically to undertake research into alternative energy sources. The Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy has received funding since 1996-97 as detailed in the following table.Recipient96-9797-9898-9999-2000Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy$1,022,780$1,568,997$1,542,808$1,500,000The Energy Research and Development Corporation (ERDC) allocated $25,658,546 and $5,389,290 to research into 95 energy-related projects in 1995-1996 and 37 in 1996-1997.The Government decided in May 1997 to wind up the operation of the ERDC. The following table provides details of CSIRO's expenditure on R&D directed towards improving the generation and supply of renewable energy and R&D directed towards the conservation and efficient use of energy in industry, transport, commerce and households. The Federal Government has contributed around two-thirds of this expenditure. Area of R&D1995/961996/971997/981998/99Improving the generation and supply of renewable energy$110,000$250,000$2,800,000$2,300,000Conservation and efficient use of energy in industry, transport, commerce and households$4,270,000$2,720,000$3,660,000$2,700,000This expenditure data is from CSIRO's distribution of research effort by socio-economic objectives (SEOs). The SEO classification categorises research according to its purpose. Other CSIRO research projects (eg in the manufacturing, construction, power generation and mining fields) are also contributing to energy conservation and efficiency, reductions in energy consumption and improvements in energy storage but because these projects have different primary objectives/purposes, they are classified under other SEOs.CSIRO has used SEO data to allow standardised comparisons from year to year.(3) and (4) The performance of activities by CRCs under Commonwealth Agreements are evaluated by independent, expert review panels under evaluation criteria contained in the Program Guidelines at the end of the second and fifth year of Centre operation. The CRC Program was evaluated in 1995 and 1998.Funding is not specifically allocated to CRCs to assist in the commercial application of research.Funding is provided for a range of activities involving research and development, technology transfer, commercial application and education.The Government through the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) has also allocated funding for the commercialisation of renewable energy projects through the following programs:. the Renewable Energy Commercialisation Program (RECP) has allocated funding of $29.6 million over five years;. the Renewable Energy Showcase has allocated funding of $10 million; and. the Renewable Energy Equity Fund, administered by ISR on behalf of the AGO, has allocated funding of $20 million over ten years.Prior to the establishment of the RECP, ISR administered the Renewable Energy Industry Program (REIP) which provided funding for the commercialisation of renewable energy projects as follows:REIP1995/961996/971997/98Funding$717,500$210,000$2,180,000The ERDC's objective was to increase the efficiency of energy use and supply; to develop competitive Australian industries and to diversify energy supply options. Projects were designed to achieve outcomes which were or would be of practical use. ERDC's project design, selection and management processes emphasised outputs, commercial platforms, management, relevance and coherent effort.10245(Question No. 1352)135210245Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) (a) Is it correct, as reported in the Financial Times of 18 August 1999, that for-profit businesses will be given tax concessions to offset the cost of implementing the Goods and Services Tax (GST); and (b) what is the estimated value of these tax concessions in the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 financial years.(2) What equivalent funding is available to non-profit organisations to offset the cost of implementing the GST.(3) Will for-profit businesses be able to obtain direct assistance from the $500 million start-up fund; if so: (a) how much will be available for them, and (b) how much for non-profit enterprises. 10246Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million per annum will be allowed an immediate tax write-off to offset the cost of new plant and software purchased prior to 1 July 2000 for the purposes of implementing Goods and Services Tax (GST). The cost to revenue of this proposal has been estimated at $175 million in 2000-2001. There is no revenue effect in 1999-2000.(2) Allowances have been made for community sector organisations, including charities and non-taxable non profit organisations, to be funded for GST start up assistance. Assistance will be delivered in several forms, including Business Skills Education & Information, Adviser Education, Organisation Delivered Sectoral Assistance and Direct Assistance.(3) Direct Assistance will be provided to small and medium size enterprises, community sector organisations and the education sector. The total amount provided for direct assistance will be $320 million, and will be allocated on an equitable basis between the sectors.10246(Question No. 1366)136610246O'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) What was the level of funding appropriated for the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) in the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the actual level of funding expended through RAP in the above financial year.