1999-11-233914SENATE1038501999-11-23The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice103851038510385Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer the minister to the fifth conference of the parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change recently held in Bonn. Can the minister confirm that some 60 countries at COP-5 committed to a timetable of ratification to allow the protocol to come into effect by 2002, and that these countries cover some 80 per cent of the emissions needed for the protocol to come into force? Can the minister further confirm that the Kyoto Protocol could come into force without ratification by the United States? I ask the minister: why then is Australia waiting for the US to ratify—a delay which could result in Australia's exclusion from the new global markets worth not billions of dollars but some trillions of dollars?10385Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I said when coming down to question time, `I bet Senator Bolkus asks me a question today on the environment.' When you go for 150 days without asking a question of your opponents in this place and that then becomes public knowledge, obviously you have got to take some remedial action. Anyway, I welcome environment questions from Senator Bolkus—even if I get so few—and I am happy to talk about the issue that Senator Bolkus raised of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.The facts of life are that the Kyoto Protocol will not be ratified by major players until a number of matters have been settled, including the flexibility mechanisms—which, in turn, include matters such as the CDM and emissions trading—issues of compliance and issues of sinks. It is hoped that the detail of these matters will be settled at the next conference of the parties, which in turn, it is believed, although it is not certain, will be held late next year. It should clear the way for consideration of ratification by the major emitters.But there is one matter that, beyond issues of filling in the detail of the Kyoto Protocol, is critical to the issue of ratification, and that is third-party participation by developing countries. It is well known that without the settlement of details, such as on emissions trading, and also real commitments by large developing country emitters, the United States will not ratify. It is true that it is technically possible for enough other states to ratify without the United States, but it is simply unrealistic to expect that to occur. I say that, knowing as I do that the European Union has made some public statement to the effect that it might do so. In my view, it will not do so ahead of the United States because, by doing so, it could be economically disadvantaged; and that is just not the real world.It is in Australia's interests to get the detail of Kyoto finally settled at the next COP and to get the Kyoto Protocol brought into legal effect as soon as possible. That is because Australia, although accepting a demanding target at Kyoto, nevertheless got a fair target, and it is unlikely that any alternative international negotiation that could potentially subsume Kyoto in the future would give to Australia an opportunity that is as fair as we were able to negotiate in Kyoto.We are one of the countries that are actively working towards settling outstanding issues in order that ratification might be made at the earliest possible date, in order that the Kyoto Protocol might come into effect and be legally enforceable. In concluding, I make the point that I have made before: Australia, in terms of its domestic response, is not actually waiting for the Kyoto Protocol to come into effect: we are implementing programs to achieve our target, notwithstanding. (Time expired)10385Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I have a supplementary question to the minister. I note that the point that some 60 countries, representing over 80 per cent of emissions, are prepared to commit to a timetable for ratification is a point that the minister chooses to ignore. I ask the minister: can he confirm that the Australian government sent a delegation of some 23 people to COP-5 in Bonn, when the government had no intention at all of ratifying the protocol? How many of the sizeable delegation were from the non-government sector? Is it a fact that there was only one? In light of the Australian government's decision not to ratify, how much did this delegation cost the taxpayer?10386Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Costs of delegations is something that is normally asked in estimates, and I will get the advice on that and let Senator Bolkus know in due course. It was a sizeable delegation, as every delegation has been—including the one led by Senator Faulkner that was so unsuccessful, I might say, Senator Bolkus. What you failed to tell the Senate is that most of the countries that said that they would commit to a timetable of 2002 will not even be bound by the Kyoto Protocol. They are countries that will not take new legal obligation as a result of the Kyoto Protocol, and I am sorry that you misled the Senate a little in your question in that regard, Senator.In relation to ratification, Senator Bolkus failed to hear what I said, and that is that Australia is keen to be in a position to be able to ratify in due course and to see the Kyoto Protocol come into effect. But we are also not going to put ourselves in an economically disadvantageous position, and I would have thought that was sensible. (Time expired)1038610386Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate of the strong jobs growth that has occurred under the Howard government and particularly of how women have benefited from the government's focus on job creation. Would the Assistant Treasurer also inform the Senate as to whether productivity gains have resulted in not only more jobs but also increased real wages for Australian families.10386Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Payne for that very important question. The most recent labour market statistics show that there are now almost 600,000 more Australians employed than there were in March 1996 when the discredited Keating government was hurled from office. The unemployment rate in October fell by 0.3 per cent to 7.1 per cent, and the participation rate has also increased over recent months. The high participation rate of women has been particularly noticeable, which reached a new record of 54.6 per cent in October. This was accompanied by the news—which will please women and particularly the questioner, Senator Payne—that the women's unemployment rate fell to 6.8 per cent in October—a nine-year low.The government is very much aware that there is still more to be done in the area of job creation and will continue to work to build on the very important gains that have already been made. This government is very pleased to provide benefits which have flowed through to the average Australian worker. Under this government Australian workers have enjoyed significant increases in real wages—that is, they have more money in their pockets after taking account of inflation. This has been achieved while keeping inflation low. These gains to workers have been achieved through this government's commitment to productivity improvements. Productivity improvements are helping to deliver more jobs and higher real wages to ordinary Australians.Wage increases above and beyond the cost of living are not the only benefit that workers have received under the Howard government; they have also received major benefits from the dramatic reduction in mortgage interest rates.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—For executives. The CEO of Coles Myer is doing very well, thank you very much!WW4Senator KEMP—Therefore, Senator George Campbell would be interested to know that workers have benefited from higher wages and lower interest rates. Labor never delivered benefits to workers.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—What figures are you quoting?WW4Senator KEMP—Seeing as Senator George Campbell has made a comment, the book, Out of the Rut: Making Labor a Genuine Alternative , for which Senator George Campbell was a very distinguished writer, pointed out that Labor had left office with some 800,000 people out of work and that there was a fall in real wages. A process worker—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—What about the social welfare? What about families? What about superannuation?WW4Senator KEMP—Senator George Campbell would be very interested in this matter.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are Labor senators who are continuously shouting, and I ask them to abide by the standing orders.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I was just pointing out that Senator George Campbell would be very interested that this book showed that there was a fall in real wages such that a process worker earned $100 per week less in real terms when Labor lost office than when they won it in 1983. What an absolutely pathetic and tragic record. This government is delivering real gains and real benefits to Australian workers, and there are, of course, major tax cuts in the offing.Distinguished Visitors1038710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of a delegation from the People's Republic of China led by the Vice Minister for Health and Director General of the State Drug Administration, Mr Zheng Xiaoyu. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and I trust that your visit to this country will be both informative and enjoyable.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice103871038710387Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Does the Minister recall his statement on 8 November this year that in June 1999 a contract was signed between his department and PacRim Technomart setting out the details and conditions of federal government sponsorship of APEC Technomart III? Does the minister also recall stating on 16 November that part of the government's role as a sponsor of this event was `to sponsor the application for APEC badging' and that support for APEC badging was `part of being a sponsor'? Isn't the minister deliberately fudging the timing of the Commonwealth's involvement in the light of former Minister Moore's announcement of the APEC badging of the Technomart on 9 October 1998? How could APEC badging be part of the federal government's sponsorship when it had occurred eight months before the sponsorship contract was signed?10387Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—We joined with the Queensland state Labor government in sponsoring APEC Technomart, and I did indicate that the Commonwealth government's involvement was embraced by the term `sponsorship'. When I said that, I was quite deliberately including in that description the fact that the Commonwealth did assist in sponsoring this Technomart receiving APEC endorsement. It is quite clear that the word `sponsorship', which is the way I described the government's support for this Technomart, clearly encompasses our role in assisting this organisation to secure APEC badging. In August of 1998, the then Department of Industry, Science and Tourism sponsored the proposal to secure APEC badging and invited other APEC economies to cosponsor the event.Sponsoring the proposal for APEC endorsement maximised the potential benefits of the government's financial sponsorship of the event. Sponsoring the APEC endorsement process was the first stage of the department's financial sponsorship of the event. Therefore, my press release of 8 November was not misleading, as the gaining of APEC endorsement was on the public record and was part of my department's more general sponsorship of this event.10387Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Did the federal government give any other support to PacRim Technomart in relation to APEC Technomart III before the June 1999 contract was signed?10387Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The only advice to me in relation to that matter is the involve ment in the APEC sponsorship. I am not aware of any other particular activities, apart from the securing of APEC sponsorship. I met with the organisers at one point earlier, and no doubt Mr Moore met with them. I and one or two others would have filmed promotional videos for them. But, as far as I am aware, that was the extent of the involvement.1038810388Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate of the increasing importance to jobs growth of the information technology and telecommunications sectors? Is the minister aware of industry concerns over alternative policy proposals? What would be the impact if they were implemented?10388Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The IT&T sectors are indeed a crucial part of Australia's development and jobs potential. They currently employ in excess of 200,000 people in Australia. As a percentage of GDP, our expenditure on information technology and telecommunications is the third highest in the OECD region. The marketplace is valued at around $45 billion, which is about three per cent of the global market, which means we are punching well above our weight, and it is a larger sector than all of the ASEAN countries combined. It clearly has enormous potential. The demand for skilled employees is growing at the rate of nine per cent a year, and there are currently some 360,000 specialists employed in the IT&T sector.One of the concerns that has been expressed around the world is the global skills shortage. Quite clearly, Australia needs to ensure that we do everything to attract people into the sector and to have the education system produce people who not only are IT literate but also have the skills that are required in the marketplace and are able to take advantage of the significant premiums that attach to positions in this area.When you contrast the approach that we have taken with that of our political opponents, it really is very stark and, from Australia's point of view, it really is very one-sided. For example, if one tries to explain why people are attracted offshore, one might refer to Silicon Valley, where there are innumerable job opportunities and tremendous shortages. It might also be the size of the market on the US mainland. It might simply be the excitement of networking in that region. The Labor Party's explanation for why people tend to leave Australia is this—this is what Senator Lundy had to say recently:Young people who have these skills, who have their whole lives ahead of them, who are committed to Australia, look at the frontbench of the government and it does not inspire them to stay. Is it any wonder people look elsewhere?So Labor's explanation for the global skills shortage and the reason for people being persuaded to go offshore is apparently to have a look at our frontbench. It makes you wonder about the state of Labor's frontbench. We know that they have had to suspend all operations to try to cobble together this employment package. It looks like now being eight or nine months behind schedule, which is rather tragic. I would have thought they could have done a lot better than that.You have only to look at the Australian Computers editorial earlier this month to see where Labor has really got to in terms of IT&T. The heading is `Labor well behind on IT awareness', and it states:The state and federal governments accept this reality, but Labor's politicians in Canberra struggle to grasp the enormity of this change.I think it is fair to say that John Brumby is very interested in this area and will make a significant contribution in due course. I am delighted that he was able to persuade his short-sighted colleagues from the Premier down that somehow IT&T did deserve a mention on the front bench, a very silly mistake but one that was actually corrected within a reasonably short period of time. But we do not get anything like that sort of fleetness of foot at federal level. And that is why the editorial is absolutely correct in saying:The Federal Government recognises this [the importance of IT] and has encouraged IT development in Australia in the past two years. . . . . . . . . .The Victorian ALP has learnt that lesson in the last two weeks. When will the penny drop within Labor's ranks in Canberra?It is out there. I think the industry understands that there is really only one side on the playing field. (Time expired)1038910389Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, and it follows on from Senator Conroy's question. Can the minister confirm that APEC Technomart III, which was to run for the first week of November on the Gold Coast, folded after two days when the company organising the conference, PacRim Technomart Inc., collapsed and the organisers went into hiding? Can the minister also confirm that Ms Judith Maestracci from PacRim Technomart was one of these organisers as the project manager of APEC Technomart III? When the federal government proposed to APEC that Australia should host APEC Technomart III and when Australia subsequently provided progress reports to APEC, was Ms Maestracci nominated as the project overseer? Did she not represent Australia and the federal government in that capacity?10389Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Just in answer to the three questions which are there, yes, it is on the record and well known that, regrettably and most disappointingly to the Commonwealth government, to the Queensland state Labor government, to the Gold Coast City Council and to quite a number of private sector sponsors who all joined together to help sponsor the APEC Technomart III, the event did shut down after some two days. I joined with Premier Beattie in speaking at a very useful venture capital forum there on the Wednesday, but the fact is the event was not successful. Obviously the Queensland state Labor government and we were disappointed that it was not successful. So that is a matter of record.It is certainly true that Ms Maestracci was one of the people involved in the private sector company which was behind this. That was always known, and it was always made clear in the Commonwealth's approach to the APEC structure that this was a private sector initiative. At no time was it ever presented as anything other than a private sector initiative which the Commonwealth hoped to be in a position to sponsor and which the Commonwealth thought would be a very good way of showcasing Australian technology, as did the Queensland Labor government.The previous APEC Technomarts had been very successful. There was every reason to believe this would be successful. My department, as part of its general sponsorship arrangements, did conclude that this event was worth sponsoring because it had a lot of upside for showcasing Australian technology. Indeed, as Premier Beattie said to me, Ms Maestracci was well known as a very professional operator, as were the others involved, and that is why the Queensland Labor government was very willing to support this, to be fully involved and to be right behind the project.I cannot answer as to whether or not Ms Maestracci was there when the APEC sponsorship arrangements were made or what her particular status was. I do not have that detail. I am happy to find that out for you.10389Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I think it is important, and I would appreciate the minister establishing, whether Ms Maestracci did actually represent Australia and the federal government in the capacity as project overseer. Can the minister confirm that, while Australia's nominated APEC contact for APEC Technomart III was Ms Judith Maestracci from PacRim Technomart Inc., the nominated contacts for all other participating APEC economies were government officials from each country's respective industry department?10389Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I will need to take that on notice. That is the sort of level of detail which I do not have. All I will say is that it was always the case in the representations made to, and the Commonwealth government sponsorship of, APEC badging of this event that it was private sector managed and run. That is the basis on which the Queensland government assisted in seeking the APEC sponsorship and the basis on which the Queensland government got right behind it: that this was a private sector managed event which would be hopefully sponsored by a range of industry and government bodies. I will find out those details and get back to you.1039010390Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer to the HBA Health Management Lifestyle questionnaire for Australia Post employees. Did the minister approve yet another example by Australia Post of collecting highly personal behavioural and medical information? Does he acknowledge that individual employees can be identified on this questionnaire? Minister, if the only reason for this survey is to provide staff with a health risk assessment report, why is it necessary to know what kind of vehicle they drive, the kilometres they do and how many traffic infringement notices they have had? Why are employees being asked if they are lonely or how much money they spend on Tattslotto? Minister, why are Australia Post female employees being asked if they plan a pregnancy within the next 12 months or the age at which they gave birth to their first child?10390Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not aware that the department was consulted by Australia Post in the course of the preparation of this survey. There are two separate surveys, and the one that relates to employees is the Gold Post 2000 Employee Survey. I think even Senator Allison acknowledges that this is a voluntary offer. It is a survey that has its basis in the enterprise bargaining agreement. It does provide for a bonus to be paid based on attendance and wellbeing requirements. Having read the article in the Australian today which describes some of the detail, one can only assume that it is designed to assist employees in identifying those matters which might not be compatible with effective workplace performance and which may well be indicative of problems outside the workplace which might impact upon their workplace performance. At the end of the day, this is a voluntary survey. There is no obligation on people to comply with it. There is no suggestion that anyone would be in any way discriminated against if they did not. There are a number of very important matters addressed in that survey which all people in the workplace, or indeed, I suppose, in the wider community, would benefit from concentrating on. Even if they chose not to comply with the survey or to submit it to the employer, to address all of those issues may be a very timely warning in respect of certain lifestyle and behavioural patterns.Beyond that, I do not know whose advice was sought by Australia Post in preparing the survey. As I did indicate yesterday, it is my understanding that the Privacy Commissioner was consulted in relation to the Australian Family Lifestyle Survey, and it may well be the case in relation to the employee survey as well.10390Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Minister, isn't it the case that this is not a voluntary questionnaire and that Australia Post employees do not get their EBA bonus unless they do the questionnaire? Minister, who is making money out of this exercise and how many other departments might be moving into this kind of lucrative business? How much, for instance, will the HBA pay for this sensitive information, and what assurances are you prepared to give that neither the HBA nor Australia Post will use this data for commercial purposes? Minister, I ask you today, as I did yesterday: when will your government put in place protection for people coerced into revealing this kind of personal information?10390Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Allison is very good at throwing around florid and colourful terms, but there is no suggestion of people being coerced into signing the form.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—They are being coerced.LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, I know the union movement always likes to suggest that somehow you need to be rescued from a whole range of people because you really are not in any fit position to look after yourself or to make your own arrangements or to decide whether to fill in a survey and that what you really need is someone from the union standing over your shoulder telling you how to behave, telling you how to organise your affairs, telling you how to run your lifestyle. It is quite incorrect for Senator Allison to say that this is a compulsory survey. You do not need to fill it in and submit it before obtaining a bonus. The arrangements are that the bonus payments depend upon two things: meeting the attendance requirement and a workplace score of at least 50 per cent of the total points that could be scored on lifestyle elements. So this could occur if all employees score at least 50 per cent or if half of the employees score 100 per cent or some other combination. (Time expired)1039110391Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Was the minister informed of and did he approve the make-up of the Australian delegation to the 16th APEC Industry Science and Technology Working Group meeting in Hong Kong on or about 3 March 1999? Did the Australian delegate list include four senior officials from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, including one senior official acting as `lead shepherd', using APEC terminology? Did the Australian delegate list also include Ms Judith Maestracci from PacRim Technomart?10391Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—That again goes to the detail which I do not have. I certainly did not know of or approve any delegation list to APEC, the membership of the delegation—I can certainly answer that with confidence. Again, the question of Ms Maestracci's role or otherwise is a detail about which in the previous answer I said I would have to come back to you. I would take this opportunity to point out that the formal written proposal put to APEC did say in its opening paragraph:The proposal is for Australia to host the next APEC Technomart . . . as a commercially sponsored, managed and administered event.The front page of the proposal also stated:The event, unlike other APEC Technomarts, will be funded primarily by the private sector. Major sponsors have already been secured. Exhibitors will be required to pay for space. There will be some financial support from the Australian and Queensland Governments.Of course, the Queensland government joined with us in so doing. It endorsed APEC involvement. As I said, on 12 October 1998 the Queensland Deputy Premier, Mr Jim Elder, said:At our end, this was a project supported by my government through the Department of State Development and this government—the Queensland state Labor government—endorsement and involvement has helped sway the APEC countries.So this was always from the very outset and throughout the submission the proposal to APEC. It was made quite clear this was a commercially sponsored run and managed event. It was different from the previous two APEC Technomarts; it was a private sector managed affair. That was always open and upfront. That is why the Queensland state Labor government and the Commonwealth government both sponsored it on that basis and were both upfront in their representations to APEC on that basis. In terms of the delegation, I will have to get that information for you. (Time expired)10391Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister's earlier answer where it appears that he did not acknowledge the level of support that was given by the federal government to PacRim Technomart, I now ask: what other support, financial or in kind, did the federal government give to Ms Maestracci or PacRim Technomart Inc. in organising APEC Technomart III?10391Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I think I have been quite open and upfront about this in my responses to Mr McMullan's press releases, as I have answered all his questions in my press releases that I have given in response to his accusations.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am asking my questions, which you are not answering at all.JX4Senator MINCHIN—We have been quite upfront. I said that the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Resources sponsored this event to the tune of some $200,000, and the department incurred in addition to that its own expenses of some $65,400—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If you don't know, take it on notice.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, cease shouting.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Will you let me answer the question? I do know. I am giving you the answer you want.Senator Faulkner interjecting—JX4Senator MINCHIN—$65,400 of costs in relation to its own—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I rise on a point of order.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease making so much noise.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Is it in order for Senator Faulkner to say twice `You're lying' across the table?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If he said it, it is not in order and I would ask him to withdraw it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If I said it, Madam President, I withdraw it. But I would ask the minister to answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you ought not to be interjecting during the answer to a question.