(3) (a) When was funding for RAP supplemented; and (b) what was the quantum of the supplementation in the above financial year.10246Alston, 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) $20.3 million.(2) $15.4 million.(3) (a) There was no supplementation of RAP funding in the 1997-98 financial year; (b) not applicable. 10246(Question No. 1367)136710246O'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) What was the level of funding appropriated for the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) What was the actual level of funding expended through RAP in the above financial year.(3) (a) When was funding for RAP supplemented; and (b) what was the quantum of the supplementation in the above financial year.10246Alston, 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) In 1998-99 financial year $46.4 million in program funds was appropriated and notionally allocated to cover the following elements- $33.3 million for Regional Initiatives;- $7 million for Area Consultative Committees;- $6.1 million for the Forest Industry Labour Adjustment Package.(2) A total of $19.979 million was expended on Regional Initiatives and $8.3 million on Area Consultative Committees in the 1998-99 financial year. (Note that this does not include committed but not yet expended Regional Initiative funds).(3) (a) RAP was not supplemented in 1998-99; (b) not applicable.10246(Question No. 1368)136810246O'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) In the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years: (a) how many proposals for funding through the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) were received; and (b) on what dates were they received.(2) In which federal electorate was each proposed project located.(3) (a) What was the nature of each proposal for assistance under the RAP; (b) how much funding was sought for each project; (c) which of the proposed projects were rejected by the department's state offices; and (d) which proposed projects were approved by the department's state offices.(4) What was the basis on which state offices rejected each failed application in the above financial years.(5) How many proposed projects referred to the department's national office by state offices in the above financial years were rejected.(6) In each case: (a) what was the basis for the rejection by the national office; and (b) who rejected each proposal.(7) What was the duration of each successful project.10247Alston, 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) and (b) I am advised by my department that the number and date of each proposal for funding received for 1997-98 and 1998-99 are not 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 would be comprehensive.(2) I am advised by my department that data on the federal electorates for each proposed project were not generally collected. 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 identified would be comprehensive.(3) (a) I am advised by my department that data on the nature of each proposal for assistance under the RAP are not available without an extensive manual search of the files in each State and district office across Australia. 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 it would be comprehensive.(b) As for (a).(c) As for (a) and (b).(d) A list provided by my department and based on historical data, of approved projects by State since 1997 is being separately supplied to the honourable senator (a copy of the list is also held in the Senate Table Office).(4) I am advised by my department that a Guide to Applicants for RAP projects was used by State offices in the assessment of applications for funding under RAP. In addition, other factors such as unemployment rates, population rates and the presence of disadvantaged groups was taken into account. 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) I am advised by my department that 189 proposals have been forwarded to national office since 14 April 1999. Of these 61 proposals have been rejected.(6) (a) As indicated in (4) above, a Guide to Applicants for RAP projects was used by State offices to assess proposals together with the other factors described. At the National Forum of Area Consultative Committee Chairs on 20 April 1999, Ministers advised Chairs that, in future, they wished to ensure RAP funding was directed to areas of Government priority. In a letter to all Chairs on 11 June 1999, the Secretary of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business advised that the Government's priorities were taken into account in assessing proposals forwarded to National Office. Specifically, the delegate took account of the key priority of achieving sustainable jobs growth as evidenced by a clear path to job outcomes and demonstrated commitment from other government, community or private sector bodies through the provision of complementary funding, especially in the case of expensive proposals. Some applications which were found not to be consistent with those priorities were returned to the proponent for re-working or for the provision of further information consistent with the identified priorities. The development of new guidelines for the program was foreshadowed in that letter.(b) The Group Manager of the Regional Delivery Group of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is the delegate under the Department's administrative arrangements.