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Senator Faulkner asked me the details of the sponsorship which are already on the public record. There was $200,000 of sponsorship of the event and some expenditure of $65,400 within my department in relation to its own participation in APEC Technomart III.1039210392Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Considering the government's proposed tightening of the laws to stop people smuggling and recognising the fact that Pauline Hanson's One Nation advocated similar changes over a year ago, due to the current influx of illegal entries into Australia by boat—and this could not proceed without some form of contact within Australia—would the minister inform the Senate how the government intends to identify those people and take actions again them?10392Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. Senator, it would be possible for people to assist and organise the trafficking or smuggling of persons into Australia without their necessarily having contacts here. That remains fairly obvious, I think, to the vast majority of people who have had a close interest in this over a period of time.The method is simply this: get a number of people to a nearby country, for example, Indonesia; have organisers in Indonesia who can lay their hands on boats that might either be cargo vessels or appear to be fishing vessels; take those vessels with the cargo of misery attached to Ashmore Reef or Christmas Island; and, if you are unable to land, as soon as you see an Australian boat with people on board, just disable your own boat—that is, sink the boat. If you cannot land, sink it, because no Australian will sit by and watch a number of people simply drown in the Indian Ocean. Once the people are on Ashmore Reef, they are brought to Australia and they are dealt with by immigration authorities.So it is not actually true that one requires assistance on the mainland in order to achieve the successful arrival in Australia of immigrants over the marine border illegally. It is, however, possible that that is the case. All I choose to say with respect to that is that every avenue to pursue people who are possibly engaging in such activity is being used. If at any time I have some further detail that it would be appropriate to make public, I will.10392Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister assure the Australian people that the measures introduced are strong enough to ensure that only bona fide refugees are eligible to remain in Australia and obtain access to Australia's free health, legal and welfare system?10392Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator, there have been some squabbles over the years—irrespective of who has been in government—over the handling of refugees. But there is bipartisan agreement on this: those people who are genuine refugees should be able to stay in Australia and those people who are not should be repatriated as quickly as possible. Both governments have attempted to achieve that.1039310393Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that he is currently in contempt of the Senate for his failure to provide certain documents relating to the MRI scandal by 3 p.m. yesterday afternoon, as required by the order of the Senate agreed on 21 October? Is the minister aware that he has compounded his contempt for the Senate by not producing any reason to the Senate for his refusal to produce the documents? Is the minister aware that, according to advice provided by the Clerk of the Senate, it is unprecedented that any minister has so blatantly defied the Senate by not explaining the grounds for the non-disclosure? Does the minister have any excuse that he can give the Senate today?10393Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The minister is very interested in pursuing the MRI matters, as are all senators, and notes the importance that the Senate has attached to the MRI issue. I think all of us are concerned about the issue itself and we share the concern that Senator Evans has asked us about. We are concerned that a scam may have been committed in relation to this matter by some radiologists. As Senator Evans is aware, the government has introduced a number of measures in relation to MRI.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Madam President, I raise a point of order. While I appreciate that the minister may have suddenly found some concern for this matter, having previously failed to take an interest—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—What is your point of order, Senator?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—The question was about the failure to reply to the return to order. In the first couple of minutes he has not addressed the question of why the return to order has not been complied with. That is the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister has had less than one minute so far in which to respond, but I draw his attention to the substance of the question.VW4Senator HERRON—I got through three sentences of the reply; I do not think I had even 30 seconds. If Senator Evans is interested in the answer, I am happy to provide it, but I should be given the opportunity to do so. I will reply in the manner in which I wish to reply to the question, not the manner in which Senator Evans is trying to insist.I am making the point that there is a degree of concern about this matter by the minister, and the minister has spoken about that. The minister has instituted an inquiry into the matter. Senator Evans is not going to be judge, jury and executioner in relation to this matter, which is what he is implying. He has asked for documents. There is an inquiry in place. The Senate has asked for a range of documents, those being: the dates on which the MRI machines were ordered; the minutes of the meeting between the department and the college of radiologists; and advice received by the Minister for Health and Aged Care on MRI rebates. Is Senator Evans interested in an outcome for the Senate and for the people of Australia in relation to this matter, or does he want to conduct a political witch hunt? That is the question.Given the range of investigations that are already in place into the MRI issue, it would not be appropriate to table documents that are central to the investigation process. That is the answer to his question: it would not be appropriate to table documents that are central to the investigation process.The Minister for Health and Aged Care has already indicated that he and his office, including both past and present staff, will cooperate fully with the Auditor-General's inquiry. The Auditor-General is conducting an inquiry, and it should be left to the Auditor-General to proceed with that unfettered by possible political point scoring and judgment by Senator Evans.The government would not want to compromise any of the investigations already under way and for that reason will not comply with the Senate order to produce documents at this stage. When it is in the interests of the Senate to receive the documents, then that determina tion will be made. Surely the opposition, if they were an opposition with any intelligence, would want an outcome of this investigation that was—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You said there was no problem. You are on the Hansard as saying there was no problem.VW4Senator HERRON—I am on the Hansard , and at that period we did not know of a problem. I do not accept allegations, and there is still an inquiry. Senator Evans is prejudging the outcome of an inquiry. As I said, there is a process in place; there has been an inquiry established by the Auditor-General and we will await the outcome of that inquiry.10394Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate that the minister has finally condescended to give the Senate a reason as to why he has not complied with the return to order. Why has the minister also not answered the questions on notice relating to MRI, which are three or four weeks overdue and which I contacted his office about last week? Is this part of the government's continuing cover-up of the MRI scandal? Will we get the information about the MRI scandal that we and the public are entitled to know?10394Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—We keep getting these emotive words that there is a scandal. There is an inquiry. The same answer that I gave before is related to the supplementary question: the inquiry has been instituted by the Auditor-General and the investigations into the issue are already in place. I did not say that there was a scandal, nor did I admit there was any scandal. I am prepared to await the outcome of the inquiry. Senator Evans says it is a scandal. It is possible that one exists, but I would have thought that one needs evidence before an inquiry. I respect the inquiry of the Auditor-General and that is the process that will continue.1039410394Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Ellison. Will the minister inform the Senate of the achievements of the government's information outsourcing programs which have saved taxpayers money and supported small and medium enterprises? Is the minister aware of any recent public statements relating to these outsourcing initiatives? If so, do they accurately reflect the facts?10394Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Coonan for that very important question. It is timely indeed because today the Minister for Finance and Administration addressed a very large gathering in Canberra—the Asian-Oceanian Computing Industry Organisation—in relation to this very topic. Today the Minister for Finance and Administration outlined how our IT outsourcing program to date would save taxpayers more than $320 million over a five-year period. That is good news for taxpayers in Australia, but there is more. Our outsourcing program to date will also see around $265 million paid to small and medium Australian enterprises. Further to that, to date $850 million will be value added to Australian goods and services. It will also provide to date $260 million in new exports or import replacements. That spells good news for the IT industry in Australia. What is more, our program on IT outsourcing to date will also create 380 jobs in regional Australia. What do the opposition say about this? Nothing. What the opposition want to do is to place IT outsourcing on hold.Senator Lundy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Persistent interjecting is disorderly.9X5Senator ELLISON—They do not want to see these jobs developed; they do not want to see the exports I have mentioned; they do not want to see those benefits to small and medium enterprises. In fact, when you look at the interview which Senator Lundy gave just yesterday in Canberra, you see that it referred to an Auditor's report—which I have here—as authority for this so-called `flawed' outsourcing program. But, of course, what Senator Lundy did not tell the interviewer was that this report related only to the following things: building and facilities maintenance, cleaning services, security services, finance and/or travel services, advertising, and internal audit. There was no mention of IT outsourcing in this report.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I point out to Labor senators that constantly shouting during an answer to a question is disorderly.9X5Senator ELLISON—As the interview went on, Senator Lundy cited this report from the Auditor-General as an authority, saying that the IT outsourcing program by the government was flawed and that it should not be continued. There was no such thing said. In fact, Senator Lundy went on to say there were four reports being undertaken by the Auditor-General's office in relation to the outsourcing of IT programs. Of course, this is normal. Whenever we outsource IT programs, the Auditor-General—through you, Madam President, to Senator Lundy—conducts a review.Senator Lundy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Lundy, there is an appropriate time to debate this issue and it is not by constantly shouting during question time.9X5Senator ELLISON—When you look at that interview, you see that Senator Lundy is trying to portray that there is a big problem with our IT outsourcing and that the Auditor-General is looking into it. What the Auditor-General is doing is simply going about his job and doing a routine review of outsourcing.Senator Lundy interjecting—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Lundy is not having a good question time today, but she has persistently interjected on Senator Ellison. I ask you to call her to order again or to remove her. She has been interjecting constantly.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am noting the behaviour of certain persons, Senator.9X5Senator ELLISON—Senator Lundy was asked about—and I note that Senator Lundy has had some comments today about this—how small and medium enterprises benefit. The presenter said the argument is that by grounding bigger companies, which can handle such large contracts, there is a flow-on to smaller companies via these larger companies. And Senator Lundy said, `Yes, that is of course the argument.' They put, as you know, a clause in the contracts to actually achieve that. So what Senator Lundy was saying we have already done. We have put clauses in those contracts to ensure that small and medium enterprises get the business.Senator Lundy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lundy, I am speaking to you. I have already drawn your attention to the fact that you are in breach of the standing orders by persistently and wilfully ignoring them. I draw your attention to the clauses of the standing order.9X5Senator ELLISON—If the Labor opposition and Senator Lundy look closely at the contracts, they would see that major contractors are required to deliver levels of work to small and medium enterprises, as I have indicated. This spells good news for the IT industry in Australia. What the opposition and Senator Lundy should do is stick to the facts and not mislead people in radio interviews about our IT outsourcing program.1039510395Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. How does the minister explain insurers being forced to charge GST on fire levies, with stamp duties on top of that, when the Howard government promised that the GST would not be a tax on a tax? Is the minister aware that Mr Rod Hill, a tax expert with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu has said:The insurance industry is daily sending out notices incorporating a tax on a tax on a tax, thus forcing the affordability of insurance off the agenda for many Australians.Given this fact, what does the government plan to do to stop the clear cascading effect of the GST, which the government promised would not happen and which puts insurance out of the reach of hardworking Australian families?10395Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you to Senator Mackay for the question. There was a question asked along these lines to the Treasurer in the other place today. There will be no GST on paying taxes. A GST will not apply to income tax or anything else listed in the Treasurer's determination under division 81 of the GST act.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many senators participating.WW4Senator KEMP—This issue has been raised a number of times in this chamber by Senator Mackay, and the government is currently consulting with the states, territories and local government—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It's too late!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, it is not your turn to speak.WW4Senator KEMP—To identify those government taxes and charges which should not be subject to GST. All levels of government have been closely involved in this process. My advice is that there has been a broad agreement reached on the draft list. I will check whether there is any further information I can provide to Senator Mackay. In determining the taxes and charges that will not be subject to GST, regard will be had to the following principles. Those taxes and charges which are in the nature of a compulsory impost for general purposes, such as local government rates, should not be subject to GST, and those regulatory charges that do not relate to a particular supply of goods and services should not be subject to GST.The Treasurer proposes to release by the end of the year a determination listing all the taxes and charges that will not be subject to GST. I think that should clarify the position for Senator Mackay. Someone said to me that Senator Mackay was the shadow minister for local government. I think that will come as a bit of a surprise to people in this chamber because she never seems to ask Senator Ian Macdonald a question. But we are always happy to hear from you, Senator Mackay.10396Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. I appreciate that the minister is consulting, but can he confirm that a number of states, led by the Liberal government of Mr Court in Western Australia, have already decided to exploit the GST by applying state stamp duties to the Howard-Lees GST, thus significantly increasing state revenues? Isn't this an example of government sponsored price exploitation that would be subject to ACCC prosecution if it were done by a private sector business? In light of this, why is the federal government allowing this to occur now?10396Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again, I do not think Senator Mackay is particularly well informed. There is an issue that the states have recognised. There is an argument that imposing a stamp duty on a GST inclusive basis could result in a windfall gain to state revenue. Senator, Michael Egan—who is not on my side of the chamber; he is on your side of the chamber—said that it could well be that, if there is a windfall for all of the states, there is a case for the states to vary the current stamp duty rates to take that into account. I do not think that the Labor Party has any policy to remove stamp duty.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left, shouting as they are, are behaving in a disorderly fashion.WW4Senator KEMP—I would be very interested to hear whether there is any Labor Party policy to remove stamp duties. I am not aware that there is. (Time expired)1039610396Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to Senator Macdonald, the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware that the man who recently had the full confidence of the government as the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Dick Smith, says that the lack of a radio operator service at Yulara airport near Ayers Rock is a danger to the public? Has the minister seen the Civil Aviation Safety Authority media release which states that Mr Smith is wrong and there is no problem? Minister, who are we to believe? Six months ago, Dick Smith ran the entire air safety program for Australia. Surely he knows what he is talking about. Does the government agree with Mr Smith's claim that Ayers Rock airport is `an accident waiting to happen'?10396Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Woodley has an ongoing interest in matters relating to aviation safety. He asked me about Yulara, Mr Smith's comments and the government's approach to the issue. We certainly reject the suggestion by Mr Smith that it is unsafe, and so do both of the airlines. The matter was, as Senator Woodley would know, recently subject to a trial which was funded by both Qantas and Ansett. We are assured that there is absolute safety at Yulara. I am concerned that Mr Smith was advising tourists that it was unsafe to go to Yulara. That, of course, does not do much for our tourism industry, particularly in a part of Australia that is very significant—one that we are very proud to claim as an Australian icon and one that we want tourists to attend. I do reject the claims that the airspace around Yulara airport is unsafe. Qantas and Ansett continue to investigate the area to make further improvements to air services and air safety, and it is an issue that is always monitored closely by the government.10397Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I do thank the minister for his answer. Minister, I presume the trial is the new air traffic radio system at Ayers Rock and Jandakot airports. If it is, don't you think there is a certain contradictory nature to CASA's release in that they say, `There is no problem, but nevertheless we are having to trial some additional safety measures'? It seems to me that there is a contradiction there. I do not know whether you would agree with me or whether you could comment on that.10397Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—As I understand the history of this matter, these issues have been raised by Mr Smith in the past. The airlines have undertaken a trial of the radio operators. That trial, as Senator Woodley would well know, is being evaluated at the moment. Senator Woodley, I can only repeat that CASA has assured me that operations at Yulara airport are safe.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Will you fly in the area?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, I would fly in the area, and I have flown in the area, as many Australians do. There was a suggestion that some pressure was being put on aviation safety. I want to make clear that we will not tolerate pressure from any quarter to compromise aviation safety. CASA is not controlled by the airlines. As I say, Qantas and Ansett have been extremely supportive of the recent trial of the certified air-ground radio operator arrangement at Yulara, and they have contributed to the cost.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous1039710397The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I wish to inform the Senate that, as of yesterday, the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast live on the Internet. With the leave of the Senate, I would incorporate in Hansard the remainder of my statement on the matter.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—I wish to inform the Senate that, as from yesterday, the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast live on the Internet.In addition to the Senate Proceedings the live Internet service will also be simultaneously broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Representatives, the Main Committee of the House of Representatives, and up to four committee hearings.Text information about the Parliament, initially Hansard reports and transcripts, but now a wide range of material on the workings of both Houses has been available on the Internet since 1995. Until now, however that information has been text or "still" images.The Parliament's Internet site is being extensively used with an average of more than one million "hits" per month throughout 1999.With recent developments in Internet technology, it is now possible cost-effectively to broadcast across the Internet television coverage of proceedings of the Senate, the House of Representatives and committees.The number of Australian households connected to the Internet continues to grow and, increasingly, new and existing Internet users have personal computers capable of downloading video material.The Internet is accessible to people in most areas of Australia particularly rural and regional areas, and offers the Parliament the opportunity to provide uninterrupted access to its proceedings free of editing, interpretation or abbreviation.The introduction of the Internet broadcast service is another important step in meeting the objective of taking the Parliament to the people. The Internet broadcast service can be accessed via the Parliament Home Page which is: WWW.APH.GOV.AU.Questions Without Notice103981039815:03:0010398Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to a question without notice asked by Senator Mackay today, relating to the goods and services tax.Senator Mackay raised an important issue in a question to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, relating to the charging of a GST on fire levies and the application of stamp duties—in other words, a tax on a tax on a tax. This is a further major example of the problems with the application of a GST—the important principle of a tax on a tax. This was an issue which the Liberal-National coalition assured the Australian people would not occur in respect of a GST. They assured the Australian people there would not be a tax on a tax.It is a grossly unfair situation where, for example, a GST is added to the cost of the purchase of small businesses, residential homes, insurance policies, property leases and those sorts of financial transactions and then, on top of that, there are various state charges, taxes, levies or whatever they may be called. This in effect is a tax on a tax. To magnify the difficulty that this causes, it is a percentage tax on top of a percentage tax. And what was Senator Kemp's response to this further example of a major problem that has emerged with the GST? Senator Kemp's response was that they would be consulting with state governments to try and establish some guidelines for the application of the GST in these circumstances.This is not good enough. This problem has arisen in other countries. The government was forewarned of the difficulties that this would present. Indeed, I can recall the Liberal Party assuring the people of Australia in the lead-up to the last election that these sorts of state taxes and charges would be abolished and would be replaced by the GST. Not only have they not been abolished, their impact has been added to with a double whammy—and, in some cases, the triple whammy of a tax on a tax on a tax. Senator Kemp referred to the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Richard Court. The Premier of Western Australia said that stamp duty had always been applied after Commonwealth taxes had been levied. I quote the Financial Review:`The principle is uniform,' he said. `In some cases [particularly on car purchases] stamp duty will decrease, in other cases it will increase.'The point at issue here is that we have never had a GST in this country before. We have not had a federal tax apply to a whole range of transactions, such as residential home purchase, insurance policies, purchase of a small business, a mortgage and property leases. We have never had a federal tax apply in this area before. The wholesale sales tax, which the Liberal Party is so fond of criticising, did not apply in those areas. So we have a new tax, and then state taxes applying on top of the GST. This is grossly unfair. It is ludicrous for the Liberal Premier of Western Australia, Mr Court, to say that this has always happened. It has not always happened, because we have not had a GST.The Liberal Premier of Western Australia, Mr Court, would have known this well. He has been a strong advocate of a GST. It is no wonder, when his government is intending to apply the unfortunate principle of a tax on a tax on a tax. This is not the only recent example we have had. We have also had the latest saga, reported in the Financial Review, of renovated houses, which could attract a GST, depending on the extent of renovations. A draft business activity statement to be filled out by more than the one million new tax collectors—small businesses in this country—is two pages long, but the instructions are 130 pages long.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—What is your policy?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Our policy is not a GST—a massive new tax, a massive new set of problems and headaches for small business in this country. Labor's policy is not a tax on a tax on a tax—a percentage tax on a percentage tax. The Liberal Party promised a simplified tax system and what have we got? We have a more complex tax system. It is going to cost small business more to administer and what do they get in return? They get a paltry $200 to assist in this—(Time expired)15:08:0010399Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—It is quite clear that there is very real embarrassment, especially among Labor senators from Tasmania, given that the regional forest agreement legislation will be before the Senate today and during the course of this week. What this, of course, has to do with the debate before us is that Senator Sherry, in desperation, will look at any issue other than to explain to the Tasmanian people why he and the Tasmanian Labor senators are not supporting the regional forest agreement legislation.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance. Senator Abetz is starting to talk about the Regional Forest Agreement and it is really drawing a long bow to go from the GST to regional forest agreements.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—This is usually a wide-ranging debate. However, I would ask Senator Abetz to endeavour—and I am sure that he is going to—to bring his response in line with Senator Mackay's question and Senator Kemp's reply.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Madam Deputy President, as I was pointing out, Senator Sherry—and this is borne out by his point of order—has highlighted the fact that he and his Labor colleagues in Tasmania are highly embarrassed that they have been rolled on this legislation by the federal parliamentary Labor Party in contradistinction to the view of the trade union movement and state Labor in Tasmania. Senator Sherry therefore had to cast around for another issue to try to divert attention from his gross embarrassment.His gross embarrassment was further highlighted by Senator Kay Patterson's very articulate interjection. She said, `Senator Sherry, what is your policy?' We then heard a diatribe that lasted for ages, with a raised voice, telling us everything that the Labor Party policy was not. He could not quite get around to the point of explaining what is Labor's tax policy—and, of course, there is none. The people of Australia are entitled to know what the Labor Party's policy on taxation is. If what we are putting forward is so bad, then fine—but then tell us what your alternatives are.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—The Toorak tractors.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Yes, the Toorak tractor policy at the last election was jettisoned and a capital gains tax policy was jettisoned, only to be followed by the jettisoning of the shadow Treasurer at the time, Gareth Evans, who is now right out of the parliament. This is their policy making at its best. Senator Sherry is following in that great tradition of Labor Party tax policy formulation in just trying to take cheap shots at the government but without presenting any alternative to the Australian people.If he is so concerned about state taxes, why doesn't he pick up the blower to Tasmanian Premier Jim Bacon and say, `Remove the stamp duties'? But, of course, he knows what would happen if he picked up the phone to Premier Jim Bacon. The Premier would be saying to Senator Sherry and his Labor colleagues, `Why are you going to vote down the regional forest agreement legislation today, which will cost Tasmanian workers?' Fifteen per cent of Tasmanians are employed in the forest industry and Senator Sherry and his Tasmanian colleagues have sold them out and put the axe right through the possibility of investment.Senator Calvert interjecting—N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Calvert quite correctly reminds me that people such as Michelle O'Byrne, the temporary member for Bass, and Sid Sidebottom and Dick Adams are highly embarrassed about Labor's lack of policy in a whole host of areas. But the one time that they do get into a policy situation, like on forestry, they get it absolutely wrong and sell out regional and rural Australia, particularly Tasmania. They just happen to think they can take Tasmania for granted because they did relatively well at the last election, but I would remind them that the people of Tasmania will be very mindful of the betrayal of the Labor Party on this issue.Any Labor member or senator who gets up in this debate should tell the Australian people what their policy is. It is not good enough to tell us what their policy is not; we want to know what their actual policy is and we want a guarantee that they will not reject it—like they rejected their Toorak tractor tax, the capital gains tax and, above all, their former shadow Treasurer, Gareth Evans. The Australian people deserve better in debates on taxation, and it is up to the Australian Labor Party to tell the people of Australia what their policy is. If they do not have anything affirmative to say, they should not be involved in this debate.15:13:0010400Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—What an embarrassing and pathetic attempt, Senator Abetz, to try to cobble your government's response together—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Besides being painfully hurtful, Senator Crossin should in fact be directing her comments through the chair. That way, she would not be quite as personal and offensive.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please address the chair, Senator Crossin.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—Madam Deputy President, through you, what an embarrassing and painful attempt by Senator Abetz to try to cobble together a response in relation to what Senator Sherry had said. We raised an issue today, and I stand to take note of the Assistant Treasurer's response in relation to a question from Sue Mackay. It is a typical response from the government. All you get is a sidestepping attempt to avoid the real issue, and that is that the GST has fallen flat on its face. It is about as flat as a blancmange that has not worked. Eric Abetz can go on and on about—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please refer to members by their correct title.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—Senator Abetz can go on and on about the last federal election campaign. We on this side wish he would, because as the federal campaign director in Tasmania he scored zero out of five, if my memory serves me right, in terms of returning Liberal Party members back to the House of Representatives. So he has a fabulous track record of being able to deliver for us.But let us just have a look at the Assistant Treasurer's response today. We now know that there are seven rates under the GST. I just remind people who are listening that the Assistant Treasurer sat down after less than two minutes today in responding to this question from Senator Mackay. He couldn't take his full time, probably didn't want to take his full time, because this government does not want to know and does not want to accept what is happening with the GST.Despite their election promise to simplify the tax system, the government has revealed in certain cases that the GST is in fact a tax on a tax. Where a state or local government applies a levy, a fee or a charge for a service provided, the GST will apply on top of that levy, fee or charge. My colleagues are right, in that we heard the government say that it would seek to get the states and territories to abolish those stamp duties, and we can see that that is not happening.An example of those levies, fees and charges that are expected to have GST added on them are fire levies contained in insurance policies, environmental levies, bushland acquisition levies, camping fees, national park entry fees, swimming pool entry fees—even sporting fields that are hired from local councils you will pay a GST on—community hire halls from local councils and library fees. In these cases the GST will be a tax on a tax.In some states—such as Victoria—the fire service levy will be hit by the GST and both of these will be hit by stamp duty. So in these states consumers will be hit by a triple tax—a tax on a tax on a tax. We know the property and insurance industries recently have reacted very angrily to the revelation that states propose to charge stamp duty on and after a GST basis—effectively a tax on a tax. I have with me an article from the Financial Review of 26 October, which talks about the complexities for higher insurance premiums being paid by people. It says:The complexities of the proposed GST legislation, rather than malpractice on the part of insurance companies, have caused the cost of general insurance to skyrocket, according to a GST expert. That expert, Mr Rod Hill, said:"The insurance industry is daily sending out notices incorporating—in his words—a tax, on a tax, on a tax . . . He said:. . . insurers have been forced to charge GST on stamp duty and fire levies due to the vagaries—his words—of the draft GST laws."The insurance industry is daily sending out notices incorporating a tax on a tax on a tax, thus forcing the affordability of insurance off the agenda for many Australians."Many Australians know that. If you have a 12-month renewal notice coming through your post office box at this point, from November to November, then the GST kicks in. It kicks in twice if you live in those states or territories that do have such things as fire service levies. The article continues:The impact of the cascading tax varies from State-to-State but is most marked in rural Victoria—Senator McGauran—where a $49 fire service levy is charged on every $100 . . . (Time expired)15:19:0010401Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I am not going to attack Senator Crossin. She is a soft target, metaphorically and physically, but I am not going to attack her, as she attacked Senator Abetz.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. You might like to remind Senator Lightfoot that he might like to withdraw some of those remarks and direct his comments through the chair.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think that you had better address your remarks through the chair, Senator Lightfoot. I would urge caution in your language and how you describe other members in this place, please.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I always take very seriously your cautions, Madam Deputy President, and when I do I have found that I am often a far better person because I did.The GST is a tax that is going to work. These attacks on the tax really are to cover and to try to bring down what is going to be an evolutionary tax for Australia. Those on the opposite side know that this is going to work. This is a new tax system that is going to work, just like the motor vehicle industry is going to boom as a result of this tax—not retrogress, as it did under the Labor Party, but boom. We are going to have a boom situation with the motor industry, and we are going to have a boom situation with other areas of the Australian economy. There is no GST on exports. We did not tax exports. We are removing the tax on exports.We are worried about jobs. I have said before that this party is the champion of the working class. This party represents the working class. We represent the blue-collar vote now. You have lost it. Just as you have lost over 50 per cent of your union membership in the last few decades, so you are losing the working class vote too. The government, of course, is keeping a close eye on the motor vehicle industry and adjusting it where it sees that that transitional effect is necessary.But you cannot say that the Premier of New South Wales is not on your side; you cannot say the Premier of Queensland is not on your side; you cannot say the Premier of Victoria is not also on your side; you cannot say the Premier of Tasmania, where Senator Sherry comes from, is not also philosophically agreeing with you. Why do you not ask those premiers if they are going to remove their stamp duty and so on? What is it that you expect from the other premiers that you do not expect from your own premiers?Opposition senators interjecting—WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—You are talking about sledging the Australian premiers with `a tax on a tax', as you so repetitively and boringly call it, but you are not prepared to say that the new tax system itself is a tax that benefits the states. You may not be aware that I represent Western Australia here. Over 10 years Western Australia is expected to get $2 billion extra as a result of the GST. We expect exports from the premier exporting state in the nation to increase to the betterment of places like Tasmania, which Senator Sherry represents.There is a proposition that accommodation taxes be abolished by 1 July 2000—no bed tax. We are going to take the bed tax away. There is an agreement with Mr Carr in New South Wales. Financial institutions duty and stamp duty on quoted marketable securities are to be abolished by 1 July. This is all part of the transitional period. Even you, Senator Crossin, should be intelligent enough to know that you cannot on the stroke of midnight change completely—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lightfoot, please address the chair.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—As part of the transition, financial institutions duty and stamp duty on quoted marketable securities will be abolished by 1 July 2000. Debits tax is to be abolished by 1 July 2005. That is subject to a review by a ministerial council which comprises all the state premiers, including Labor premiers. States will receive all of the revenue from the GST.Why is it that you are opposed to the GST? You are opposed to it not because it will not work but because you know it is going to work; you know it is going to be a boon to the states; you know it is going to be a boon to the economy and a boon to employment. That is why you are knocking it. You want to bring Australia down while the coalition government is here in Canberra in order for us to be seen not to be competent, when we are probably the best government this nation has seen in the postwar years. I am a great fan of Robert Menzies—(Time expired).15:25:0010402Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I think the people on the opposite side have completely missed the point of the debate this afternoon. It is about three things. Firstly, it is about a tax on a tax that is applying now. If you had listened to the question that came from my colleague Senator Mackay, you would have realised that she asked about a tax on a tax that is applying now, and she quoted Mr Rod Hill who said that the insurance industry is issuing notices daily and that people are paying those notices—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Right now.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Right now. So we are talking about a tax on a tax that is applying now, particularly to insurance, and that in the near future will apply to property, even prior to 1 July next year. Secondly, there is no compensation for this tax whatsoever. And, thirdly, it was avoidable had this government foreseen the effect of the GST on state taxes. Those are the three points: it is a tax on a tax that is operating now; there is no compensation; and it was avoidable.My colleagues who spoke before me, Senator Sherry and Senator Crossin, have clearly pointed out that this tax on a tax is applying throughout a number of states of Australia. It has a significant effect when it comes to notices that are being issued for taxation in the area of stamp duty. I will point out how that applies in a moment. It will apply to property progressively as time goes on. As contracts are entered into in the period prior to 1 July, the operators will be obliged to include in those contracts an element of GST which will attract stamp duty in those property dealings. Clearly the government has failed to deliver on its promise that there would be no tax on a tax. It has nothing to do with Labor Party policy; it is to do with the government's promise that there would be no tax on a tax.There is no compensation either now or in the future for the tax on the tax—the tax on the tax that is happening this very day. There is no compensation whatsoever, neither now nor in the future. Any compensation packages were worked out prior to this becoming a problem for the government. So those people renewing their insurance policies now and paying the stamp duty on the GST will not be compensated for that in any way. Those people who enter into property deals prior to 1 July or post 1 July which attract stamp duty on their transactions will not have any compensation whatsoever. So we have a dilemma for people—from battlers to business people—that has not been addressed and was not even foreseen by this government.A couple of examples bring clearly to mind what this is about. If you look at a home in Western Australia costing $141,000, the stamp duty on that will increase by $233 as a result of the tax on the tax. If you look at an apartment in Sydney costing $350,000, that cost will increase by $787.50 as a result of the tax on the tax. Those amounts will not be compensated for by this government. Then if you look at the business end, the cost of an investment in a plant or factory worth $1.5 million in Newcastle will increase by $8,250. That is certainly not insignificant.But it was avoidable, because the government had the opportunity to not have this mess occur in the first place. If there had not been the grubby deal between the Democrats and the government in the first instance, we would not have seen this happen. We would have seen a proper scrutiny of the legislation before this chamber, and issues such as this would have been picked up.But the federal government will not accept responsibility. They want to put the blame now on the state governments. Of course, if there were no GST, this problem would not be in existence in the first place. It is because of the legislation of this government that the problem exists, and so they have got to face up to it and do something about it. They can take actions with the state government which can overcome the problem. But the problem exists today; and how to redress the problem is something that faces this government. There is a tax on a tax, and there is no compensation. The fact that it was avoidable and that the government failed to address it is totally their fault, and the blame lies with the government on this issue. (Time expired)15:30:0010403McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Senator Hogg finished by saying that this government should face up to its tax policies. Well, for four years now, Senator Hogg, the opposition has come into this chamber and not once has it come in with an alternative policy. You have been negative for those four years. From this side of the chamber we have called for your alternative policies. But I am happy to say that you do have an alternative policy with regard to tax: it is the wholesale sales tax. So, for the first time in four years, we can say that you actually do have an alternative policy and that, if you are re-elected to government, you will return wholesale sales tax—that iniquitous tax, that inconsistent tax, that complex tax, that debilitating tax on exporters and on our manufacturing and production sector.Yesterday you came in here with feigned concern for the car industry. Well, talk about a tax on a tax on a tax! Your wholesale sales tax is just that, Senator Hogg and Senator Sherry. When you buy an imported car, wholesale sales tax goes on top of the stamp duty too. That is a tax on a tax. Throw in the tariff, and you have got a triple tax.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy President, and it goes to relevance. The issue is the tax on a tax: the GST, not the wholesale sales tax. The GST is going on everything and double taxation is applying. That is the issue, and he should be brought back to the question.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—On that point of order, quite obviously Senator Sherry is wrong. Senator McGauran must be allowed to develop his argument. If it is a tax on a tax, it is quite relevant; and I would suggest that Senator Sherry does not have a point of order at all.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! This is a wide ranging debate and I would ask Senator McGauran to relate it to the answer given by Senator Kemp.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I was very much developing my argument in regard to a tax on a tax on a tax. In fact, under your tax system we would have a triple tax on cars. You came in here yesterday feigning concern for the industry but, under your tax system, you would have a triple tax: a tariff and a wholesale sales tax on the stamp duty. So your system is a triple tax.You raised the question of what we are doing about the stamp duties by the states. With regard to state stamp duties, what did you do in your 13 years? We have a policy to abolish the stamp duties in the states. What better can you do than that? That is not a tax on a tax; that is an abolition of a tax. That is a whole abolition of a tax. That is our policy, and by 2001 that will be introduced. Why don't you get up and say that you would follow suit on that?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, you might like to address the Chair, thank you very much.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, you would be happy to know that this government's policy is to abolish the array of state taxes so that there will not be a tax on a tax at all. We will be abolishing bed taxes by 1 July next year. We will be abolishing the financial institutions tax by July of the following year.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What about payroll tax?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I would hope, Senator Sherry, that in the future payroll tax—which is a state tax, let us note—will also be tackled down the track. It is a debilitating tax also. We are abolishing the bed tax, the financial institutions tax and, by July 2000, we will be abolishing stamp duty on shares. We will be abolishing the bank accounts debit tax—another debilitating tax on business—by 1 July 2001. What better policy can you have than to abolish the states' stamp duties and the array of taxes you are talking about that have a tax on a tax, when the alternative policy is to maintain them in place and have a tax on a tax on a tax? You are triple taxers; we abolish the taxes.It is pretty clear that there may well be a transitional phase with the massive package that we are introducing, but we have in place the education system to make that transition as smooth as possible. Without doubt, we say to look at the whole package and to look at the advantages for business with regard to the whole package. We are introducing a 30 per cent tax for business. We are introducing large personal income tax cuts—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What has this got to do with woodchipping?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Because you will not look at the whole picture. The whole picture benefits business. The abolition of those stamp duties will benefit business. The reduction of company tax will benefit business. The introduction of large personal income tax cuts will filter its way through the system and benefit business. These are not taxes on taxes; these are reductions in, and abolitions of, taxes. So what is your alterna tive on the other side but to come in here and carp and be negative—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.1040410001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:10404201M6Allison Sen LynThe petition of the undersigned draws attention to the Senate the regressive nature of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment (EBA) which increases funding for private school places by taking money out of the public education.Your petitioners call on the Australian Government to:1. Immediately abolish the EBA2. Introduce a fair funding system for public education3. Increase funding for public education to reduce class sizes and avoid a national teacher shortage.Senator Allison1M6Senator Allison(from 20 citizens)104046087Y6Crossin Sen TrishTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in the Parliament.The petition of electors of the Northern Territory points out to the Senate our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care system.Senator Crossin7Y6Senator Crossin(from 608 citizens)104047672WP6Lightfoot Sen PhillipWe, the undersigned Citizens of Australia, petition the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled to support a referendum, to put forward the proposition that the divisive Native Title concept found in the common law, by the High Court, be legislated out of existence by our elected Parliament.Senator LightfootWP6Senator Lightfoot(from 7,672 citizens)Petitions received.Notices104051040515:36:0010405Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2 and 3 and standing in my name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of: the Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999, made under regulation 7 of the Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations; the Australian Sport Drug Agency Regulations 1999, as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 159 and made under the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990; and Exemption No. CASA 25/1999 made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning these instruments.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations 1999, Statutory Rules 1999 No.15926 August 1999The Hon Jackie Kelly MPMinister for Sport and TourismParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations 1999, Statutory Rules 1999 No.159 and the Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999, which create a single drug testing scheme and the administrative framework for the collection and sampling of drug tests performed on competitors in sport. The Committee has a number of concerns with these Regulations and Orders which it outlines below.Australian Sports Drug Agency RegulationsDrug control officials and chaperonesRegulations 8 and 9 allow for the appointment of, respectively, `drug control officials' and `chaperones'. Since, by virtue of subregulation 9(2), a drug control official is also a chaperone, and since neither need have any special qualifications or attributes, as they need only be a `person', it is difficult to see the reason for the two types of officials.Personal interestSubregulations 12(1) and 13(2) seek to ensure that a person taking a sample from a competitor will report to the Australian Sports Drug Agency any personal interest in the collection of the sample. Subregulations 12(2) and 13(3) nevertheless permit the Agency to allow the person taking the sample to continue with that task.Conditions of service—persons appointed by a sporting administrative bodySubregulation 13(2) requires the Agency to make sure that the conditions of service of persons appointed by a sporting administrative body contain particular terms. However, it is suggested that this provision may not fulfil its apparent purpose. There is no requirement, for instance, that the conditions of service must be immutable, and it is difficult to see how the Agency could monitor the conditions of service, at any particular time, of those appointed by other, outside, bodies.Discretion to use an interpreterSubregulations 18(2) and (3) give the Agency a discretion as to whether to communicate with a competitor through an interpreter. It might be thought that if a competitor is `unable to receive or understand [a] request' (see subregulation 18(2)), or is `unable to understand English' (see subregulation 18(3)), the Agency should be required to make all reasonable efforts to ensure, by whatever means, that its request is understood.Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory CommitteeBy virtue of paragraph 65(2)(b) read with subregulation 65(3), the Chairman of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee must convene a meeting of the Committee if he or she receives, among other things, an oral request therefor from the Agency. The Committee suggests that it would conduce to better administration if such requests were required to be in writing.Delegation of powersRegulation 80 permits the Agency to delegate `all or any of its powers except [this] power to delegate' to, among others, a drug control official or a chaperone, and regulation 82 gives a drug control official a similar power to delegate to a chaperone. However, it is apparent that, by virtue of the definitions of drug control official and chaperone in regulation 3, there is no limit by reason of office or attribute on the persons who may be appointed to the position of drug control official or chaperone. The Committee suggests that these powers of delegation are too wide, and that delegations should, for instance, be limited to employees of the Agency. Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing OrdersCompliance Section 8 of the Orders provides that substantial, rather than strict, compliance with the provisions of these Orders will generally be sufficient. However, the Orders do not indicate who is to decide what constitutes substantial compliance.Collection of SamplesSubsection 10(2) of the Orders obliges a competitor to comply with `any instructions given by a chaperone during the sample collection process'. However, the subsection does not limit those instructions to such as may be reasonably required in the circumstances.Section 11 of the Orders gives to the drug control officer in charge of the collection of a urine sample a discretion as to the information which he or she may record on the drug testing form. It is difficult to see why this discretion should be available, and why the officer is not required to record certain information, and no other.Subsection 28(2) to (6) of the Orders list a number of matters which a competitor and a drug control officer must carry out, but then, in subsection 28(7), the drug control officer is given the discretion as to the instructions which may be given to the competitor. It is difficult to see why this subsection does not lay down a further mandatory requirement.Both subsections 29(4) and 43(4) of the Orders appear anomolous. Subsections 29(3) and 43(3) provide that the respective subsections (4) apply if, for example, the pH of a sample is lower than 5 or higher than 7. But the relevant subsections (4) then require the drug control officer to deny the evidence that he or she has received, and treat the sample as if the pH were not lower than 5 or higher than 7.Subsection 49(2) of the Orders deems `a courier in the normal course of business' to be a secure means of transporting a sample to an accredited laboratory. However, neither the Act, the Regulations, nor the Orders provide a definition of such a courier. Also, if a drug control officer decides not to use such a courier, he or she is required to see to the transport of samples `by means which will ensure [their] safe arrival'. The section, however, does not provide for the means by which the officer is to fulfil this requirement.Subsection 51(2) of the Orders obliges a drug control officer to store samples overnight in `a secure place', but neither the Act, the Regulations nor the Orders apparently defines such a place.Testing of SamplesSection 57 of the Orders deals with the testing of part B of a sample, if the result of testing part A of the sample is positive. The section does not, however, indicate what an accredited laboratory is to do with part B of a sample if, either the test of part A is negative, or the Agency does not instruct the laboratory to test part B.Scheme A RegisterSubsection 60(2) of the Orders requires the Agency to remove details of a person's name, etc from the Scheme A register if it turns out that the person was not a competitor. It might be thought that the Agency should satisfy itself before carrying out the testing program on a person whether they were a competitor or not.The Committee is concerned that the discretions about what is being recorded in the Register may infringe on the privacy of the athletes. The Committee would welcome advice on any comments the Privacy Commissioner may have made on this aspect of the Orders.Prohibited Drugs and Doping MethodsSubsection 61(1) of the Orders appears to incorporate into the Orders various lists of prohibited drugs and doping methods kept by sporting administration bodies `as in force from time to time'. So far as the Committee can ascertain, this provision is contrary to subsection 49A(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , and is to that extent void.Consultation with Privacy CommissionerThe Explanatory Statement to the Regulations stated that the `Privacy Commissioner has been consulted [about the Regulations] but notes that compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 will depend upon the way Drug Testing Scheme A is implemented'. The Orders appear to implement Scheme A, but the Explanatory Statement to these Orders states that the `Privacy Commissioner has been consulted on the [Orders] but notes that compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 will depend upon the way the Orders are implemented'. The Committee would appreciate your clarification on the response from the Privacy Commissioner as it is concerned that the Commissioner will not be able to make an adequate assessment of the scheme until the Agency implements the Orders.Explanatory StatementsThe Committee is concerned that the Explanatory Statements for both the Regulations and the Orders give a broad picture only. These statements are deficient, in that there is no detailed explanation of each individual regulation. There is also no indication whether these Regulations and Orders are consistent with standard testing orders used throughout the international community and whether international and domestic sporting bodies were consulted about the testing scheme. The Committee would appreciate your advice on the matters raised on the Regulations and the Orders.