(7) The approved duration of each approved project for the financial years 1997- 98 and 1998-99 is contained in the list of projects provided for Question (3) (d) above.10247(Question No. 1369)136910247O'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 through the Regional Assistance Program were considered for the months of August, November, February and May in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(2) How many applications were rejected at a state level on each of the above occasions.(3) How many applications were rejected at a national level on each of the above occasions.10248Alston, 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) The quarterly approval process to which the question refers did not commence until 1 July 1999.(2) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.10248(Question No. 1407)140710248Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:With reference to the effect of the goods and services tax (GST) on the internal operations of the Minister's portfolio (that is, not relating to the services provided to the public), and in relation to each of the agencies within the portfolio:(1) What preparations have been undertaken to date in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(2) (a) What has been the total cost of those actions already undertaken; and(b) how much of these costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(3) Was the cost of undertaking this work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation, if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(4) What future preparations are planned or expected to be required in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(5) (a) What is the total cost of the actions planned, or the estimated cost of expected actions; and (b) how much of these costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(6) Was the estimated cost of undertaking this future work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose,(7) Is there expected to be any change in the ongoing running costs of the department/agency after the commencement of the GST; if so, what is the extent of the difference in costs.(8) Are there any other GST-associated costs which the portfolio agencies will incur prior to the commencement of the GST; if so, what are those costs.10248Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts(1) The Department has developed a GST implementation strategy. The strategy commenced with a survey of the Department to identify transactions and business issues and gauge the impact of the GST. Discussions with the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Finance and Administration and similar agencies have also identified issues and processes which need to be addressed.The strategy has three main strands:. an interim transitional strategy in the lead up to the introduction of the GST;. the development of business processes and systems to achieve full compliance; and. consultation with and guidance and assistance to agencies to achieve full compliance.(2) (a) The total cost to date is $18,087.(b)(i) Consultancies—Nil; (ii) Staff training—Nil; (iii) Computer software—Nil; (iv) Extra staff—$17,847; (v) Stationery—Nil; (vi) Publications—$960.(3) No additional funding was allocated in the 1999/2000 budget for GST implementation. Existing funding is being used.(4) The broad timetable for achievement of compliance is:. Business systems analysis, planning and design + October to December 1999;. Systems configuration and implementation + January to March 2000; and. Compliance testing and adjusting + April to May 2000.(5) Costs cannot be accurately assessed until the GST regulations and changes to financial systems are finalised. The major costs will be salaries (estimated at $201,066 for the year 1999-2000). Other costs will be financial system software and minor consultancies.(6) No additional funds were provided. Funds were found by minor adjustments to internal allocations. (7) The impact of the GST cannot be accurately assessed until the complete framework, including the regulations, is completed and effects of price changes have been calculated. However, information currently available suggests that the effect on running costs will not be significant.(8) Refer to individual agency responses below.Australian Broadcasting AuthorityFinance staff have undertaken/are undertaking training, a timetable for implementation has been drawn up, and changes required for computer systems are currently being addressed.(2) (a) Total cost to date is $2,555.(b)(i) Nil; (ii) $2,305; (iii) Nil; (iv) Nil; (v) Nil; (vi) $250 (GST manual).(3) No it was not included in the 1999-00 budget appropriation. The agency is using existing funds.(4). Identification of which ABA goods and services need to have GST applied.. Register for GST.. Set up computer systems to calculate & record GST.. Set up systems for payments to ATO.. Further training for line staff.. Information sessions to be held for all staff.(5) (a) Estimated costs are $11,250.(b)(i) $5,000; (ii) $4,000; (iii) $2,000; (iv) Nil; (v) Nil; (vi) $250 (GST Manual).(6) No it was not included in the 1999-00 budget appropriation. Existing funds are being used.(7) Uncertain at this stage. Any changes are expected to be absorbed within existing funding levels.(8) No other costs have been identified at this stage.Australia Council(1) Preliminary planning commenced in April 1999 by setting up a staff working party.