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator Helen CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulationsand OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 26 August 1999 commenting on the Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations 1999 No. 159 (the Regulations) and the Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999 (the Orders).I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Committee's concerns. For ease of reference, in the following paragraphs the Committee's questions are presented in bold type, with detailed answers appearing immediately below.THE AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG AGENCY REGULATIONS 1999 (THE REGULATIONS)Drug Control Officials and ChaperonesRegulations 8 and 9 allow for the appointment of, respectively, `drug control officials' and `chaperones'. Since, by virtue of subregulation 9(2), a drug control official is also a chaperone, and since neither need have any special qualifications or attributes, as they need only be a `person', it is difficult to see the reason for the two types of officials.The reason for two roles is separation of functions. A chaperone will accompany an athlete from the time of notification of a request to provide a sample to the point of provision of the sample, and will accompany the athlete throughout the collection process. This is to ensure security of the sample.The drug control official (DCO) manages the overall sample collection process. The DCO is not in the company of the athlete at all times. It is, however, appropriate for the DCO to be able to perform the functions of the subordinate chaperone if called upon to do so.This might occur if the chaperone is not the same sex as the athlete requested to provide the sample.Personal interestSubregulations 12(1) and 13(2) seek to ensure that a person taking a sample from a competitor will report to the Australian Sports Drug Agency any personal interest in the collection of the sample. Subregulations 12(2) and 13(3) nevertheless permit the Agency to allow the person taking the sample to continue with that task.A personal interest must be declared, but does not necessarily disqualify the person from being an Agency representative or an appointee of a sporting administration body. There is nothing unusual in this. The Agency or the body concerned must then decide whether the interest warrants withdrawing the person. Ultimately it is for the courts to decide if a wrong decision has been made (In this context and throughout this reply, `court' includes `tribunal'.)Conditions of service—persons appointed by a sporting administrative bodySubregulation 13(2) requires the Agency to make sure that the conditions of service of persons appointed by a sporting administrative body contain particular terms. However, it is suggested that this provision may not fulfil its apparent purpose. There is no requirement, for instance, that the conditions of service must be immutable, and it is difficult to see how the Agency could monitor the conditions of service, at any particular time, of those appointed by other, outside, bodies.In this circumstance the Agency enters into a contract arrangement with the sporting administration body so the sporting administration body may collect samples from competitors on behalf of the Agency.The contract will stipulate the obligations and responsibilities of the sporting administration body. This includes monitoring conflicts of interest relating to any person appointed by the sporting administration body to conduct and monitor the sample collection process.If the Agency becomes aware that the sporting administration body is not fulfilling or has not fulfilled its obligations under the contract, the Agency will renegotiate or revoke the contract as may be appropriate in the circumstances. A clause of this type is included in contracts entered into by the Agency.Discretion to use an interpreterSubregulations 18(2) and (3) give the Agency a discretion as to whether to communicate with a competitor through an interpreter. It might be thought that if a competitor is `unable to receive or understand [a] request' (see subregulation 18(2)), or is `unable to understand English' (see subregulation 18(3)), the Agency should be required to make all reasonable efforts to ensure, by whatever means, that its request is understood.This is an empowering provision, so that the request communicated by the interpreter is taken to be a request by the Agency. It is a matter of the Agency's judgment whether the competitor understands the request. The review provisions apply if a competitor claims not to have understood, but the Agency thinks he or she did understand. However, the provision will be expanded to ensure that the Agency is required to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that its request is understood.Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory CommitteeBy virtue of paragraph 65(2)(b) read with subregulation 65(3), the Chairman of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee must convene a meeting of the Committee if he or she receives, among other things, an oral request therefor from the Agency. The Committee suggests that it would be conducive to better administration if such requests were required to be in writing.It is agreed that it is preferable for such requests to be in writing, but it is conceivable that circumstances may arise where time will not allow this. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent a written request being made.A situation of urgency could arise, for example, where the determination of the validity of an analytical positive test result requires a scientific investigation protocol to be set by the ASDMAC. Such a circumstance is conceivable in an event testing context when positive test results need to be reported within 24-48 hours.A written record of the request for the meeting from the Chief Executive Officer of ASDA would, of course, form part of the minutes of the meeting of ASDMAC.Delegation of powersRegulation 80 permits the Agency to delegate `all or any of its powers' . . . except [this] power to delegate to, among others, a drug control official or a chaperone, and regulation 82 gives a drug control official a similar power to delegate to a chaperone. However, it is apparent that by virtue of the definitions of a drug control official and chaperone in regulation 3, there is no limit by reason of office or attribute on the persons who may be appointed to the position of drug control official or chaperone. The Committee suggests that these powers of delegation are too wide, and that delegations should, for instance, be limited to employees of the Agency.DCO's and chaperones are appointed by the Agency and are employees of the Agency. It is not possible to limit the class further because of the wide range of persons who may be employed to fill thee appointments.A DCO needs to be able to delegate his or her powers to a chaperone if necessary for effective delivery of the Agency's services. For example, in some circumstances arising during the sample collection process (say, if the DCO becomes unwell during the testing process) it may be necessary for the DCO to delegate some of his or her functions to a chaperone.AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG AGENCY DRUG TESTING ORDERSComplianceSection 8 of the Orders provides that substantial, rather than strict, compliance with the provisions of these Orders will generally be sufficient. However, the Orders do not indicate who is to decide what constitutes substantial compliance.Subsection 17A(3) of the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990 (the Act) sets down the circumstances under which the Agency must strictly comply with procedures.Apart from the matters mentioned in that subsection, the Act permits the regulations to provide for substantial compliance with procedures set out in the Scheme (subsection 17H(2)). What constitutes substantial compliance is to be decided by the courts which generally permit inconsequential deviations from procedures where the deviations will not affect the end result. `Substantial compliance' provisions can not be used to change the structure or policy of the law.Collection of samplesSubsection 10(2) of the Orders obliges a competitor to comply with `any instructions given by a chaperone during the sample collection process'. However, the subsection does not limit those instructions to such as may be reasonably required in the circumstances.If a competitor believes an instruction is unreasonable, he or she can apply for a review of any action taken by the Agency as a result of either compliance or failure to comply with the instruction. If the requirement is only to comply with `reasonable instructions', the competitor could arbitrarily decide that an instruction is unreasonable, and the Agency would then have to establish that it was reasonable. In the time available between request and provision of a sample, arbitration of this point may be impractical or even impossible. However, the orders will be altered to provide that the instruction must be relevant to the process.Section 11 of the Orders gives to the drug control officer in charge of the collection of a urine sample a discretion as to the information which he or she may record on the drug testing form. It is difficult to see why this discretion should be available, and why the officer is not required to record certain information, and no other.This is an empowering provision. The requirement to complete the form is set out in section 30. While a drug control officer is empowered under section 11 to annotate the form relevantly, the competitor is given the opportunity to agree or disagree with the contents of the form under section 30.The sort of annotation that is envisaged here includes descriptions of problems encountered during the sample collection process, annotations requested by a competitor concerned about, for example, medications he or she might have taken or the procedures adopted during the collection process.Subsection 28(2) to (6) of the Orders list a number of matters which a competitor and a drug control officer must carry out, but then, in subsection 28(7), the drug control officer is given the discretion as to the instructions which may be given to the competitor. It is difficult to see why this subsection does not lay down a further mandatory requirement.Subsections 28(2) to (6) set down the procedures which must be followed if a sample proves to be sufficient. The discretionary nature of subsection 28(7) is important to leave open to the competitor the option of requesting assistance to seal the bottle (see subsection 28(8)).Subsections 28(7) and 28(8) provide options for both the competitor and the DCO in dealing with a situation where a bottle continues to leak despite efforts to seal it properly. Using the discretionary power contained in subsection 28(7), the DCO may instruct the competitor to give an additional sample, or select another test kit, or the competitor, under subsection 28(8), may ask the DCO, or another person, to help seal the sample bottle. The provision will be amended to make it clearer that the outcome must be a valid sample in a secure bottle.Both subsection 29(4) and 43(4) of the Orders appear anomalous. Subsections 29(3) and 43(3) provide that the respective subsections (4) apply if, for example, the pH of a sample is lower than 5 or higher than 7. But the relevant subsections (4) then require the drug control officer to deny the evidence that he or she has received, and treat the sample as if the pH were not lower than 5 or higher than 7.If the relative acidity (pH) of a sample is lower than 5 or higher than 7, or the sample's specific gravity is equal to or lower than 1.010, the sample is not necessarily unsuitable for analysis. A sample's pH and specific gravity are only preliminary indicators of its suitability for analysis.A sample outside the prescribed limits of pH and specific gravity will still be sent to the laboratory for testing. The DCO, however, is given the discretion to instruct the competitor to give the Agency an additional sample. The additional sample is also tested for pH and specific gravity and is sent to the laboratory for analysis as well.Subsection 49(2) of the orders deems `a courier in the normal course of business' to be a secure means of transporting a sample to an accredited laboratory. However, neither the Act, the Regulations, nor the Orders provide a definition of such a courier. Also, if a drug control officer decides not to use such a courier, he or she is required to see to the transport of samples `by means which will ensure [their] safe arrival'. The section, however, does not provide for the means by which the officer is to fulfil this requirement.This is meant to link up with the prescribed courier services referred to in regulation 86. Section 49 of the orders should clearly state this. I undertake to amend the provision accordingly.`Safe arrival' is a question of fact. The official could use a prescribed courier service, or other means that will achieve the required result. It would be otiose to spell out all the steps that would ensure safe arrival and it would not be possible to provide a conclusive list of appropriate circumstances in any event. A court could determine if the provisions of the Orders had not been followed in the particular circumstances of each case.Subsection 51(2) of the Orders obliges a drug control officer to store samples overnight in `a secure place', but neither the Act, the Regulations nor the Orders apparently defines such a place.Whether a place is secure is a question of fact that will be determined by the courts if necessary.If a competitor is concerned that a sample may have been tampered with, this may be raised in a review and the security of the place where the sample is kept ultimately becomes an issue for the court. (It should be noted that the containers in which samples are kept are required to be tamper-evident.)Testing of samplesSection 57 of the Orders deals with the testing of part B of a sample, if the result of testing part A of the sample is positive. The section does not, however, indicate what an accredited laboratory is to do with part B of a sample if, either the test of part A is negative, or the Agency does not instruct the laboratory to test part B.If part A of a sample is negative or if the Agency does not give instruction to the laboratory to test part B, the testing process stops.The accredited laboratory procedures state that if a test is completed on Part A of a sample and the result is negative, the laboratory is required to hold on to Part B of the sample for 30 days. In the case where a Part A of a sample tests positive, irrespective of whether the Agency instructs the laboratory to test Part B, the laboratory is required to hold Part B of the sample for 12 months. Appropriate provision can be made in the Regulations to outline these practices. I will ensure that this is done as soon as practicable.Scheme A RegisterSubsection 60(2) of the Orders requires the Agency to remove details of a person's name, etc from the Scheme A register if it turns out that the person was not a competitor. It might be thought that the Agency should satisfy itself before carrying out the testing program on a person whether they were a competitor or not.The Committee is concerned that the discretions about what is being recorded in the Register may infringe on the privacy of the athletes. The Committee would welcome advice on any comments the Privacy Commissioner may have made on this aspect of the Orders.A drug testing scheme can apply only to competitors. The Agency can only enter details about someone the Agency believes is a competitor. Subsection 60(2) provides the mechanism for removing details if the Agency later decides that the person was not a competitor.The Agency is diligent in satisfying itself that persons subject to testing by the Agency are competitors. However there may be circumstances where a person ceases to be a competitor but the responsible sporting administration body does not notify ASDA.The Privacy Commissioner has no objection to the provision at this stage. The Commissioner's comments are discussed below.Prohibited drugs and doping methodsSubsection 61(1) of the Orders appears to incorporate into the Orders various lists of prohibited drugs and doping methods kept by sporting administration bodies `as in force from time to time'. So far as the Committee can ascertain, this provision is contrary to subsection 49A(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , and is to that extent void.Subsection 11(5) of the Act deals with the schedule of drugs and doping methods for a drug testing scheme:11(5) The schedule referred to in paragraph 2(b) may make provision for or in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating, with or without modification, any matter contained in any other instrument or writing made by a sporting administration body: (a) as in force or existing at a particular time; or (b) as in force or existing from time to time.The Act, therefore, specifically permits the provision in question and overrides the Acts Interpretation Act to that extent. Consultation with Privacy CommissionerThe Explanatory Statement to the Regulations stated that the `Privacy Commissioner has been consulted [about the Regulations] but notes that compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 will depend upon the way Drug Testing Scheme A is implemented'. The Orders appear to implement Scheme A, but the Explanatory Statement to these Orders states that the `Privacy Commissioner has been consulted on the [Orders] but notes that compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 will depend upon the way the Orders are implemented'. The Committee would appreciate your clarification on the response from the Privacy Commissioner as it is concerned that the Commissioner will not be able to make an adequate assessment of the scheme until the Agency implements the orders.It is my understanding that the Orders are in compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 . The Privacy Commissioner has advised that the Orders and the Regulations appear to be in compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 . However, it is reasonable to say that further comment cannot be made until such time as the Orders are in operation and the Privacy Commissioner has an opportunity to determine whether the practical application of the Regulations and Orders is in compliance with the privacy legislation.The Privacy Commissioner has also been given an opportunity to view The Athlete's Guide provided under section 14 of the Orders. The Privacy Commissioner advised that The Athlete's Guide also appeared to be in compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 . Further comment could not be provided until such time as the Regulations and Orders were in operation.If in operation the Regulations or the Orders prove to cause any privacy concerns, action will be taken immediately to address them.Explanatory StatementsThe Committee is concerned that the Explanatory Statements for both the Regulations and the Orders give a broad picture only. These statements are deficient, in that there is no detailed explanation of each individual regulation. There is also no indication whether these Regulations and Orders are consistent with standard testing orders used throughout the international community and whether international and domestic sporting bodies were consulted about the testing scheme.The paperwork accompanying the Regulations and Orders was prepared in good faith. I apologise for any misunderstanding which may have occurred in respect of what was required. However, if the committee would like to have a more detailed Statement, I would be happy to have it prepared. Consultation with domestic and international sporting bodiesThe Australian Sports Commission, the Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Sport Commission Medical Advisory Panel and many other sporting and government bodies were consulted in the development of the legislative package and agreed with its general thrust.To my knowledge, Australia is the only country to have such Orders. However, legislative instruments for imposing doping controls for sport exist in South Africa and New Zealand: these nations have modelled their legislative instruments on the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act and Regulations.The Orders set out procedures which are consistent with the International Olympic Committee's Medical Code. This code provides the procedural framework for doping control in all Olympic Sports.The Drug Testing Orders are consistent with the International Standard for Doping Control which has been developed by parties to the International Anti-Doping Arrangement (IADA). The parties to the IADA are Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.The intent of IADA is to seek international harmonisation of doping control procedures. IADA is currently mid way through the process of seeking International Standards Organisation (ISO) certification of a minimum standard to be upheld, to ensure delivery of drug testing services through high quality procedures.ASDA procedures are well respected by the international sporting fraternity and are considered to be achieving best practice in doping control.I trust that these explanations allay the Committee's concerns. I would be happy to provide further information should this be required. Should the Committee wish it, officials of my Department or the Agency could be made available to brief the Committee in person. The drafters of the Regulations and the Orders, the Office of Legislative Drafting in the Attorney-General's Department, have also indicated a willingness to discuss any aspect of the drafting with you if this should be required.Yours sincerelyJACKIE KELLY30 September 199914 October 1999The Hon Jackie Kelly MPMinister for Sport and TourismParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear MinisterThank you for your letter of 30 September 1999 in which you responded to the Committee's concerns on the Australian Sports Drugs Agency Regulations 1999 No.159 and the Australian Sports Drugs Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999.The Committee welcomes your considered response, which has addressed most of our concerns. However, there are some continuing issues for which the Committee would appreciate your further advice.Conditions of serviceIn relation to the conditions of service for persons appointed by a sporting administrative body, you advise that the Agency enters into a contract arrangement with such bodies to collect samples from competitors on its behalf. Although such contracts are said to stipulate the obligations and responsibilities of such bodies, it is not apparent how the Agency would become aware that they are not fulfilling such contracts. Has the Agency developed practical mechanisms to handle a breach of such contracts? You also advise that a clause is included concerning the renegotiation or revocation of such contracts in such circumstances. It would assist our deliberations if, in addition to answering our questions, a copy of a draft contract could be made available.DelegationThe Committee is still concerned with the delegation of the Agency's powers. We understand that there is some safeguards to this delegation because the drug control officials and chaperones are employees of the Agency. However, given the wide range of persons you say are employed to fill these appointments, the Committee would appreciate your advice as to whether there are any specific attributes or qualifications required for such officials.Safe arrivalThe Committee appreciates that `safe arrival' is a question of fact. However, if the Agency were to rely on that fact, then it would appear to be unnecessary to describe a prescribed courier service as one means of achieving that end. The Committee is concerned with the means of ensuring the safe arrival of samples and considers it should either be spelt out prescriptively or left for the officer to determine in the light of the relevant circumstances.Secure placeThe Committee also appreciates that a `secure place' is a question of fact. Even though the question of what is a secure place can be challenged in a court, such a determination would not be held until some considerable time after the event. The Committee considers it may be preferable to nominate places as safe and secure from the first available moment of the drug testing.IADA and other drug testing organisationsThe Committee notes that Australia is a party to the International Anti-Doping Arrangement (IADA). You advise that other countries are looking at the issue of drug testing in sport. What is not apparent from your response, however, is which organisations other than IADA are undertaking drug testing. The Committee would appreciate a list of such agencies.The purpose of this letter is to outline the remaining concerns of the Committee. We are mindful that our notice of disallowance imposes a deadline on the resolution of these matters and appreciate the offer of a briefing to clarify matters. Might we suggest that you provide a written reply by Tuesday 19 October 1999 and that the Committee meet Agency officials on Thursday 21 October 1999 to deal with any residual issues that arise.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator Helen CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee onRegulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 14 October 1999 concerning our previous correspondence on the Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations 1999 No. 159 and the Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999.I note that the majority of the Committee's concerns were satisfactorily addressed by my letter of 30 September 1999 and am happy to provide further advice in relation to the outstanding issues.Conditions of ServiceOn entering into a contract arrangement with a sporting administrative body in order to collect samples from competitors on its behalf, the Agency requires the body to be familiar with the requirements of the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990 (the Act), Regulations and Drug Testing Orders.The Sporting Administration Body, in signing the contractual agreement with the Agency, warrants and agrees that it is empowered to do all things that will be required by this agreement, in particular that it will comply with the conflict provisions under the Act.During the term of the agreement, the Sporting Administration Body is required to promptly advise the Agency of changes to the procedures applied to the drug testing process. The contract used to engage a sporting administration body to test a competitor enables the Agency to terminate the agreement where a breach has occurred.As a practical measure, prior to negotiating a contract the Agency undertakes an assessment process that examines the procedures and policies of the sporting administration body. This assessment is used to determine the suitability of the sporting administration body to conduct drug testing on the Agency's behalf. Another practical mechanism to monitor compliance exists in the form of the doping control session report. The Doping Control Official (DCO) in charge of the sample collection session prepares reports that describe issues arising during the session. The competitor providing a sample can also record any issues of concern or note on the drug control form that is provided to the Agency on completion of the drug testing mission.A copy of the contract pro-forma is at Attachment A.DelegationSpecific qualifications in the form of accreditation are required before an individual can be employed as a DCO or chaperone. The employment of DCOs and chaperones occurs only after the individual concerned has been accredited as a drug control official or chaperone respectively. The accreditation process involves a program of theory (equivalent three day program) and practical field training for DCOs and theory training followed by an examination for chaperones.The accreditation process applied by the Agency is equivalent to international best practice.The competencies of a DCO and chaperone are set out in the Attachment B.Safe ArrivalIn light of the Committee's comments, I propose that section 49 of the Scheme will be revised to emphasise its facilitative nature, with a view to reducing the length and expense of court proceedings while allowing for the full range of circumstances that might occur. I propose that subsection 49(2) be replaced by a provision that provides for it to be taken that the transport bag has arrived safety at a laboratory if it is delivered to the laboratory by a prescribed courier and there is no evidence sufficient to raise a doubt that it did arrive safely. This will preserve flexibility in choice of means of delivery for the drug control officer, but will also assist in establishing the chain of control where standard delivery methods are used and the point is not contested.Secure PlaceThe collection of samples occurs in a range of settings largely determined by the nature and duration of the sporting event. To be prescriptive about what the specific characteristics of a secure place for all possible doping control circumstances would be virtually impossible. To ensure samples are kept in a secure place by the DCO, the Agency has issued guidelines regarding security of samples collected and the DCO is required to manage samples accordingly.The use of tamper evidence sample containers and security transport bags ensures that evidence of interference would be apparent before the final confirmation of a drug testing result and validation of the result leading to entry of a competitor's or person's name on the register of notifiable events.IADA and the other drug testing organisationsThe members of the International Anti-Doping Arrangement undertake year-round drug testing at events or during out-of-competition periods following protocols that are similar to those employed by the Agency. Other agencies that undertake drug testing include, but are not limited to:The International Olympic Committee during Olympic Games only (using the infrastructure and staff provided by the relevant organising committee);International Federations (mostly during internationally sanctioned events);National Olympic Committees (e.g. the United States Olympic Committee, the Chinese Olympic Committee);International Drug Testing Management (DTM) which provides drug testing services out-of-competition for a range of international federations including the International Athletics Federation and the International Swimming Federation;A number of Governments that are signatories to the Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention (e.g. France and Ireland) conduct drug testing through their respective anti-doping agencies (a list of signatories to the Convention is at Attachment C).I understand arrangements have now been made for the Committee to be briefed by officials of the Agency on Thursday, 21 October 1999. Officers of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Office of Legislative Drafting will also attend to assist as appropriate.I appreciate the Committee's efforts to finalise this matter quickly, and trust that the proposed approaches will lead to resolution of the outstanding issues.Yours sincerelyJACKIE KELLY21 October 199922 November 1999The Hon Jackie Kelly MPMinister for Sport and Tourism Parliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterThank you for making available officers from the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) to brief the Committee on the Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations and Orders. The briefing proved to be informative and useful.The information provided by ASDA answered members specific concerns on:. the delegation of powers and functions to drug control officials and chaperones;. the safe arrival of samples; and. the standards and procedures adopted by other countries and organisations.The Committee discussed its remaining concerns with the officers and you should note the following:. Conditions of Service The Committee discussed the possibility of amending the contract document to include a definition of gross negligence in clause 16.3 and a clause concerning indemnity protection under Warranties. ASDA agreed that such amendments would be considered.. Secure PlaceThe Committee suggested that the wording of subsection 51(2) of the Orders could be amended to `held securely' instead of a `secure place'. ADS and a representative from the Office of Legislative Drafting considered that this would not alter the meaning of the subsection and agreed that an amendment would be considered.The Committee appreciates your assistance in obtaining a satisfactory conclusion to this matter and will withdraw the notice of disallowance at the first opportunity.