(2) Costs at this stage are minimal and not easily separable.(3)No. None.(4) A consultant will be appointed to advise staff late this year.(5) (a) Total cost of action planned approx. $25K(b) (i) Consultancies—$15K (approx.); (ii) Staff training—$5K (approx.); (iii) Computer software—unknown at this stage; (iv) Extra staff—Nil; (v) Stationery—$2K (approx.); (vi) Other—Nil. (6) No. This cost is expected to be met from existing Council funds.(7) Not clear at this stage. Will be assessed later in this financial year(8) Not clear at this stage. All expenses for internal purposes are expected to be met through existing Council fundsActon Peninsula Project Taskforce(1) Staff from the Task Force have attended Departmental seminars on the GST and are examining in detail the implications of the GST for the Task Force's transactions, particularly in relation to the administration of the construction of the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.(2) All activities by the Task Force in relation to GST are carried out as a very small part of the general duties of the staff at no additional cost.(3) No. See answer to question 2.(4) Staff of the Task Force, as part of their general duties, will continue to examine the GST and its effects as tax rulings are issued and will develop procedures in response to the tax.(5) It is expected that future activities will be carried out as a very small part of the normal duties of the staff involved at no additional cost.(6) No. See answer to question 5.(7) At this stage, we are not aware of any likely changes to the running costs of the TaskForce.(8) We are not aware of any other GST-associated costs which the Task Force will incurprior to the commencement of the GST.Australian Film, Television and Radio School(1) Planning and training scheduling.(2) (a) $7,000.(b) Consultancies—$5,000; Staff training—$2,000; Software—Nil; Other—Nil.(3) No(4) Systems review, staff training and software upgrades(5) Consultancies—$10,000; Staff training—$15,000; Software—$75,000; Extra staff—$15,000.(6) No(7) Yes, $20,000(8) NoNational Archives of Australia(1) Finance staff have attended relevant courses on the GST which were provided by ATO and accounting bodies. The Executive has developed a work plan on GST implementation for consideration.(2) (a) $500 + to attend two GST courses for four staff; one course was free which was provided by ATO.(b) All costs stated in question (2)(a) are for staff training only. Costs involved in stationery are minimal.(3) The cost of undertaking this work was not included in the Archives' 1999-2000 budget appropriation. It was funded from the staff training budget.(4) A work plan has been developed. It includes provision for:staff trainingreviews of all contractsreview of the Archives' FMIS for GST complianceexamination of cashflow implicationsan analysis of reporting requirements under the GST(5) (a) The estimated cost is about $30,000.(b) The estimated cost can be identified as:. consultancies on the FMIS—$16,000. staff external training courses—$5,000. travel for in-house training—$9,000(6) The cost of undertaking this future work was not included in the Archives' 1999-2000 budget appropriation. Funding will be sourced from the administrative budget.(7) No. After the commencement of the GST, the consequence should be financially neutral to the Archives.(8) No.National Museum of Australia(1) Preliminary discussions and research have been undertaken between the National Museum of Australia and internal auditors Pricewaterhouse Coopers on the impact of the GST on the Museum's operations. An action plan and timetable is currently being developed to ensure compliance by 1 July 2000. A coordinated approach between the Portfolio and the Museum is being developed to ensure compliance in an effective and efficient manner.(2) (a) (b) To date minimal staff costs have been incurred in relation to GST compliance. All work undertaken to date has been of a preliminary nature and carried out in relation to other projects not separately accounted for. However GST compliance costs are not expected to be material and will be considered by the Museum's GST Project Team.(3) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999-2000 Budget for GST implementation; existing running cost funds are being used for this purpose.(4) The Museum together with internal auditors have set a draft action plan and timetable to ensure compliance by 1 July 2000. The action plan has four stages:. Assessment—impact on operations. Analysis, Planning & Design. Implementation—solutions. Audit and review(5) At this early stage an estimate of the total cost of the action planned is not available and is being considered by the Museum's GST Project Team. However these costs are not expected to be material.(6) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999-2000 Budget for GST implementation; existing running cost funds are being used for this purpose.(7) Apart from savings arising from the abolition of the wholesales sales tax, there is not expected to be any major changes to running costs.(8) The Museum is not aware of any other GST-associated costs that will be incurred for GST compliance that have not been identified in Question (5).National Gallery of Australia(1) Proposals have been sought from independent experts to lead and direct the identification, development and implementation of appropriate strategies to enable compliance with the GST.(2) (a) Nil cost to date.(b) Not applicable.(3) No additional funds were allocated to the Gallery in the 1999-2000 budget for GST implementation. The Gallery is using existing operational funds for this purpose.(4) The Gallery will be fully scoping the tasks required in the next 2 months which will inform on the required preparations for 1 July 2000.(5) The costs of preparing for GST for internal operations are expected to be small relative to the total cost of preparing for GST and are not easily separable.(6) see 3.(7) The Gallery is uncertain of the impact until further investigations are completed.(8) No other costs are identifiable at his time.National Library of Australia(1) The Library has developed a GST Compliance Plan. The plan has five phases:To identify the GST issues facing the Library.To identify the business changes required. Implementation of the required changes.Evaluation and finalisation of systems testing.A post implementation compliance review.The plan was approved by the Director-General 14 September 1999 and implementation of the plan is due to commence in late September 1999 with the post implementation evaluation to be completed by October 2000.(2) (a)The preparation of the compliance plan has been done internally and has taken two days, including pre-training of staff. Implementation of the Library's compliance plan is not due to commence until later this month and as consequence there has been minimal expenditure on preparing for the introduction of the GST. The cost to 15 September 1999 on external suppliers is $1,000. (b) To date there has been no expenditure on consultancies, however it is planned that the Library's Internal Auditors will be used to provide specialist advice and undertake reviews of Library systems and procedures in accordance with the Library's GST Compliance Plan. The value of this consultancy has not been quantified at this time. Training of staff by external providers has cost $375 in 99/00 and $270 in 98/99. The training of other Library staff is to be undertaken by the Library's Finance staff. There has been no expenditure on computer software as a consequence of the introduction of the GST. It is not envisaged that there will be expenditure of this nature other than ensure that interfaces between systems are GST compliant. The Library's major systems are GST compliant. There has not been any expenditure on additional staff as a result of the introduction of the GST, nor is any planned. There has been no expenditure on new stationery and expenditure on new stationery should be minimised as the Library's accounting system uses electronic stationery. The purchase of a GST Guide $355.(3) No. The funding to date has been drawn from the general operating budgets for Corporate Support.(4) The implementation of the Library's GST compliance plan as outlined in Question 1.(5) The likely costs to the Library will not be known until the phases 1 and 2 of the Library's GST Compliance Plan have been completed.(6) No. Please refer to the answer to Question 6. Funding as required will be drawn from the general operating budgets for Corporate Support.(7) No. It is expected that the Library will be in a net credit position with respect to the GST and where services are provided at a fee, the pricing will be adjusted to reflect the GST. In summary it is not expected that the GST will adversely affect the Library's funding position.(8) At this time none have been identified. Please note that answers to questions relate to both the cost of internal operations and to services to the public. It is not possible to separate these costs.National Science and Technology Centre(1) Questacon currently determining its approach to assessing impact and implementing changes. Considerations have been given to pricing policies from 1 July 2000 for Centre admissions. Other program charges yet to be considered. Reviewable clause for any contracts entered into by the Centre is being incorporated into contracts spanning 1 July 2000.(2) Costs nil at this stage, apart from internal staff time.(3) No additional funds were allocated in the 99/2000 budget from the department. GST costs are not expected to be major and will be funded from our base funding.(4) Questacon expect to require outside expert assistance to ensure all aspects of GST are addressed. There may be scope to join with other cultural institutions in the portfolio to achieve this. A full project plan will be developed to ensure all elements of the business are assessed for GST implications and subsequent changes required to the Centres systems and processes. No significant modifications are expected to our IT systems to incorporate GST reporting.(5) To be assessed as part of the planning process mentioned in 4 above.(6) Refer answer to Q 3.(7) Yet to be fully assessed. However given the nature of our business, no significant savings are expected.(8) N/A.Australian National Maritime Museum(1) The ANMM is investigating the implications it will need to adopt to comply with the new arrangements.(2) Nil.(3) No additional funding has been provided for such activity in the ANMM's 1999/2000 appropriation. Any cost incurred will be found from running costs although the impact is not expected to be significant in 1999/2000.(4) The Museum is undertaking consultations with other portfolio agencies with similar profiles and DCITA and DOFA to determine the most cost efficient means of effecting GST arrangements.