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairExemption No. CASA 25/1999 made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 198826 August 1999The Hon John Anderson MPMinister for Transport and Regional ServicesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to Exemption No. CASA 25/1999 and Instrument No. CASA 884/99 made under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.CASA 25/1999 exempts Brumby pilotless aircraft from compliance with most of those regulations while a member of the aeronautical engineering department of the University of Sydney flies them for developmental testing purposes. Clause 5 of the Conditions, subject to which this Exemption has been granted, requires a flight tester who is flying a Brumby pilotless aircraft to `ensure that persons operating ultralight aircraft at Medway are notified not less than 24 hours before flights begin under this exemption'. Read literally, this clause would apparently require a flight tester to have the foresight to know who was going to fly an ultralight aircraft on the following day. It would appear that the condition is intended to relate to all those who normally operate ultralight aircraft out of Medway. The Committee would appreciate your confirmation that this is the intention of the Exemption.CASA 884/99 allows for aircraft taking part in the RAAF Museum Interactive Flying Program to fly over a public gathering at less than the normally required heights. While the Explanatory Statement provides a considerable amount of information on the legislative authority for this instrument, and its effect, it provides no information on the nature of the RAAF Program. The Committee would be grateful for your advice on the nature and frequency of the air displays carried out by this Program.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator Helen CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanI refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's letter of 1 November 1999 in reply to your letter dated 26 August 1999 regarding Exemption No. CASA 25/1999 and Instrument No. CASA 884/99 made under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 . I am writing to you in the Deputy Prime Minister's absence.The Deputy Prime Minister informed you that CASA had sought legal advice about Exemption No. CASA 25/1999, which exempts Brumby pilotless aircraft from compliance with most of these regulations under certain conditions.As a result of your Committee's concerns, CASA has revoked this exemption, and remade it without the condition requiring that persons operating ultralight aircraft at Medway aerodrome are given at least 24 hours notice of flight tests of the Brumby aircraft. I trust this addresses the concerns of your Committee. I have attached a copy of the reissued exemption for your information.Yours sincerelyBill McKinleyAviation Adviser19 November 19992M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the Australian Sports Drug Agency instruments.Leave granted.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—As honourable senators will know, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee works assiduously and without fanfare to ensure that over 2,000 legislative instruments tabled in the Senate each year accord with fundamental principles as set out in the standing orders. The approach of the committee is non-partisan and its objective is quality control.The committee raised several concerns about the Australian Sports Drugs Agency Regulations 1999 and the Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999 with Minister Jackie Kelly and corresponded with her on a number of occasions seeking explanations on specific provisions in the regulations and orders relating to drug control officials and chaperones, collection and testing of samples, prohibited drugs and doping methods and privacy considerations.The responses to these inquiries were helpful but did not fully address all of the committee's concerns. Through the minister the committee arranged a briefing with officers of the department, the Australian Sports Drug Agency and the Office of Legislative Drafting in order to discuss and resolve the outstanding matters. The successful results of this meeting are noted in the correspondence incorporated in Hansard.I would indicate to the Senate that this is another good example of the work undertaken by the committee to ensure that regulations are of the highest quality and are consistent with fundamental legal principles. I commend the minister and the departmental officers for the cooperative, helpful and instructive approach they adopted during this process and thank my colleagues on the committee for the work they did on this important matter.10415Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway be extended to 17 February 2000.Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 12), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 243 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on the provisions of the Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill 1999 be extended to 17 February 2000.Senator Chris Evans to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to continue a system of child care planning and allocation of resources for regions of high need, and for related purposes.Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Needs Regions) Bill 1999 .Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 24 November 1999 is Science Meets Parliament Day in Canberra, and (ii) this event provides a great opportunity for members of parliament to meet scientists from their electorates;(b) congratulates the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies for organising this event; and(c) urges all political parties to recognise the importance of science to this nation's future, economically, socially, culturally and environmentally, and to adopt policies which reflect this fact.1041515:39:0010415Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regula tions and Ordinances Committee I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in my name for the next day of sitting.Ministerial Statements104151041515:40:0010415Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to table a statement on East Timor made in the other place by the Prime Minister and to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Today I inform the House that the government has decided on the formation of two additional infantry battalions for the Australian Army as well as other force additions. These decisions flow directly from Australia's involvement in East Timor. I also report to the House on the impressive progress made to date by the INTERFET multinational force in East Timor, so ably and effectively led by Australia. Furthermore, I will explain the details of a temporary revenue measure, for the next financial year only, to cover the unexpected costs of the military deployment by our nation in East Timor.On 21 September, I advised parliament of the deployment of Australian troops as part of INTERFET, the multinational force mandated by the United Nations, to restore order in East Timor. I am pleased to report that, in the intervening two months, INTERFET has largely achieved the tasks the United Nations set it: to restore peace and security to East Timor, to protect the United Nations mission in East Timor and to facilitate humanitarian relief.In this period also, East Timor's political status was settled. On 19 October, the People's Consultative Assembly in Indonesia agreed to the separation of East Timor from the republic of Indonesia, thus respecting the vote East Timor's people freely exercised in the United Nations ballot on 30 August. East Timor is now under the transitional authority of the United Nations until its full independence is achieved in two or three years time. The day after its decision on East Timor, the assembly elected Abdurrahman Wahid as President and Megawati Sukarnoputri as Vice-President. These steps underline the enormous distance Indonesia has travelled towards democracy over the past 12 months.INTERFET's achievement of its mandate has been an outstanding success. It reflects very well indeed on Australia's leadership, the international support the force has received, the good cooperation among contributing countries and, above all, the professionalism of the service men and women in the force. Soldiers, sailors and aircrew from 17 nations are working together effectively. The force now numbers over 9,900, including 4,400 from Australia's coalition partners.Countries in Australia's region have made a strong contribution to INTERFET. The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and South Korea are participating. Thailand has provided the deputy commander, Major General Songkitti, and the second largest contingent of forces. The government is particularly grateful to the Prime Minister and the people of Thailand for their support. We thank Japan, which, unable to commit troops for constitutional reasons, is providing $US100 million to pay the cost of developing country contributors to INTERFET. China has been supportive throughout the UN process. New Zealand's contribution represents its largest deployment of forces abroad since World War II, and I would like to express my particular thanks to Mrs Shipley for the leadership she displayed.Countries beyond the immediate region have also made a substantial contribution to INTERFET. The United States has provided capabilities which are essential to the mission's operations and would otherwise have been difficult to secure. Its ready support for Australia's leadership of INTERFET has underlined the effectiveness of the ANZUS alliance. We were grateful for the United Kingdom's prompt response in sending a company of combat troops and naval assets at the very beginning of the operation. Canada, Brazil, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Portugal have all made valuable contributions. Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Jordan and Kenya have committed to send forces.To date, INTERFET forces have sustained only two casualties. We were pleased and relieved that both these Australians are making a full recovery. There have also been six militia deaths and a number of militia casualties. This loss of life is regretted, but in each case the incidents did result from attacks on INTERFET. Since these events the security environment in East Timor has greatly improved. INTERFET has consolidated its control throughout the mandated area, including the Oecussi enclave. Dili is returning to normal life. More than half its displaced residents have returned, and work on rebuilding the city's shattered infrastructure has begun. The last Indonesian troops and officials left East Timor on 31 October.INTERFET's success in providing security has provided the basis for achieving its second and third goals: protecting the UN mission and facilitating the provision of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian assistance is reaching all corners of East Timor, with greatly improved access for international relief agencies. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Red Cross, World Vision, CARE, Catholic Relief, UNICEF, UNHCR and others now have operations on the ground. This financial year, the government has provided an initial $14 million in humanitarian assistance to East and West Timor. And yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced a further $23 million in humanitarian assistance. INTERFET has created the conditions for hundreds of thousands of East Timorese to return home and to start to rebuild their lives. The United Nations estimates that more than 88,000 displaced East Timorese have now returned.The government is still very concerned, however, about the plight of over 150,000 displaced East Timorese who remain in West Timor and are subject to intimidation by militia. The onset of the wet season makes their return home urgent. The government welcomes statements from the Indonesian government that militia groups are to be disarmed and removed from border areas, and that displaced East Timorese who wish to return are to be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, as yet this has only happened in some areas. The government will pursue this issue vigorously with the Indonesian government, the UN Secretary-General, other governments and the appropriate relief agencies.With security largely restored, the immediate priorities remain humanitarian: the return of internally displaced people and the rebuilding of their lives in East Timor. East Timor and the United Nations must also now begin work on reconstruction, reconciliation and nation building. On 25 October, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1272, which establishes a United Nations Transitional Authority, UNTAET, to prepare East Timor for independence and provides for a UN peacekeeping operation to take over from INTERFET as soon as possible. It is essential that UNTAET moves quickly to set up effective political, economic and social structures and that UNTAET involves East Timorese as much as it can in its work. The government warmly welcomes the appointment of Mr Sergio Vieira de Mello as head of UNTAET and looks forward to working closely with him. We are now discussing with the United Nations an early transfer from INTERFET to the new UN peacekeeping force, to be managed in a way that fully maintains East Timor's security. We expect this will occur early next year. INTERFET's role will end once it hands over responsibility for security in East Timor to the United Nations.I am sure both sides of the House, and indeed all Australians, will join me in warmly commending the force commander, Major General Cosgrove, and the Australian men and women serving with him in East Timor for the outstanding job they have done on our behalf and on behalf of the United Nations.All Australians were deeply distressed by the scenes of violence, death and destruction in East Timor that they witnessed daily after the results of the ballot were announced in early September. As I said in my address to the nation at the time, we sensed that a small, vulnerable community was about to be denied the freedom it had sought so long and that it had voted so overwhelmingly to achieve. Despite the pleas of the international community, the Indonesian government was unable to restore order and the United Nations authorised a multinational force to do so with the agreement of Indonesia.Australia acted because it was the right thing that we help protect East Timorese from appalling violence and destruction and also because it was in Australia's national interest to restore stability in East Timor. The mission was dangerous and the risks to our men and women were high, but the Australian people gave it their strong support. It represents our largest military involvement for more than 30 years. The Australian troops in East Timor are doing a splendid job and all of us are rightly proud of every one of them. Australia's military involvement in East Timor will not end with INTERFET. We will make a substantial contribution to the follow-on UN peacekeeping operation—in the order of 1,500 troops.Inevitably, such a commitment to East Timor has put added pressures on our Defence Force and the budget. In order to be sure that we can sustain our commitment to East Timor, the government has accepted a recommendation from the Minister for Defence, based on advice from the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary of Defence, to increase the number of fully operational infantry battalions in the Army from four to six for a period of two years. The Army's size will grow from 23,000 to 26,000. This increase is required to sustain Australia's involvement in the peacekeeping operation and to maintain acceptable levels of overall defence readiness.Although the extra battalions have been raised to meet the immediate East Timor requirement, they could be needed on an ongoing basis. A decision will be taken on this in the context of the government's defence white paper next year. Air Force numbers will also be increased by about 500, to just over 13,500, to allow for additional combat support personnel and the raising of an extra airfield defence squadron.The government estimates that the extra defence costs from the deployment of forces to East Timor, the raising of two new battalions and additional Air Force numbers will amount to $907 million in 1999-2000, the current financial year; $1.089 billion in the year 2000-01; and $901 million in 2001-02. After the transition from INTERFET to the UN peacekeeping operation, the United Nations will make some reimbursements. But these reimbursements will cover only a small portion of the costs of the deployment of Australian forces in East Timor and not the wider defence costs associated with that deployment.Australia's support for East Timor goes wider than our involvement in peacekeeping and peace enforcement. The government will make available $60 million during the current financial year to cover additional aid needs for East Timor. Australia's aid commitment for 2000-01 will be considered in the coming year's budget process. Other additional costs in 1999-2000, the current financial year, relating to East Timor include assistance to evacuees from East Timor to Australia, $35 million, and deployment of Australian Federal Police and police from other jurisdictions as part of the United Nations civilian presence, $26 million. Attached to this statement is a table setting out these additional costs.The government will present to parliament before the end of the year a special appropriation bill to cover the extra defence and aid expenses for the current financial year. The government's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook has now been compiled and will be released in full by the Treasurer shortly. We know, however, from the details to hand what the impact of the additional cost of the East Timor operation will be on the budget balance both for this and subsequent years.The House will recall that I undertook some weeks ago to outline funding arrangements for the Timor operation when details of the mid-year economic outlook were available. This I am now doing. It is clear from these details that the cost of the East Timor deployment presents a particular difficulty in the next financial year commencing on 1 July 2000. At the time of the May budget the underlying cash budget surplus for 2000-01 was projected to be $3.1 billion. That figure has been significantly reduced by a number of developments.The major additional item was the further costs to the budget of $1.8 billion in the coming financial year—that is, 2000-01—for revisions to the tax package that were negotiated with the Australian Democrats to secure its passage through the parliament. Other necessary policy decisions and adverse variations to estimates have imposed further costs to the budget. These additional costs, combined with the delay in receipts from the sale of the second tranche of Telstra, have also led to slower debt retirement and higher interest repayments on outstanding debt, costing about $500 million in 2000-01. In the absence of East Timor, all of these extra costs could properly have been absorbed within the projected budget surplus for 2000-01. The defence expenditure relating to East Timor of about $1.1 billion in 2000-01, however, falls into a different category altogether. Such an extraordinary item of additional expenditure could not reasonably have been expected at budget time. Therefore a special provision must be made for its impact in the year 2000-01. The additional expenditure on the East Timor defence effort has a particularly severe impact in the next financial year. By contrast, in the current year and the year subsequent to 2000-01, even after East Timor costs have been allowed for, the budget is expected to remain in healthy surplus.As a result of the extra costs since last May, and in particular the unexpected defence costs relating to East Timor of around $1.1 billion in the 2000-01 financial year, it is calculated that, without additional measures, the budget in that year—that is, the year commencing 1 July 2000—will record an underlying cash deficit of approximately $500 million. The government is not willing for this to occur. The days of budget deficits should remain firmly behind us. The economic consequences of high deficits, particularly the pressure they place on interest rates, should be unacceptable to all honourable members.The government has decided therefore to introduce a temporary Defence-East Timor levy for 2000-01 only. This levy will be applied as an addition to the Medicare levy on the income of taxpayers earning above $50,000 a year.The levy will be set at 0.5 per cent for taxpayers with an income of between $50,000 and $100,000, and at one per cent for taxpayers with incomes above $100,000 a year. There will be appropriate shade-ins to smooth the impact on taxpayers earning just above $50,000 and $100,000. The levy will apply only for a 12-month period from 1 July 2000, ending on 30 June 2001.Applying the levy on incomes above $50,000 will protect low- and many middle-income earners. The levy will begin on the same date that tax cuts begin under the government's tax reform. It will reduce only slightly—and for only one year—the tax cuts that those taxpayers will receive. For example, a single taxpayer with an income of $60,000 a year will receive a tax cut of nearly $62 a week and the levy will reduce that for one year only by about $6 a week. With this approach, 80 per cent of all Australian taxpayers will receive their tax cuts in full from 1 July next year.The levy will collect approximately $900 million in 2000-01. That sum will substantially cover the East Timor defence costs arising in that year. After 2000-01, the East Timor defence costs can be absorbed by the budget whilst maintaining strong surpluses. The community, I hope, will support this measure as a fair and reasonable one to help fund the bulk of our defence costs relating to East Timor in 2000-01. The only alternative to this special and temporary levy would be further cuts in government spending.Given the expenditure savings of earlier years, the necessary funds of approximately $1 billion could not have been obtained without paring back in essential areas of social expenditure, such as health, education and welfare for the needy. The government does not believe it would be fair to do this. The levy I have announced is the fair and decent way to deal with this unexpected budget difficulty in the next financial year. There will of course be other requirements for Defence that do not relate to our involvement in East Timor, such as completing the submarines and other procurement decisions. These will be considered in the normal budget process and in the context of next year's defence white paper.Australians from all walks of life have responded sympathetically to the suffering of the East Timorese people, and I want to acknowledge the great willingness of so many individuals and organisations to help in different ways. In particular, Australian non-government organisations, including the churches, have played an important role. Australian business can also play a significant part. The government convened a meeting with business groups and aid agencies in response to the strong interest from the business community in helping with reconstruction. I warmly welcome the contributions already made or foreshadowed by the timber, construction, power and pharmaceutical industries. The Northern Territory government has also provided valuable help. Darwin will continue to serve as the principal logistics base for UNTAET in the period ahead.East Timor's resources are limited. Now that it is entering the phase of reconstruction and nation building, it will need a great deal of international support. Australia will act generously, but we cannot carry the full burden alone. The government is encouraging others to make substantialcommitments. Even with international help, however, East Timor's future prosperity can ultimately be assured only by the East Timorese themselves. Only they can put in place the democratic, transparent and accountable political and economic institutions on which a viable state can be created.I was therefore pleased with the approaches Mr Xanana Gusmao laid out in my meeting with him in October. He is realistic about the challenges that face East Timor. His commitment to pursuing reconciliation is encouraging, and we hope he will work closely with UNTAET. He understands the importance for East Timor's future of a good relationship with Indonesia. President Wahid's readiness to meet Mr Gusmao in order to lay sound foundations for the future is also to be particularly welcomed. Australia's own relationship with Indonesia has been under some strain because of East Timor. Now that East Timor's status has been resolved, both sides can move on. Australia and Indonesia are neighbours, and it makes sense for us to cooperate closely. Australia has long been a good friend to Indonesia, and we gave it strong support during its recent economic crisis.Indonesia has a new democratic government and an elected president who has a record of commitment to human rights and tolerance and to economic and political reform. Both countries have important interests in common. I am confident that on the basis of mutual respect both of us can build a mutually advantageous and pragmatic relationship.Mr Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing on behalf of all Australians the immense pride we feel in the contribution of the serving men and women of our nation now in East Timor. The success of the operation thus far is a tribute to their skills and their professionalism. They are well trained, they are superbly led, and each day they bring great credit to this country and to those values in which we all believe.Although casualties to date have been thankfully limited, we continue to share the anxiety of family and other loved ones here in Australia for the safety of those serving in East Timor. We wish them all a safe return home.EAST TIMOR BUDGETARY COSTS ($M)(a)1999-002000-012001-022002-03TOTALAustralian Defence Forces (b) Comprising:- —Deployment (c) —Investment (d) —Force expansion (e) —Tax exemption for ADF personnel (f) 907 431 135 279 62 1089 358 256 452 23 901 328 111 439 23 665 238 27 377 23 3562 1355 529 1547 131 Aid60---60 Civilian police for UN administration26---26 Provision of safehaven for refugees35---35 TOTAL COST102810899016653683 Estimated UN Reimbursement1811410676314(a) All figures are on an accrual basis.(b) Defence costs over the four year period are based on a planning scenario which assumes an ongoing deployment as part of the UN peace keeping operation. Actual spending will depend on the length of the UN peacekeeping operation while the ongoing need for the additional battalions will be examined in the Government's White Paper on Defence.(c) Extra Operational costs for the ADF.(d) Costs associated with upgrading and replacing major capital equipment for the deployment in East Timor and the expanded force.(e) Cost associated with raising 2 additional battalion groups and an extra air field defence squadron (around 3.500 personnel). This will ensure the deployment in East Timor can be sustained without impairing the overall readiness of the ADF.(f) The deployment involves a cost to the budget through the income tax exemption for pay and allowances of ADF personnel on eligible duty outside Australia. 