(5) The ANMM estimates the full cost of introducing these arrangements will be in the order of $5,000 to $10,000 in 1999/2000, however we are unable to attribute these costs more accurately at this juncture. (6) No(7) No(8) Not known at this stage.Film Australia(1) Company representatives have been liaising with DCITA, DOFA and ATO representatives and attending external seminars on the introduction of the GST. Appropriate action is being taken to ensure compliance by 1 July 2000.(2) Costs of action already undertaken have been minimal (estimated costs less than $500).(3) The company does not receive an appropriation and all costs will be absorbed in operating expenditure.(4) Future preparations will include minor upgrades to software, the introduction of procedures to cover reporting requirements and staff training.(5) The estimated costs of expected actions are less than $20 000 (for computer software and consultancies).(6) The company does not receive an appropriation and all costs will be absorbed in operating expenditure.(7) There is not expected to be any major change to the running costs of the company.(8) The company may incur other GST-associated costs in two major areas:(a) legal costs for re-drafting contracts used in the company's business; and(b) provision of training and advice to the Australian independent documentary production sector and low budget production industry.Artbank(1) Consulted software provider, attended GST conferences, documented GST applicable transactions. Have started including GST on invoices for rental contracts.(2) Cost Thus Far, Consultancy—$2000; Training—$2000; Other ie Travel/Staff Time—$2000.(3) No. Training & Computer Development Budgets.(4) Implement new version of software in February 2000 which has changes due to GST.(5) Total expected cost; Consultancy—$10000; Training—$10000; Software—$5000; Other ie Time—$10000.(6) No. Training & Computer Development.(7) Minimal once GST implemented.(8) Possible downturn in Rental Income due to 10% increase in price to clients.Australian Film Commission(1) Familiarisation with relevant legislation and ATO rulings; on-going consultation with DOCITA officers, ATO and similar agencies; begun to identify transactions with GST implications; determined finance system capable of accommodating GST; identify potential transitional transactions and modify standard contractual terms to address these; and sought advice on contentious issue from ATO and consultant.(2) Nil except for staff time.(3) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999/2000 budget for GST implementation, existing funds are being used for GST implementation.(4) Modify finance system to accommodate GST; staff training; continue consultations with ATO, consultant, DOCITA and similar agencies to ensure contentious issues are addressed and agency capable of meeting target dates for GST implementation.(5) Unknown at this stage.(6) No additional funds were allocated in the 1999/2000 budget for GST implementation, existing funds are being used for GST implementation.(7) Unknown at this stage.(8) Unknown at this stage.Australian Communications Authority(1)(i) The ACA Executive has been briefed by KPMG on the GST Legislation.(ii) Key ACA Finance staff have attended GST training.(iii) Key ACA internal stakeholders have held preliminary discussions regarding approach and resources to GST implementation.(iv) Requirements definition is being drafted for the engagement of consultants to undertake a GST scoping study which will deliver a full analysis of the impact of GST on the ACA inputs and outputs.(v) A comprehensive up to date system accounting specification is being prepared to assist identification of change requirements to satisfy GST obligations.(vi) Some preliminary analysis of system capabilities and supplier/contractor registers has been undertaken.(vii) Standard contract terms and conditions have been modified to incorporate allowance for GST if applicable.(viii) A statement of the ACA's billing of applicable GST has been included on Radiocommunications renewal notices.(2) (a) Total cost has been minimal to date and is $10,000. (b) (i) Consultancies—$8,000; (ii) Staff training—$2,000; (iii) Computer software—nil; (iv) Extra staff—nil; (v) Stationery—nil; (vi) Other—nil.(3) No funding for GST implementation is specifically provided in the ACA's Budget Appropriation. At this stage costs are being absorbed within the ACA budget.(4) Systems modifications, staff training, stationary redesign and administrative procedures will be required once the preliminary scoping study and system specifications are finalised.(5) It is too early for the ACA to estimate the total cost associated with the implementation of GST. Once the scoping study is completed and a Treasurer's determination on applicability of GST to ACA Fees and Charges is made, the ACA will be able to make an informed estimate of the cost of implementation.(6)No funding for GST implementation is specifically provided in the ACA's Budget Appropriation. At this stage costs are being absorbed within the ACA budget.(7) No changes in the on-going running costs of the ACA are expected.(8) No.ScreenSound Australia(1) ScreenSound Australia is currently preparing a GST implementation plan and reviewing all current contracts to check any possible GST impact. Finance staff have attended training and training is being planned for all other staff with purchasing responsibilities.(2) (a) Total cost to date and is $2,800.