15:40:0010419Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the statement.At the beginning of the debate on this important issue I would like to convey to the chamber the opposition's support, subject to our own internal caucus processes which have not been able to be used in this case because of the short notice of this statement. The caucus process has not been possible in this circumstance. But subject to that caveat, I would like to convey the opposition's support for the proposals in the statement.We believe that the Prime Minister's statement is consistent with Labor's strong support for INTERFET, for the ADF and for the people of East Timor. The aspect of this particular statement which will attract the most attention is the Defence-East Timor levy. So I would like to deal with that matter first. Again, subject to the processes of the caucus, I would like to indicate our in principle support for the levy. This is consistent with out view that our troops must have everything they need in this deployment and that there are real questions for our defence structure down the track. I might add that we could not have a better reminder of the need to ensure revenue neutrality in the business tax reforms and for ongoing attention to the offsetting arrangements for the GST package.We think it appropriate that those most likely to benefit from this government's past and proposed tax reforms are those who it is intended will pay this levy. I note in passing that this levy would not be necessary had the government not spent $17 billion on its GST package—$6 billion of that in the year this levy will be introduced alone. But those are matters for just passing mention. The fact is that the opposition supports the levy in principle and we do so because we support our troops absolutely.As we have made clear on very many occasions, we thoroughly support the INTERFET deployment in East Timor. We believe that the professionalism of the ADF has been amply demonstrated throughout this deployment. Some have questioned the capabilities of the ADF, but the truth is we are without question among the most professional and effective fighting forces in the world. We have always been at this level and we have proved it again in East Timor, and our forces deserve all the support that we can give them.On reserves, we understand there is more detail to be provided, and we look forward to looking closely at it when it is forthcoming, but we would add a couple of points. Firstly, whatever is done on reserves, we would have been far better placed had this government not abolished the Ready Reserve upon coming to power. Secondly, whatever is done must take account of the issues we in the opposition have raised on numerous occasions, including two private members' bills that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, has been associated with—that is, the protection of leave entitlements for reservists to undertake their reserve duties as an allowable matter in awards and the protection of civil employment for those reservists who are called up for service.We are pleased to see the government commit $60 million for aid to East Timor. We note that the $60 million might be a good start, but it cannot be the end of the story. There is no money committed above the existing very small aid program beyond 1999-2000, yet an enormous amount of work needs to be done in rebuilding infrastructure, in replacing the infrastructure funding previously provided to East Timor as a province and, of course, in humanitarian work for the people of East Timor.Part of Australia's support should also be in the area of lending our expertise to the establishment of political and administrative institutions in East Timor—for example, legal experts, public service experts, economists, finance experts and the like. East Timor needs that sort of expertise. Australia has it, and we should stand ready to provide it wherever possible. There are always many people of decency and of goodwill who emerge in difficult times like these, but there are often some unscrupulous operators ready to take advantage. To the extent that we can help them avoid the latter, we should be there to do so as well.There are, of course, diplomatic issues which extend beyond the scope of the Prime Minister's statement but which are no less important both to our deployment and to the future of East Timor, and I would just like to touch on those for a short time. The first point is that Australia should be very grateful for the support of the United States. We welcome the strong support of the United States in securing the diplomatic conditions for INTERFET's deployment in the first place and then in backing up that support with visits by the Secretary of Defence and, most recently, by Ambassador Holbrook. We could not want for a better contribution from our greatest ally since this deployment. The United States's strong diplomatic presence has been indispensable in securing a dangerous environment, and of course that goes for the people of East Timor and also for our own troops on the ground in East Timor.But the further crucial question is the role of Indonesia in East Timor's future. We would echo the words of Richard Holbrook in saying that Indonesia's reputation in the international community will depend to a significant extent on its role in East Timor's security. The new Wahid government has, in our view, a magnificent opportunity to establish its international credentials. The immediate task is the disarming of the militias, currently in West Timor, to remove the external threat to the new state of East Timor. There must also be a role for Indonesia in the rebuilding of East Timor through material and political support.There are many issues raised in this statement, and these are obviously going to be the subject of debate in days to come. Let me say clearly that we support, in principle, the proposals outlined by the Prime Minister as a useful contribution to our current troop deployment, to our future defence posture and, of course, to the future of East Timor.15:50:0010421Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise to speak briefly on the Prime Minister's statement relating to East Timor. I would like to say at the outset that we are very pleased to note that there will be no cuts to services in order to fund our commitments in East Timor. We note that an additional two battalions will be raised for our Army and also other Defence personnel will be recruited, and these costs will be met through revenue raising.I wish to put on the record the support of the Australian Democrats for those fundraising proposals and for both parts of this initiative—the government in their actions and the comments made by the Prime Minister. I would just like to look at some other parts of the statement. In particular, I note how pleased we are to see that we are part of a 17-nation force that is working in East Timor to secure peace in that country and to start assisting the citizens of East Timor get their lives back together again.On behalf of the Democrats, I want to say how pleased we are with all that our force in INTERFET has achieved. We congratulate the men and women who are over there working so hard in the interests of the people of East Timor. We note with pleasure that life in Dili is slowly returning to normal and that the markets are resuming. In some of the outlying villages, things are still a little slow to get back to anything like a normal way of life, but more and more of the displaced residents are returning and starting to get their shattered lives back together.The biggest problem is that so many East Timorese still find themselves in West Timor. Despite the assurances of the Indonesian government and the variety of different promises, very little seems to be happening on a large scale. People on a regular basis are finding their way back into East Timor, and that is an issue we encourage the government to pursue vigorously to ensure that all those people who wish to return to East Timor can do so as a matter of urgency before the worst of the wet season is upon them. These people should be given the opportunity to get back to their homes and be in some reasonable level of restoration before the full wet season is on them.There are a number of comments in the Prime Minister's statement relating to the substantial and tremendous effort of our troops, but he also said that this is a long-term commitment. Once the peace has been restored, we will be part of the long-term peacekeeping operation. It may be that that is required year after year after year in order to ensure that the people of East Timor can get their country back together again and resume their lives.I note on page 8 of the Prime Minister's statement a reference to the arrangements that we made on the ANTS tax package and the cost to the budget of that. I point out that at that time we said to the government that the tax cuts for those on high incomes should be pared back even more. Effectively, we are now seeing that happen—not back to where we had recommended they go, but we are taxing those earning over $50,000 and taxing those earning over $100,000 at double that rate in order to fund these immediate commitments to East Timor. We wish to support the government in that and to say that this is certainly the fairest way we could have secured this amount of money.However, I do wish to point out that the table at the back which looks at expenditure through 1999-2000 out to 2002-03 does not include an amount for aid beyond this year. That hole is going to have to be filled. In an earlier part of the statement, the Prime Minister noted that and said that we will be told what that amount is, but we can only wonder where that amount of money is going to be found. Nowhere is there any mention of our direct support for the rebuilding and for the actual infrastructure that needs to be put back in place in East Timor.Also, there is no ongoing funding for the civilian police force, for the role of the United Nations and for our support of the administrative part of the UN's role in East Timor. I do point out that, while we have raised this amount of money through the Medicare levy being increased for only 12 months, there may be a need to look in the future at an ongoing stream of finance for our long-term commitment to East Timor.We have been arguing throughout the debate on business tax that there would be pressures on the budget bottom line as a result of our commitment to East Timor and that we have to be doubly certain we are not going to leave the budget under further stress because of the decisions we make on business tax. There has been a specific amount identified in the small section on the personal aspect of capital gains tax within the business package, and that in itself is at least another $400 million a year.So while we have welcomed this statement and it has taken some pressure off the debate of where business tax is going, it certainly has not reduced our commitment to making sure that the business tax package is revenue neutral. There simply is no fat left to trim off any of our social programs—not off our schools, our hospitals, our universities or any of our environment programs. There is nothing spare left. After the first two Costello budgets, we have argued all along that there was far too much cut from government expenditure.We will be continuing to push for substantial aid for East Timor so as to fill those gaps in the chart that has been provided to us today. If we look at the fact that the government is using an unusual device of asking the Reserve Bank to defer some $600 million of its dividends payments until next year, we believe the budget is still under incredible pressure and could still be heading for a deficit.I will close there and simply state again that the Democrats fully support the government's decision not to touch services but to raise the money through an additional Medicare levy. I congratulate all of those who are working so well in East Timor to give that country a future.15:58:0010422Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I also support the Australian contingent and all the people involved in establishing the East Timorese nation to our immediate north. I am happy to pay the Timor tax. As a parliamentarian I am receiving an income of more than $80,000 a year. I am very supportive of the fact that this is aimed at high income earners, who can afford to be contributing towards the Australian presence in East Timor as it moves towards being our newest fully independent national neighbour.That said, I am also very aware that the $900 million that is involved here is the same figure that the Treasurer said before the 1996 elections would be coming from high wealth individuals who do not pay their tax, who avoid tax one way or another. The government has not been able to recoup that $900 million. Were it able to, we would be able to support this East Timorese presence through people defaulting on taxes in this country—people who still need to be pursued and who ought to be paying their taxes. I am also very aware that half the multinational corporations in this country pay no tax at all. That is a matter that needs rectification. However, the thrust of the Prime Minister's statement is towards the East Timorese, to give them assurance that Australia is with them. I note that it is also towards mending relationships with Indonesia. This is going to be a difficult matter. It is going to require maturity in Jakarta as well as in Canberra. It is not, in my books, a case for turning our back on the people seeking self-determination in Aceh and in West Papua in particular. These issues will not be resolved and the aspirations of those people will not be resolved by us saying that East Timor is the end of it. Putting to right, after such a horrible history over the last 25 years, the East Timorese situation does not enable us to turn our back on the rest.I hope that the government will be learning from Australia's sorry history in regard to East Timor when it comes to the other inherent nations such as Aceh and West Papua and their right to have their day in the sun. That said, I again give my support to this way of raising the necessary money to ensure Australia's commitment to East Timor stays strong, firm and friendly to all concerned.Question resolved in the affirmative.Leave of Absence10423Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Forshaw for the period 22 to 25 November 1999 inclusive, on account of parliamentary business overseas, and to Senator Murphy for the period 22 November to 30 November 1999 inclusive.Notices1042310423General business notice of motion No. 372 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle, postponed till 24 November 1999.General business notice of motion No. 370 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the establishment of a Select Committee on the Regulation and Promotion of biotechnology, postponed till 30 November 1999.Miscellaneous10423Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous1042316:03:0010423Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 362 standing in my name for today, relating to the freedom movement in West Papua, be taken as a formal motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Yes.1042316:04:0010423Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In view of that objection from this side of the House, pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to General Business notice of motion No. 362.My motion to the Senate reads:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 19 November 1999 was the 30th anniversary of the United Nations (UN) Resolution to remove West Papua from its list of non-self-governing territories of the UN Decolonisation Commission, (ii) documents released in 1999 show that Australian and United States intelligence surmised that 95 per cent of West Papuans wanted independence in 1969, and (iii) the recent protests against Indonesian rule, involving 1,500 youths and other civilians in Jayapura—which is the capital of West Papua— condemned the government's move to split the province; and(b) resolves that the 1969 `vote' in West Papua was neither free nor democratic and the UN should now act to provide West Papuans with a genuine act of self-determination. This is an extremely important matter. If there is one part of the Indonesian empire that is closer to Australia than East Timor it is West Papua. In West Papua there are nearly two million people who aspire to their freedom. The latest news reports point to 1 December, which is, in effect, independence day for West Papuans, being marked by the raising of the Morning Star flag of the West Papuans.The chamber might remember me asking for assurances from the Australian government last year as we approached that anniversary that this nation would be doing everything it could to help protect West Papuans against Indonesian military brutality following the Biak massacre last year where anything between 20 and 120 people were machine-gunned effectively after they had raised the Morning Star flag in Biak. That monumental day for the West Papuans is coming again. Let me read from an AAP overseas news report of Monday. It says:The Morning Star flag was raised last week in the grounds of the Three Kings Catholic Church in Timika, on the central south coast of Indonesia's easternmost province—that is West Papua—It was still flying after several days, a situation unheard of in the past, even under the more liberal tenure of the third Indonesian president BJ Habibie.When the Morning Star was hoisted in Biak, in 1998, less than two months after Habibie took over from long-serving president Suharto, troops opened fired in an incident that has been reported as a massacre by church investigators.Among other new independence groups is the National Council of West Papua . . . , set up by traditional leaders whose head, Theys Eluai, is called the Father of West Papua.The group's primary aim is getting the independence message out to Europe, the Pacific and Asia.This council acted as a sort of alternative parliament to prepare for independence, Theys said.But he admitted that the OPM—the Free West Papua movement—was not involved."Our struggle is a diplomatic one, not a military one," Theys told AAP."We haven't talked with the OPM, but we have similar objectives for independence." Theys said some students also supported the council.I also want to refer to the article by Anthony Balmain in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age on 26 August this year which pointed out:As East Timor prepares to vote in a United Nations ballot on its future, previously secret documents show Australia played a leading behind-the-scenes role to ensure Irian Jaya—that is, West Papua—became a part of Indonesia in another UN-supervised vote—the so-called Act of Free Choice in 1969.The article goes on to show what a sham that act was, with only 1,025 people voting out of 800,000. No women were involved in that vote. Those who did vote were very clearly under coercion. Yet the rest of the world turned its back on West Papua, and Australia did so knowingly. One US document given to Australia before the process of self-determination in 1969 said:Personal political views of the United Nations team are that 95 per cent of Irianese—that is, West Papuans—support the independence movement and that the Act of Free Choice is a mockery.Yet here we are, in 1999, 30 years down the line, not allowing this matter to come to a vote. That will effectively be the outcome, as I see it, of my raising this issue today. Let me give a commitment that I will continue to raise the issue, because the West Papuans deserve nothing less. (Time expired) .16:09:0010424O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I advised Senator Brown prior to reaching this item of business that the opposition would not grant formality on this matter, as it was a matter which involved a foreign affairs matter and on which there was not a consensus. That position is entirely consistent with the position that Senator Brown knows is a position adopted by the opposition on matters which fulfil those criteria. I simply put on record again that that is the opposition's position and the position we will take on matters which fill those criteria.As to the suggestion that this matter is so urgent that standing orders be suspended, the opposition will not support a move to suspend at this stage. We cannot see that the motion gives rise to matters which need to be considered urgently and Senator Brown has other forms of this place by which to have the matter considered.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brown be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Aye.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think the noes have it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Divide.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, we cannot divide on one voice.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Would you have my lone voice noted in dissent from that vote?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Certainly.Question resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous10425Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja, at the request of Senator Bourne) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Indonesian Parliament voted on the evening of 19 October 1999 to annul the 1978 decree incorporating East Timor as the 27th province of Indonesia, and (ii) East Timor will now move to become an independent state under the auspices of the United Nations; and(b) congratulates: (i) the East Timorese people on this important step towards a peaceful, prosperous and independent future, and (ii) the new Indonesian Parliament on carrying out its obligations under the 5 May 1999 agreement between the United Nations, Indonesia and Portugal.Miscellaneous10425Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: 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.Committees104251042510425Motion (by Senator McGauran, at the request of Senator Payne) agreed to:That the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 25 November 1999, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.104251042516:12:0010425Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I present the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on its inquiry into Australia's visa system for visitors. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—RESPONSE BY GOVERNMENT TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION (JSCM) REPORT OF JANUARY 1996 ON AUSTRALIA'S VISA SYSTEM FOR VISITORS IntroductionThe Joint Standing Committee on Migration (JSCM) Report on Australia's Visa System for Visitors contains thirty-five recommendations about the visa system then in operation and covers the streamlining initiatives (such as the Electronic Travel Authority [ETA]) being foreshadowed at the time this report was released, many of which have since been implemented.The major debate during the inquiry was whether streamlining visitor entry processes had gone far enough, balanced against concerns about whether the processes for screening visitors were able to provide sufficient protection. There was little objective evidence available about the likely impact of introducing visa free arrangements. The Committee concluded that the changes being introduced including agency arrangements and the ETA were steps in the right direction which should be assessed before any further decisions about visa free travel. The Government agrees that these steps have proven to be beneficial but it is still too early to make a full assessment of them. The recent JSCM Inquiry into the Immigration Entry Arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games has provided more recent information about Australia's visa arrangements.The Committee recommended the collection of additional data on visitors to Australia and comparable data from overseas countries. The Government accepts the need for useful data on visitors but notes the complexity of collecting some of this data and the need to take account of privacy issues. DIMA will continue to collect data, taking into consideration useability, cost and privacy.Summary of DIMA progress against the recommendationsConsiderable progress has been made against a number of the recommendations of the Report:a) The implementation of a number of streamlined visa issuance processes is well advanced. As at 1 November 1999:. The ETA is available to passport holders from 31 countries and locations. 70 airlines are participating in the ETA system [ETAS] and access to the system is also provided to thousands of travel agents world wide through their subscription to participating computer reservation systems; - over 5 million ETAs have been issued since the system was introduced in Singapore in September 1996; - the Australian National Audit Office has conducted a Performance Audit of the Electronic Travel Authority. The report dated 22 July 1999 was favourable in its assessment of the ETA system.. The Governments of the USA, Canada, France, Spain, Japan and the Republic of Korea have recognised the ETA as equivalent to visa-free travel and, in return, no longer require Australian visitors to hold visas for short-term travel to those destinations.. Prior to the implementation of the ETA accessibility to the visa process for short-term travellers was increased through the establishment of agency arrangements. At the peak of agency arrangement expansion in 1995/96, arrangements were operating in thirty-two countries with over 300 agents participating; - generally these arrangements have been phased out in countries where the ETA has been launched but they continue to operate in a number of places where the ETA is not implemented.. The Nominated Temporary Business Entry (NTBE) scheme commenced in July 1995. It is a niche program which supports business visits by persons well known and important to Australian business interests, particularly in terms of trade and investment. The scheme operates on the principle of partnership (with Government and other key agencies) in facilitating, at the Australia end, the entry of genuine business people who have been nominated by approved organisations. The approved organisations include SOCOG.. After a successful evaluation of its trial phase, the APEC Business Travel Card scheme has been operating on a permanent basis since 1 March 1999. Australia, Chile, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea and the Philippines currently participate in the scheme. New Zealand and Malaysia joined the scheme this year and will soon become operational. Seven out of the 21 APEC economies are now participating in the scheme.. Advance Passenger Information (API) has been identified as a significant strategy for the smooth handling of Australia's entry and border procedures up to and beyond the 2000 Olympic Games and for strengthening border control. API incorporates passenger pre-clearance, accelerated immigration and customs passenger processing and enhanced border control for all border agencies.. The Advance Passenger Clearance (APC) system was implemented with Qantas in February 1994 and with Ansett in October 1996.. DIMA's new platform for API is the Advance Passenger Processing system (APP) which interfaces with the Electronic Travel Authority system; - APP is a fast passenger processing system that provides border agencies with advance notice of the arrival of a passenger on a particular flight; - the APP system was implemented for incoming passengers from Singapore by Singapore Airlines on 8 July 1998 and introduced by Air New Zealand on 27 April 1999; - DIMA and the Australian Customs Service are actively encouraging other airlines to introduce APP.b) The Movement Alert List (MAL) system is constantly being improved to optimise the Commonwealth's ability to achieve broad national security and law enforcement objectives. Recent emphasis has been given to the improvement of the functionality of MAL to effectively improve the quality of data on MAL.c) In line with the Report's recommendations, amendments to the Migration Regulations have modified public interest criterion 4011 to allow the risk factor profile data to be regularly updated and broadened, if necessary, without the requirement of having to make a regulatory amendment on each occasion. The mechanism for introducing updated risk profile data is now by Gazette Notice. The most recent Gazette Notice no. 21, dated 26 May 1999, which was issued following a review of recent visitor risk profile data, presented an expanded list of countries now considered to be high risk. In addition, character and removal provisions are being strengthened.d) Four Regional Training Units (Bangkok, Hong Kong, London and Washington) operate to identify training needs in their respective Region, plan training activities accordingly, liaise with other posts/Central Office/States and Territories on training issues as they arise, co-ordinate and provide general and program specific training to Australian based and locally engaged staff.e) All posts have been provided with Guidelines on Ensuring Integrity in Decision-Making which cover the issue of delegations for locally engaged staff. Posts also perform four-monthly audit and security checks, which include checks of decision-making protocols. Prior to being posted overseas, and at annual migration officers' conferences, departmental officers are briefed on integrity issues. f) A Client Reference Group has been established which brings together relevant government agencies, key travel industry representatives and tourism umbrella groups for an exchange of ideas on current issues and provides an opportunity for ongoing review of initiatives and strategies relating to visitor entry. The group meets on a quarterly basis.g) New incoming and outgoing passenger cards were introduced on 1 July 1998. The new incoming document replaced the previous Incoming Passenger Card and the Travellers Statement. The introduction of the new cards has contributed to significant improvement in passenger processing times at airports by simplifying processing.104271042716:12:0010427Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I also present the government's response to report No. 369 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on its inquiry into Australian government procurement. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Government Response to Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit Report 369: Australian Government ProcurementNovember 1999Recommendation 1 (paragraph 2.62)That the Department of Finance and Administration develop and administer an accreditation system for assessing the purchasing performance of individual agencies.Not Agreed .Agencies are currently able to internally accredit and assess their own purchasing performance based on individual requirements. With the introduction of the Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act 1997, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) have been provided with greater flexibility and autonomy in their purchasing framework to allow them to tailor purchasing policy to their individual agency's needs. This devolved environment has not removed the obligation for purchasing officers to promote efficient, effective and ethical use of Commonwealth resources. CEOs are accountable for the purchasing performance of their agency. Centralising an accreditation system within the Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA) is inconsistent with the devolved environment currently operating within the Australian Public Service.The role of the Australian National Audit Office, and other bodies to review a range of Whole-of-Government policies and their application is noted. Some agencies also apply the continuous improvement model to policy development and practice.There are costs and resource implications to DOFA and agencies for any changes to the current system.Recommendation 2 (paragraph 3.19)That Financial Management and Accountability Regulation 8 be amended to read that `An Official performing duties in relation to the procurement of property or services must act in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines'.Not Agreed .The introduction of a mandatory requirement would add a level of inflexibility to an agency's purchasing framework which may impact on the ability of CEOs to tailor purchasing policy to the needs of their agency in a devolved environment. The inflexibility may result in some agencies being unable to negotiate effectively.The introduction of the FMA Act to provide CEOs with greater flexibility and autonomy in their purchasing framework does not remove the obligation for officers to promote efficient, effective and ethical use of Commonwealth resources. CEOs and agency purchasing staff are accountable for their procurement decisions within the existing Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines: Core Policies and Principles (CPGs).To assist purchasing officials to understand their obligations as purchasing officers the CPGs are currently being reviewed. This review is considering issuing a new version of the CPGs that would highlight the mandatory requirements in a stand-alone section. This would enable officials to clearly identify their obligations when purchasing either goods or services. A separate best practice component is also being considered which may be added to the CPGs to provide officers with further information on their duties as purchasing officers.Recommendation 3 (paragraph 3.31)Measurement of the performance of the senior management, including Chief Executive Officers, of Commonwealth agencies should include reference to how efficiently and effectively the purchasing function is administered, and whether agreed objectives are being met, such as ANZ content and the commitment to maximising opportunities for SMEs.Noted.The Committee's view that the cultural change necessary for systematic and sustained improvement in procurement management in agencies needs strong leadership at the level of Chief Executive Officer, Board and senior management generally, is supported. For Chief Executives, accountability of performance in managing procurement, and resources generally, is exercised through the relationship with responsible Ministers and the Parliament.Agency heads are responsible for determining the style and content of their staff's performance agreements to achieve their agency's organisational and business requirements. Therefore including a reference to how efficiently and effectively the purchasing function is administered, particularly in circumstances where the latter is critical to the efficient and effective delivery of outputs and outcomes, will be at the discretion of individual CEOs. It is noted that some CEOs require their staff to reflect efficient and effective purchasing functions as part of their performance agreements.Recommendation 4 (paragraph 3.63)The decision made in Commonwealth Procurement Circular 98/3 to change from mandatory to best practice the requirement that all persons undertaking procurement functions meet appropriate Commonwealth Procurement Competency Standards should be reversed immediately.Noted.The training of staff and the level of competency required of purchasing officers in any given agency is the responsibility of the CEO. It is noted that some CEOs have mandated that staff who undertake procurement functions meet appropriate Commonwealth Procurement Competency Standards. Removing the responsibility from the CEO by reversing Commonwealth Procurement Circular 98/3 would be inconsistent with the devolved environment currently operating within the Australian Public Service.Recommendation 5 (paragraph 4.35)The Department of Finance and Administration and the Office of Small Business develop and agree on appropriate definitions to cover small and medium enterprises, and circulate this information across government for universal application. The agreed definitions should be included in the next edition of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.Agreed .The adoption of a simplified definition of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to ensure a consistent application in procurement would be beneficial. Care needs to be exercised to ensure that an additional reporting burden and extra cost is not placed on suppliers. DOFA, the Office of Small Business and other relevant Commonwealth agencies are working together to establish an appropriate SME definition which may be included in the next edition of the CPGs. To ensure an appropriate and workable definition is achieved, discussions are currently underway on whether the definition should be based on the number of employees and/or annual turnover.These discussions have highlighted the need to consider differences between industry sectors. For example, when classifying organisations in the information technology and telecommunications sector it may be necessary to consider annual turnover. As indicated above, the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and other relevant stakeholders will be consulted as part of the process for identifying an appropriate definition. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is currently undertaking a review of defining business by size.Recommendation 6 (paragraph 4.59)That the Government upgrade its commitment so that Commonwealth departments and agencies will source at least 20 per cent of their purchases from SME.Noted.The government is fully committed to ensuring the existing 10% target for SME participation continues to be met. Future achievement against the existing target will require monitoring of agency performance over time and consideration of the impact of changing purchasing patterns.An increase in the target without considering the changing buying patterns of individual agencies, and with a potential increase in reporting requirements for government and SMEs and the associated potential resource impacts is not supported.Recommendation 7 (paragraph 4.60)That where Australian-New Zealand (ANZ) products are equal to overseas items in terms of value for money and other principles in the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, then the ANZ products must be purchased.Agreed in-principle.Commonwealth agencies are presently required to apply a range of policies aimed at ensuring a competitive ANZ industry. The CPGs promote value for money based decisions on whole of life costs and benefits, as well as recognising the commercial and practical advantages of doing business with ANZ industry. However, introducing a mandatory requirement to purchase ANZ products would remove some of the responsibility of achieving value for money away from agencies and this is inconsistent with the devolved environment currently operating within the Australian Public Service. In addition, the Model Industry Develop ment Criteria also require agencies to identify capable ANZ suppliers, especially SMEs, that can provide products and services to enhance Australia's export potential and import replacement.Recommendation 8 (paragraph 4.83)That, for agencies under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 , Model Industry Development Criteria for Major Products should apply to procurement projects of $5m or more.Agreed in-principle.Commonwealth agencies are currently able to apply the Model Industry Development Criteria for Major Projects to projects less than $10 million on a discretionary basis.The current $10 million threshold for Model Industry Development Criteria for Major Projects and the associated Guidance Notes has been in place since February 1999. The current threshold will be assessed at the time of a review of these criteria, to allow the Commonwealth to fully gauge the effectiveness, and cost to agencies and suppliers, of these criteria.Recommendation 10 (paragraph 4.101)That all Commonwealth agencies, if they have not already done so, sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with ISONET. This MOU, amongst other things, must:Guarantee lines of communication between agencies and ISONET; andInclude commitments to maximising the involvement of ISONET in the purchasing process.An agency will be expected to include, in its Annual Report, confirmation of its MOU, initiatives that it will take to increase the involvement of ISONET in its procurement, and an appraisal by ISONET of the agency's performance against key purchasing objectives set out in the MOU.Noted.In 1996 the mandated requirement for MOUs to be signed between Commonwealth agencies and ISONET was no longer binding.The education of agencies about the role and services available from ISONET should achieve the desired outcome of maximising local business participation in the Commonwealth market and this reflects ISONET's desired outcome.To raise the profile of ISONET and ANZ industry capability, ISONET and DOFA will consult on the preparation of an electronic toolkit that will be available to purchasing officers to outline the role and function of ISONET and the various Industrial Supplies Offices. The toolkit will include a checklist to guide purchasing officers through the information requirements and decision processes necessary to fully achieve a value for money outcome. This toolkit will be placed on both DOFA's Competitive Tendering and Contracting website and ISONET's website. It is not proposed to mandate reporting in Annual Reports of MOUs with ISONET, however, any future revision of the CPGs will highlight the capability of ISONET and the benefits available to agencies.Recommendation 11 (paragraph 4.112)To improve access by SMEs to smaller purchases, all Commonwealth departments and agencies will publish electronically all the reasons why officers have gone offshore for goods and services for all purchases worth $100 000 or more.Noted.Existing mandatory (electronic) reporting requirements, published on Telstra Transigo, are already in place for all contracts including all off shore purchases valued at $2000 or more. Agencies are presently required to provide details about the contract and the successful provider. Changes to this system may have resource implications for agencies.Electronic reporting on all offshore purchases would, in part, cover information captured by existing reporting requirements. Agencies are currently required to encourage competition, particularly from ANZ suppliers and to ensure that they provide opportunities for ANZ industry, especially small to medium enterprises, to provide a competitive offer or proposal. Furthermore, the CPGs state that CEOs are responsible for ensuring that adequate systems for the recording of decisions, and the reasons for making them, are maintained and that agencies offer unsuccessful bidders a written or oral debriefing on why their bid was unsuccessful.Recommendation 12 (paragraph 5.37)That all Commonwealth agencies under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 , and government business enterprises report, on an annual basis in their Annual Reports, their performance against key purchasing objectives. This information should also be made available on agency internet websites and be linked to purchasing electronic commerce systems.Noted.Agencies already report on strategic objectives in the accrual framework and are responsible for the use of resources under the FMA Act. These strategic objectives are also reported by some agencies in their annual reports and on their web sites.Existing mandatory (electronic) reporting requirements published on Telstra Transigo provide information on contracts valued at $2000 or more. Agencies are required to provide details of the contract and the successful provider. The CPGs also state that CEOs are responsible for ensuring that adequate systems for the recording of decisions and the reasons for making them are maintained.Government business enterprises (GBEs) are currently required to prepare annual reports in accordance with the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 , and for those GBEs which are companies, the Corporations Law.Miscellaneous10430104301043016:13:0010430McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee relating to the 1999-2000 budget estimates and the 1998-99 additional estimates hearings.Bills10430r733Message received from the House of Representatives forwarding the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 for concurrence.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills10430r854Billsr85310430Debate resumed from 22 November, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.16:14:0010430Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I was not intending to contribute to this debate, and I notice from the speakers list before me that a number of honourable senators are intending to speak in the very near future. In the interests of good will the government adjourned the debate last night to ensure that the Western Australian Democrat Senator Brian Greig would be able to contribute to this debate. I know that Senator Greig wanted some more time to prepare himself for this very important debate. Indeed, we ensured that the debate was adjourned to suit him—which we do from time to time, as honourable senators opposite know. We try to facilitate full and considered debate of the government's legislative agenda. We look forward to Senator Greig's imminent arrival in the chamber. I am really only speaking to avoid senators opposite calling a quorum. I welcome the new Democrat senator for Western Australia and, since I will be leaving the chamber, look forward to reading his remarks in the Hansard .16:16:0010431Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I thank the Senate for its indulgence. Wearing my hat as the Democrats' spokesperson on Attorney-General's matters, I am pleased to present on behalf of the Australian Democrats a speech on the second reading of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999.This parliament has created comparatively fewer courts than those created by the states. One reason for this is that, even today, the largest amount of legal work for Australian citizens is presided over by state and territory courts exercising their own jurisdiction and not that of the Commonwealth. For the Australian Democrats, the establishment of a new court must be seen in the context of why we even have courts in the first place. On this point, some of the learned scholars of the past are instructive for how the Australian Democrats see this latest initiative by the government.As far back as 1748, well before the arrival of white people's law in this country, Montisesquieu had the following to say on the separation of powers:There is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and the executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end to everything were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.More recently, in 1981, former High Court Justice and former Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, said the following:But within its own modest limits judicial independence conduces to the free society and it is within those limits that I confine myself tonight. If judicial independence is in itself far from a complete protection against absolutism in government it is nevertheless a sure touchstone of freedom under the law; where it exists absolutism has not yet established itself, and where it is absent absolutism is likely to have free reign.It is therefore with some concern that the Democrats have viewed the agenda of the minister for immigration in curtailing judicial review within his portfolio. One wonders if even the jurisdiction of the High Court would be safe from the minister for immigration should he deem it necessary to curtail the civil liberties of people within our shorelines.However, to the extent that this bill furthers access to justice, it is a welcome development. Unfortunately, with the present cuts to legal aid, access to justice has become a term of endearment rather than a benchmark of Australian democracy. All the courts in the world cannot create justice if those people who need it the most cannot cross the threshold because of the costs associated with access to that justice.In analysing the debates and issues related to this to date, the Australian Democrats will be supporting this bill but, additionally, will be supporting the bulk of the amendments proposed by the Australian Labor Party, in particular those relating to industrial relations. We Democrats have no particular concern with the creation of a new Federal Court structure and are perfectly accommodating of the notion and happy to facilitate support for greater access and equity within such a structure, particularly to the extent to which it might facilitate or take some of the stress off our existing Family Court. That concludes my remarks on this point. Thank you.(Quorum formed)16:23:0010431Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—in reply—I would like to thank all honourable senators for contributing to the debate on this important legislation. There are just a few points that need to be made. One relates to how the Federal Magistrates Service will help ease delays in the family law system. It will do that by easing the workload of the court, since it will be able to deal with many matters which judges currently deal with as well as those matters which can currently be dealt with by registrars. Because the federal magistrates will be able to make final orders and hear matters more quickly, there should be less need for interim applications and hence less need for parties to appear so frequently before the court.The service is an efficient use of Commonwealth funds. It will have very close links with the existing federal courts and will share many of those courts' facilities. In that way, duplication can be avoided and the best use will be made of all available resources. That strategy will minimise both the set-up and ongoing costs of the service. Both courts have been cooperating with the Attorney-General's Department in planning how that will actually work in practice.The question has been raised: why not appoint magistrates to the existing Federal and Family Courts? In respect of that matter, the government is of the view that it is essential that federal magistrates be appointed to a separate court. The service will develop a new culture with an emphasis on user-friendly streamlined procedures. They will facilitate access by unrepresented litigants and minimise technicalities and delays. The new culture cannot be achieved by appointing magistrates to the existing federal courts and incorporating them in their cultures. That view is supported by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, who considers that the establishment of a new and separate court is essential to enable a different culture and new practices to be developed which are appropriate for dealing with smaller and less complex matters.Senator McKiernan raised the issue of whether it is appropriate to have part-time federal magistrates, querying whether part-time appointments would be unconstitutional or cause problems with conflicts of interest. The provision has been drafted to minimise any risk of appointments being held to be unconstitutional and has been the subject of careful consideration and advice. I note the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee obtained the opinion of Professor George Williams on the issue. He advised the committee in September that it seems unlikely that chapter III of the Constitution would prevent those appointments. Individual federal magistrates would not be appointed where conflicts of interest were likely to arise. The magistrates will not be permitted to practise as lawyers, which will assist in minimising any conflict of interest they may have.The bill also makes it clear that the doctrine of constitutional incompatibility developed by the High Court will still apply to such activities, as it currently does to High Court, Federal Court and Family Court judges. The Law Council of Australia initially had reservations about part-time magistrates. However, I note that the Law Council now supports the provisions of the bill which deal with those matters and considers that the issue of potential conflicts of interest is adequately addressed in the bill.As to workplace relations and the jurisdiction, Senators Bolkus, Ludwig, Cooney, Collins and McKiernan made comments about the court's jurisdiction under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. There will be more to say about that when we reach the opposition's proposed amendments, but at this point I should say that this jurisdiction will be concurrent with that of the Federal Court so that more complex matters will continue to be dealt with in a superior court.Finally, the establishment of the new Federal Magistrates Service is an important step towards ensuring suitable access to the justice system for all Australians. I thank honourable senators who have contributed to the debate on these matters.16:27:0010432Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I indicated during my second reading speech that I would be moving a second reading amendment. That has been circulated. It may be that I will have to formally move it by leave at this stage. If that is the case, I seek leave to move the second reading amendment that was circulated in my name.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I move:At the end of the motion, add:"but the Senate:(a) believes that the Federal Magistrates Service proposed in the Bill is unlikely to reduce the delays currently being experienced in the Family Court unless significant additional resources are provided; and(b) calls upon the Government to work with the Family Court of Australia to address the problems identified in the discussion paper entitled Review of the Federal Civil Justice System released by the Australian Law Reform Commission".XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—We are in a bit of bother at the moment in that the Australian Democrats have been cajoled and hijacked by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Senator Bolkus, are you seeking leave to speak again?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—No, I do not want to speak at length. I just want to indicate that we may not be in a position to get the express will of the Senate on this particular amendment. In fact, we may be in a similar position in respect of further amendments as well. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Bolkus's ) be agreed to.16:33:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator S.C. Knowles)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Harris, L.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.28Abetz, E. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Cook, P. F. S. Troeth, J.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Ludwig, J. W. Alston, R. K. R.McLucas, J. E. Reid, M. E.Murphy, S. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Ray, R. F. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.10433The bills.16:37:0010433Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—by leave—I table supplementary explanatory memorandums on the government amendments and I move government amendments (1) and (2):(1) Clause 20, page 12 (line 13), after "brought", insert "directly".(2) Clause 20, page 12 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add: (3) If, apart from this subsection, subsection (1) is to any extent inconsistent with section 73 of the Constitution, this Act has effect as if the words ", except by special leave of the High Court" were added at the end of subsection (1). Amendments (1) and (2) amend clause 20 of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , which deals with appeals. Amendment (1) amends subclause 21 to ensure that it is clear that the clause only prevents appeals being brought to the High Court directly from judgments of the Federal Magistrates Service. Other amendments are being made to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 by the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 to provide that appeals from judgments of the Federal Magistrates Service will be able to be brought in the Family Court or the Federal Court. The normal avenues of appeal to the High Court from judgments of those courts would apply thereafter. The government considers that it would not be appropriate to allow for appeals to be brought directly to the High Court from decisions of the Federal Magistrates Service given the lower status of the Federal Magistrates Service.As in the state system, it is appropriate that appeals from inferior courts first be brought in a superior court. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that the High Court could find that the effect of section 73 of the Constitution is that appeals must be directly available to the High Court from a decision of any Federal Court without first being channelled through a superior court. In this event, amendment (2) would ensure that appeals could only be brought directly from the Federal Magistrates Court to the High Court if the High Court granted special leave to do so.16:39:0010434Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The minister will know that the opposition, particularly in respect of appeals between courts, will be moving amendments (1) and (3) to (8). I wonder to what extent the government anticipates that their amendments remedy the situation that the opposition is seeking to remedy in that first batch of amendments.16:40:0010434Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I am advised that there is no overlap.16:40:0010434Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports the government's amendments (1) and (2).Amendments agreed to.16:40:0010434Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (3) to (8) to the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999:(1) Clause 39, page 23 (lines 6 to 8), omit subclause (6).(3) Page 25 (after line 16), after Part 5, insert:Part 5A—Removal of proceedings(4) Page 25 (after line 16), after the heading to Part 5A, insert:41A Removal by order of Federal Court or Family Court (1) Where: (a) a proceeding is at any time pending in the Federal Magistrates Court; and (b) the Federal Court, apart from section 32AA of the Federal Court Act 1976 , has jurisdiction in the matter; the Federal Court may, upon application by a party or upon application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, at any stage of the proceedings before final determination, order that the proceeding or a part of the proceeding be removed into the Federal Court, on such terms as the Federal Court thinks fit. (2) Where: (a) a proceeding is at any time pending in the Federal Magistrates Court; and (b) the Family Court, apart from section 33A of the Family Law Act 1975 , has jurisdiction in the matter; the Family Court may, upon application by a party or upon application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, at any stage of the proceedings before final determination, order that the proceeding or a part of the proceeding be removed into the Family Court, on such terms as the Family Court thinks fit. (3) The Federal Court or the Family Court may not make an order under subsection (1) or (2), as the case require, unless: (a) all parties consent to the making of the order; or (b) the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires, is satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order, having regard to all the circumstances, including the interests of the parties and the public interest.(5) Page 25 (after line 16), after clause 41A, insert: 41B Orders may be made If an order is made under section 41A, the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires, may make such orders as it considers necessary pending the disposal of the proceeding by the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires.(6) Page 25 (after line 16), after clause 41B, insert:41C No appeal lies An appeal does not lie from a decision of the Federal Court or the Family Court under section 41A in relation to the removal of a matter under this Part.(7) After clause 41, page 25 (after line 16), after clause 41C, insert:41D Removal valid even if subsection 19(1) contravened A reference in section 41A to a proceeding pending in the Federal Magistrates Court includes a reference to a proceeding that was instituted in contravention of subsection 19(1).