(b) (i) Consultancies—nil; (ii) Staff training—$2,800; (iii) Computer software—nil; (iv) Extra staff—nil; (v) Stationery—nil; (vi) Other—nil.(3) No additional funds were sought for this expenditure, it was absorbed in ScreenSound Australia's output price.(4) Staff training, adjusting accounting procedures and stationery, modifying accounting and point of sale systems.(5) (a) Total cost is estimated at—$19,200.(b) (i) Consultancies—$8,000; (ii) Staff training—$11,200; (iii) Computer software—nil; (iv) Extra staff—nil; (v) Stationery—nil; (vi) Other—nil.(6) No additional funds were sought for this expenditure, it will be absorbed in ScreenSound Australia's output price.(7) Nil(8) NilNote: The costs quoted above are the total costs of implementing GST. The costs of preparing for GST for internal operations is relatively small compared to the total cost of preparing for GST and are not easily separable.10253(Question No. 1486)148610253Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made initial stage decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since 3 March 1996.(2) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made internal review decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since 3 March 1996.10253Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a)-(c)Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA)Specific formal qualifications or experience are not a requirement for Freedom of Information decision making. All staff are provided with on-the-job training and, as far as possible, given access to internal and external Freedom of Information decision making courses. Officers have access to the Department's Freedom of Information Handbook, which gives comprehensive guidance on all aspects of decision making. Officers may also contact the Ombudsman, Privacy and Freedom of Information Section in Central Office for advice on decision making at any time.Since 3 March 1996 some 390 officers have made initial decisions. These officers are generally at the APS 3-6 level (depending on the operational needs of the office). A significant number of them no longer work in the Department or no longer work in the Freedom of Information area. It is therefore not practicable to provide specific information about the qualifications, experience and classification of each of these officers. Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT)This information is not readily available. Each FOI delegate in the RRT is required to undertake a course conducted by the Australian Government Solicitor, for example, "Introduction to FOI".Immigration Review Tribunal (IRT) until 1 June 1999Information concerning the Immigration Review Tribunal is not readily available.Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) after 1 June 1999Requests for access to documents received by the Migration Review Tribunal in Sydney and Canberra have been decided by Executive Level 1 and Executive Level 2 officers. These officers have attended FOI training provided by the Australian Government Solicitor. Those requests received in the Melbourne Registry of the MRT have been transferred to the Parliamentary and Public Access Unit of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Melbourne for processing. Comments on the experience and qualifications of these DIMA officers are made above.(2) (a)-(c)Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA)This information is not readily available for the same reasons provided in response to part (1) of this question.As a general rule, an internal review is conducted by a more senior officer than the officer who made the initial decision. Usually, the officer conducting the internal review is selected on the basis of being the manager of the initial decision-maker.Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT)This information is not readily available. Each FOI delegate in the RRT is required to undertake a course conducted by the Australian Government Solicitor, for example, "Introduction to FOI". Only officers at Executive Level 1 and above have the authorisations to conduct internal reviews.Immigration Review Tribunal (IRT) until 1 June 1999Information concerning the Immigration Review Tribunal is not readily available.Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) after 1 June 1999Requests for review of access decisions received by the Migration Review Tribunal in Sydney and Canberra have been decided by Executive Level 1 and Executive Level 2 officers. These officers have attended FOI training provided by the Australian Government Solicitor. Those requests received in the Melbourne Registry of the MRT have been transferred to the Parliamentary and Public Access Unit of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Melbourne for processing. Comments on the experience and qualifications of these DIMA officers are made above.10254(Question No. 1506)150610254Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) How many internal staff development courses has the department, or any agency in the portfolio, conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of the internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(4) (a) How many internal staff development courses conducted by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(5) What is the total cost of courses in (4)10254Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 1,702.(2) $914,555.(3) 13,182.(4) (a) 11, (b) (i) nil, and (ii) 11.(5) $11,251.Australian War Memorial(1) 51.(2) $210,296.(3) 256.(4) (a) nil, (b) (i) nil, and (ii) nil.(5) nil.10254(Question No. 1524)152410254Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) How many departmental officers have attended external staff development courses since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the total cost of the external staff development courses attended by the officers of the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) How many external staff development courses attended by departmental or agency staff since 3 March 1996, have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(4) Of the courses relevant to (3), which agencies or consultants provided that training.(5) What is the total cost of courses in (3).10255Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Since 3 March 1996, DVA staff members have attended external courses on 14,884 occasions.(2) $2,794,244.(3) (a) nil, (b) (i) nil, and (ii) nil.(4) nil.(5) nil.Australian War Memorial(1) 255.(2) $370,050.(3) (a) nil, (b) (i) nil, and (ii) nil.(4) nil.(5) nil.10255(Question No. 1555)155510255Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 September 1999:(1) What is the Government's position on the conflict in Western Sahara.(2) Will the Government send independent observers to monitor the United Nations (UN) referendum on self-determination in Western Sahara, to be held in July 2000.(3) Will the Government assist the UN in its efforts to organise the referendum.(4) Has the Government contacted the independence movement in Western Sahara, the Polisario (Frente Popular para la Liberacion de Saguiet el hamra y Rio de oro); if not, will the Government do so. (5) Has Morocco been criticised by human rights organisations for human rights abuses in the occupied areas of Western Sahara.(6) Will the Minister make representations to the Moroccan Government about this subject.10255Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question:(1) Australia supports the holding of the United Nations referendum, in July 2000, for self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. Building a framework for an acceptable solution remains the responsibility of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) which is charged with organising and conducting the referendum on the future of the disputed territory.(2) In this type of case the UN may formally request member states to provide independent observers. To date the Government has not received any such request from the UN in respect of the planned referendum in Western Sahara. In keeping with its long interest in seeing a just and lasting resolution of the status of Western Sahara, as evidenced by Australia's participation in MINURSO, the Government would be prepared to consider a request from the UN to provide observers to help monitor the referendum. In considering any such request the Government would need to balance its interest in assisting the referendum process in Western Sahara with the demands of other foreign policy priorities.(3) The Government has already provided substantial assistance to UN efforts to resolve the situation in Western Sahara and organise a referendum there. From 1991 to 1994 Australia provided a contingent of 45 signallers to MINURSO. Australia's withdrawal from MINURSO in 1994 in no way indicated any diminution of Australian support for the UN operation there, but rather the emergence of higher priority demands on Australia's limited resources in this field.(4) On the matter of recognition of Polisario, Australia recognises states, not governments, and accordingly there is no basis for formal recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) proclaimed in Algeria in February 1976. Australia considers the Polisario Front to be representative of an important body of West Saharan opinion, but does not regard it as the sole representative. Dealings occur with Polisario on an informal basis in New York, and Australian parliamentarians and officials meet with Polisario Front representatives informally. Since many Polisario representatives also hold SADR positions, Australian Ministers do not formally receive them, because to do so might be presented as Australian acceptance of the SADR as the government of Western Sahara. (5) Amnesty International produced Reports on the Western Sahara dated June and August 1999. These reports, while registering the organisation's continuing concerns over the human rights situation, in particular on torture and ill-treatment in detention, freedom of expression, association and movement, acknowledge that there have been improvements in recent years, including in the release of hundreds of "disappeared" and also of prisoners of conscience.(6) The Government continues to monitor the human rights situation in the Western Sahara as part of its commitment to the promotion and pro-tection of human rights internationally. Over the last few years, individual cases of alleged human rights abuses in the Western Sahara have been brought to the Government's attention through a longstanding arrangement whereby Amnesty International "Urgent Action" cases are considered and, where appropriate, pursued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on behalf of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group. The Australian Embassy in Paris, which has responsibility for Morocco, has made representations to the Moroccan authorities and will continue to do where appropriate.