(8) Page 25 (after line 16), after clause 41D, insert:41E Part has effect subject to Constitution This Part has effect subject to the Constitution.In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, the Law Council of Australia expressed its concern about a number of the provisions relating to the transfer of proceedings between the courts. Amendment (1) relates to the proposed section 39(6) of the bill. This section prevents an appeal from being made from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to the transfer of a proceeding from the Federal Magistrates Court to either the Family Court or the Federal Court. As superior courts, we believe, the Family Court and the Federal Court should have the ultimate say and determine the principle upon which matters are or are not to be transferred to those courts. Accordingly, we propose an amendment which opposes section 39(6) of the bill.In contrast, our amendments (3) to (8) give the Family Court and the Federal Court control over the transfer process, including the power, where that is appropriate, to transfer the proceeding or any part of the proceeding to a state Supreme Court or another court exercising federal jurisdiction. We think, given the nature of the two courts involved, this is an appropriate power to have.16:42:0010435Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government does not agree with these amendments. The effect of opposition amendment (1) would be to allow appeals from decisions of the Federal Magistrates Service as to whether a proceeding should be heard in one court or another. The government does not consider that time and resources should be spent on appeals about decisions of this nature. Each court will have similar powers to make appropriate orders as necessary for the proper disposition of the proceedings before it. A right to appeal in these circumstances would simply increase costs and delay for litigants. The government is opposed to this because that is exactly what we are trying to fix in relation to introducing a Federal Magistrates Service.The government also opposes opposition amendments (3) to (8). These amendments would allow the Family Court and Federal Court to order that a proceeding be transferred from the Federal Magistrates Service to the superior court. That would lead to the danger of litigants attempting to manipulate, to their own advantage, the venue in which the proceedings are conducted. It could be used as a tactic by litigants to force their underresourced opponents into a more expensive superior court. The government considers that it should be up to each court to decide for itself whether to transfer proceedings to another court. For these reasons, we oppose the amendments.16:43:0010435Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting opposition amendments (1) and (3) to (8).16:43:0010435Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The minister has made a series of propositions. Has there been any research done on the issues that the minister has raised or is it simply a matter that has been drawn from the air—that is, that appeals should not be allowed in these circumstances and that it is going to be cheaper and easier for this to be the situation? Because one of the problems we might find happens with this legislation is that it will go forward and be passed—or not passed—on a series of propositions that have been put forward which are just not accurate. We are then going to have a more complicated legal system than we have now.I think that the legal system and the part that the Magistrates Court will play in that is very important. It would be a great pity if this legislation were to go forward simply on the basis of a series of propositions which have no basis other than the discussions that may have been held around the minister's office or in the department. If you get into the courts and see how they work, you may find that they work very differently from the sorts of scenarios that are painted within the various offices around the place. The Magistrates Court deals with issues of fact. What sort of research have you had with people who specialise in matters that deal mainly with facts rather than law?16:46:0010436Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Experience in other areas of jurisdiction—for example, the cross-vesting legislation—has got no appeals for the same reasons offered. You ask what research the government has. You do not have to research every single point to see the plain obvious facts staring you in the face. If you have research, Senator Cooney, that indicates that the assumptions we are making are wrong, we would be happy to have a look at it but we have not done research on that issue. We think it is pretty obvious.Amendments agreed to.16:46:0010436Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I indicate at this stage that opposition amendments (1), (8) and (10) to the consequential amendments bill should really be treated together with opposition amendment (2) but, in saying that, I indicate that I will speak to the issue at this stage but not speak to the issue when we come to amendments (1), (8) and (10) of the consequential amendments bill. Section 41 of the magistrates bill will allow the minister to specify the mandatory transfer of specified proceedings from the Federal Magistrates Court to the Family Court and the Federal Court.Amendment (1) to the consequential amendments bill will delete that part of proposed clause 25 of schedule 11 of the consequential amendments bill that relates to the proposed section 33C. Amendment (8) deletes item 63 of schedule 11 as well. These provisions allow the minister to proclaim, any time during the four years from the bill's proclamation, that the Federal Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to make final orders regarding the residence of children. Amendment (10) will delete that part of item 6 of schedule 2 of the consequential amendments bill that relates to the proposed section 32AC.Basically, we are concerned that clause 25 of schedule 11 and clause 6 of schedule 12 provide that certain types of proceedings specified by regulation can be mandatorily transferred from the Family Court and the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Court. Essentially, these provisions will enable a minister rather than the parliament to effectively define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is our view that the jurisdiction of the courts should always be determined by statute and should not be merely at the whim of the government of the day.It is worth putting on the record as well that the Law Council of Australia supports this view. Accordingly, we move this particular amendment which opposes clause 41 at this stage and indicate that amendments (1), (8) and (10) of the consequential amendments bill are part of this discussion.16:48:0010436Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government opposes this amendment. The great deception, not necessarily intended, by Senator Bolkus is that parliament does not have some say in this. Senator Bolkus has been here longer than I have and he knows full well that regulations made by any minister are delegated legislation and are subject to disallowance by parliament. He knows full well that that opportunity is there and he failed to mention it in his remarks.Clause 41 allows the regulations to be made which mandate the transfer of proceedings from the Magistrates Service to either the Federal Court or the Family Court. That clause gives flexibility in managing the workload of the courts to ensure that the workload is appropriately balanced between the courts. Those regulations are disallowable and the regulations would not come into effect until the period for disallowance by parliament had expired. So parliament has a say; it is just a flexible way of managing things. If parliament does not like what the regulations say, it can disallow them.16:49:0010437Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—On this point, the Australian Democrats agree with the opposition and thus will be supporting the amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that clause 41 of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and schedule 11, item 25, section 33C; schedule 11, item 63; and schedule 12, item 6, section 32AC of the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 stand as printed. Those of that opinion say aye, against no. I think the noes have it. 7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—I think the ayes have it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is a division required?7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Yes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The committee will divide. Ring the bells.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Call off the division.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The division has been called off by the minister.Question resolved in the negative.16:50:0010437Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move opposition amendment (9) to the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 :(9) Clause 44, page 27 (lines 16 and 17), omit paragraph (b).Amendment (9) has the effect of deleting subclause 44B of the bill. The proposed section 44B will permit the Attorney-General to determine by regulation that a person other than a barrister or solicitor or otherwise authorised by another law of the Commonwealth can represent a person in proceedings before the court. Once again, it is our view that the ability of another person to represent parties should be determined by legislation not regulation. Accordingly, we move this amendment to oppose subclause 44B of the legislation.16:51:0010437Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I will not take up the time of the committee for the same quite obvious reasons—that parliament can disallow the regulations if they do not like them. We oppose this amendment.16:51:0010437Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—On this point the Australian Democrats will support the government and not support the opposition amendment.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that clauses 45 and 46 of the Federal Magistrates Bill stand as printed.16:52:0010437Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Opposition amendments Nos 10 and 11 seek to delete clauses 45 and 46 of the bill respectively. Clause 45 prevents the issuing of interrogatories and discovery and clause 46 prevents the issuing of subpoenas without the leave of the Federal Magistrates Court. While the court—through its practice, directions and other procedures—should always control excessive use of these procedures, preventing parties in many of the disputes likely to come before the court from engaging in these interlocutory processes is, in our view, only likely to frustrate the efficient administration of justice. Accordingly, we oppose these two provisions.16:52:0010437Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government opposes both of these amendments. In relation to amendment No. 10, clause 45 provides that interrogatories and discovery are not allowed unless the Federal Magistrates Service declares it is appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice. The court must consider they would be likely to contribute to the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings. It is clear that this clause does not prevent discovery and interrogatories being used; it merely provides that leave of the Federal Magistrates Service is needed before they can be used. The ALRC has found that interlocutory proceedings such as discovery and interrogatories are sometimes used by lawyers as a delaying tactic or to run up legal costs. This clause will assist in reducing costs for litigants and will prevent litigants imposing unnecessary costs on other parties. It will be up to the court itself to determine how this clause operates in practice through its rules.We also oppose amendment No. 11. Clause 46 provides that subpoenas cannot be issued without the leave of the Federal Magistrates Service. The court has to be satisfied there that it is in the same interests of the administration of justice. The rationale for this provision is just the same as that for limiting discovery and interrogatories: the ALRC has found that subpoenas can be misused. This clause will assist in reducing unnecessary costs incurred by both parties and, more often, non-parties in complying with the onerous subpoenas. That is often a real problem in the federal and family courts at the moment. Clause 46 will allow the Federal Magistrates Service to better control the use of subpoenas, and for that reason we oppose the opposition amendments.16:54:0010438Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—We concur with the arguments presented by the opposition on amendments Nos 10 and 11 and thus support them.Question resolved in the negative.16:55:0010438Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The government has circulated a set of amendments, and we have gone through a couple of them so far. I can indicate in order to save time that, in respect of the rest of the government's amendments, the opposition will be supporting them.16:55:0010438Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Bolkus for that indication and I get a nod from Senator Greig down the end, so I think we will accept that. I seek leave to move the remaining government amendments together.Leave granted.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I move government amendments Nos 3 and 4 to the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999:(3) Clause 60, page 35 (after line 15), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) an employee of the Commonwealth who is: (i) authorised under paragraph 3(c) of the Consular Fees Act 1955 ; and (ii) exercising his or her function in that place; or (cb) an employee of the Australian Trade Commission who is: (i) authorised under paragraph 3(d) of the Consular Fees Act 1955 ; and (ii) exercising his or her function in that place; or(4) Clause 60, page 35 (line 22), after "(c)", insert ", (ca), (cb)".Amendments agreed to.16:56:0010438Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I now move government amendments Nos 1 to 12 to the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999:(1) Schedule 4, page 19 (after line 22), after item 69, insert:69A Paragraph 18A(3)(f) Omit "Rules of Court", substitute "Federal Court Rules".(2) Schedule 8, item 11, page 25 (after line 33), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1), the Family Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form.(3) Schedule 8, item 11, page 26 (line 18), omit "(1);", substitute "(1); or".(4) Schedule 8, item 11, page 26 (after line 18), after paragraph (c), insert:(d) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (e) to stay an order of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1);(5) Schedule 9, item 11, page 30 (after line 3), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1), the Family Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form.(6) Schedule 9, item 11, page 30 (line 21), omit "(1);", substitute "(1); or".(7) Schedule 9, item 11, page 30 (after line 21), after paragraph (c), insert: (d) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (e) to stay an order of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1);(8) Schedule 11, item 76, page 51 (after line 16), after subsection (6), insert: (6A) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1), the Family Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form.(9) Schedule 11, item 76, page 51 (line 33), omit "(1);", substitute "(1); or".(10) Schedule 11, item 76, page 51 (after line 33), after paragraph (b), insert: (c) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (d) to stay an order of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1);(11) Schedule 16, item 20, page 68 (line 26), omit "46V(1)(c) ", substitute "46PV(1)(c) ".(12) Page 71 (after line 7), after Schedule 18, insert:Schedule 18A—Amendment of the Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 19731 After paragraph 5(3)(b) Insert: (ba) a person who is a Federal Magistrate;Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—The question now is that clause 76 stand as printed.16:56:0010439Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Opposition amendment No. 12 seeks to delete clause 76 of the bill. Clause 76(1) of the bill permits the Federal Magistrates Court to give reasons either orally or in writing. The ALP believes that the giving of written reasons is important: it enables parties to see the extent to which their arguments or evidence have been understood, considered or accepted; it provides additional accountability and affords a basis for developing precedent; and also written reasons are quite often, if not always, important to determine the prospects for appeal.So we have concerns with this particular proposal by the government, and those concerns are shared by the Law Council. In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, the Law Council said the following:The Law Council finds it extraordinary that the government is proposing that a court constituted under chapter 3 of the constitution would not be required to set out findings on material questions of fact nor refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.The Law Council went on to state, and we agree with this fully:Depriving litigants of the reasons for a magistrate's decision is an extremely serious course of action. We do not believe that expedited justice should erode the quality of justice. Australians coming before the court are entitled to know why a decision is being made either for or against them.It is not a long bow to draw, but quite dependent on that is the level of confidence in the rule of law in the communities. We do not support this proposed section of the bill.16:58:0010439Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—As indicated in the explanatory memorandum, this clause is not going to alter common law obligations which exist for courts to give reasons. Its purpose is to encourage federal magistrates to give oral reasons in appropriate cases rather than reserve their decisions. That will add to the efficient conduct of proceedings, it will save judicial time and it will lead to a much better use of judicial resources.The purpose of clauses 76(2) and 76(3) is also to encourage federal magistrates to give oral reasons where appropriate. Clause 76(4) allows the court to give reasons in short form in accordance with the rules of the court. Once again, this clause does not override common law obligation to give proper reasons. Magistrates will still give reasons, but the rules of the court should set out when it would be appropriate to give shorter reasons than usual and the form that those reasons must take. It is more appropriate to allow the court to determine through its rules when short form reasons can be used than to be too prescriptive about it in this particular bill. For that reason we oppose the opposition amendments.16:59:0010440Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats share the particular concerns of the Law Council on this point, in terms of written rulings, particularly in relation to what that means for the passage of time, amongst other things. Thus we are supporting the opposition amendment.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 12, item 4 of the FM(CA) Bill stand as printed.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—They are consequential to the previous debate.Question resolved in the negative.17:00:0010440Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—In respect of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999, I move:(13) Schedule 1, page 78 (lines 20 to 23), omit subclause (6).(14) Schedule 1, page 79 (lines 1 to 6), omit paragraphs 7(c) and (d).These amendments will delete subclause 1(6) and paragraphs 1(7)(c) and 1(7)(d) under schedule 1 of the bill. Subclause 1(6) and paragraphs 7(c) and (d) of the Federal Magistrates Bill provide for the appointment of part-time magistrates. The Labor Party believes that the holders of judicial office under chapter 3 courts should generally be appointed on a full-time basis. We believe that to do otherwise does create potential for unacceptable conflicts of interest between a person's judicial and other, possibly professional, duties.It is understood that the government supports this arrangement as a means of allowing principally women with child rearing responsibilities to take up judicial office. We support allowing parents to both raise families and hold judicial office. However, the provision proposed by the government is not, we be lieve, sufficiently flexible to respond to these concerns. Basically we are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, about the potential conflict of duties; as a consequence, we have moved these amendments.17:01:0010440Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I have been advised that we have advice from the Law Council that they do not support these amendments. I only mention that because Senator Bolkus seems to put a lot of store in what the Law Council says—as though we ought always follow what they suggest. If that is the case, you would agree with us on this occasion. The government oppose these amendments. What you want to do is to remove the ability to appoint part-time federal magistrates, and I have covered that briefly in my response to the second reading debate contributions. Part-time magistrates would give significant additional flexibility in the use of judicial resources. For example, there might be a regional location which did not have the workload to warrant a full-time federal magistrate but it may be useful to appoint someone on a part-time basis.The bill has been drafted to minimise the possibility of conflicts of interest arising with federal magistrates being involved in other activities—for example, they are expressly prevented from practising as lawyers. Yet again, this clause is to provide more flexibility and greater access.17:02:0010440Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—On this point I can only strongly support what the minister is saying. It is particularly important that part-time magistrates exist in Australian society within this jurisdiction, because I believe that it does greatly benefit particularly women, and is reflective of the changing nature of the work force in Australia and of the way that Australian society is changing. I do not see that having part-time magistrates undervalues, as Senator Bolkus suggests, or detracts from the integrity of the proposed magistracies. It is very important that this facility is there, most particularly to benefit women but also those other people who may not be able to work in such a full-time capacity but who can still contribute. We therefore oppose ALP amendments 13 and 14.Amendments not agreed to.17:04:0010441Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—In respect of the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill, I move:(2) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (lines 4 to 8), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) proceedings are instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to property of a total value exceeding, at the time the proceedings are commenced: (i) $300,000; or (ii) if another amount is specified in the regulations—that other amount; and(3) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (after line 16), after subsection (1) insert: (1A) If: (a) after proceedings have been instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to property, the total value of the property exceeds: (i) $300,000; or (ii) if another amount is specified in the regulations—that other amount; and (b) the respondent in answer to the application by which the proceedings are instituted, is seeking an order different from that sought in the application, the Federal Magistrates Court must, before proceeding further with proceedings, inform the parties that, unless each of them consents to the Federal Magistrates Court continuing to hear and determine the proceedings, the Federal Magistrates Court is required to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court.(4) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 18), after "hearing", insert ", or continuing to hear,".(5) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 20), after "hearing", insert ", or continuing to hear,".(6) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 24), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".(7) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 28), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".These amendments require the Federal Magistrates Court to transfer proceedings to the Family Court if it is determined either at the commencement of or at any time during the proceedings that the total value of the proper ty in dispute exceeds $300,000 or such other amount as is set by regulation. These amendments provide an exception to this rule where both parties consent to the matter remaining before the Federal Magistrates Service. As the consequential amendments bill is currently drafted, the determination as to whether the proceedings should be transferred is only made at the commencement of proceedings. Frequently, the value of property will not be known or may not be disclosed until midway through the case. Accordingly, in such circumstances, neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor the parties are going to be in a position to make an informed decision at the commencement of proceedings as to whether the matter should in fact remain with the Federal Magistrates Court. The amendments that we are proposing allow the court and the parties to make that decision at the time it becomes known that the value of the property may exceed $300,000. Amendment No. 2 amends the proposed section 45A to make it clear that an initial determination of the value of the property should be made at the time proceedings are commenced. Amendment No. 3 provides the mechanism for the matter to be reconsidered if at any time during the proceedings the value exceeds $300,000. Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 are consequential to the above two substantive changes.17:05:0010441Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government opposes these amendments. The service will be obliged to transfer family law property proceedings to the Family Court where, when the proceeding is filed, the property in dispute is worth more than $300,000. These amendments would mandate the transfer of family law property matters during the conduct of proceedings if it became apparent during the proceeding that the value of property in dispute was worth more than $300,000. The government considers that the most appropriate time to look at the value of the property is when the proceeding is filed; otherwise, parties could make transfer applications halfway through the proceeding, and this could be yet again another delaying tactic used by the strong to disadvantage the weak and, of course, would be disruptive.Under the arrangements currently in the bill, if there is a possibility that the value of the property is more than $300,000 at the start of proceedings, the Federal Magistrates Service can simply transfer them to the Family Court. That would avoid too much time being spent hearing argument about the value of the property. Additionally, in any event, if a property did increase significantly in value during the proceedings, the Federal Magistrates Service could use its general transfer power to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court if it considered it appropriate.17:07:0010442Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats are of the same view as the opposition in this case for the reasons articulated by Senator Bolkus and thus support amendments Nos 2 to 7.Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—The question now is that schedule 25 stand as printed.17:07:0010442Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think No. 11 is now probably the last amendment before us on this legislation. This amendment will delete schedule 25 of the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 . Schedule 25 provides for the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. It is very strongly our view that the government is inappropriately seeking to give jurisdiction to hear matters under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to the Magistrates Court. The jurisdiction includes: (1) injunctive powers to stop or prevent industrial action under section 127, items 1 to 6 of schedule 25 of the bill; and (2) the power to cancel the registration of an organisation for breach of the freedom of association provisions which, if passed, would include the additional anti-union provisions and the workplace relations amendment bill, cynically called the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 .These are, it has to be said, notoriously complex areas of law, which we believe are totally inappropriate for determination at a magistrate's level. For example, the provisions allowing the court to issue injunctions under section 127 would have permitted the Federal Magistrates Court to hear much of the waterfront dispute—a dispute which was of national, if not international, significance. You do not get matters much bigger than that. To be in the situation now where the government are trying to flick that jurisdiction off to, in their own words, an `inferior court' is something which we find totally unacceptable. In a sense, it would probably be an abdication of responsibility by this parliament were we to allow such matters to be referred to the inferior court's jurisdiction.Of course, it has to be recognised that the government's proposals are consistent with its desire to prevent the Federal Court from examining such important issues. Increasingly, what the government has found is that the Federal Court, by construing domestic law according to international standards, has become a major problem for the implementation of the government's radical industrial relations reforms but, more importantly, it is acting in defence of the rights of people working in the Australian community.Item 33 of schedule 2 of the consequential amendments bill provides for the referral of matters, including questions of law, to the full court of the Federal Court for determination. Item 14 provides for representation before the Federal Magistrates Court in industrial matters. Items 15 to 21 relate to the power of parties and the minister to intervene in proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court. While some of these provisions may have an unobjectionable element to them, they are consequential on the granting of the jurisdiction that I previously referred to; the granting of jurisdiction which, as I said, we are very strongly against.Finally, it has to be noted that the government is coming to this particular provision with a degree of bad faith in the granting of jurisdiction, because one thing it does fail to do is to give the court jurisdiction for unfair dismissal cases arising under division 3 of the Workplace Relations Act. These cases are generally of a small claims nature, suitable indeed for determination by a magistrate. However, the government's proposals leave in place the arrangements that see these matters determined principally by judicial registrars of the Federal Court, leaving those cases subject to a second tier of merits review by a judge.Basically, for the reasons I have already expressed, we do not think the government comes to this in good faith. We also think the government comes to this particular debate with a degree of cynicism and with a very pernicious hidden agenda to try to refer these matters away from a court which the government does not like because it is acting, probably in the eyes of the government, in a way that defends the rights of workers too strenuously. It is an agenda that we do not want to endorse and, as a consequence, we move this amendment.17:11:0010443Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government opposes this amendment. This schedule will give the Federal Magistrates Service jurisdiction under section 127 and part 10A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and make various other amendments consequential upon conferring that jurisdiction. Section 127 allows orders to be made by the court after orders have been made by the AIRC to stop or prevent industrial action, and part 10A contains the freedom of association provisions.No jurisdiction is being removed from the Federal Court. This jurisdiction will be concurrent with the Federal Court so that parties will be able to choose in which court to litigate. Where a federal magistrate in dealing with a case forms the view that a matter is complex and should be heard by the Federal Court, the proceeding can be transferred to that court. Federal magistrates may transfer proceedings on their initiative or, after reaching an independent decision on this issue, upon the application of a party. This will ensure that proceedings are dealt with in the most appropriate forum. Yet again, it is something this government is trying to do—give more flexibility and more choice to litigants—that is being opposed by the opposition. That is why we oppose their amendment. 17:13:0010443Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats have concerns about aspects of industrial relations being dealt with through this proposed magistracy. We are yet to be convinced that it is the right way to go or would improve efficiency and thus support opposition amendment No. 11.17:13:0010443Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I just wonder if I could engage Senator Greig in some genuine debate, which just occasionally happens—with no disrespect to other debates. Generally we have our prepared positions and there is no point in pretending that we make up our mind at the last minute. But in this case we have an opportunity because, Senator Greig, you supported some amendments that allowed the Federal Court to bring matters up if it wanted to. So why then would you need to support this amendment? If you leave it as it is, you will allow litigants to choose to go to the federal magistracy if they want to. A party to that can make a application to the magistrate to say, `Look, this is a mistake; this should go to the Federal Court.' So no party is denied a hearing on that issue. The Federal Court itself can say, `We want to bring this matter up,' because of support that you have given to opposition amendments.What I am trying to say is that the situation has changed from when we first came in here, by virtue of your supporting Senator Bolkus's amendments. I would have thought, therefore, that not only is the flexibility that we want to offer provided; there is the additional flexibility—I prefer not to call it flexibility but additional opportunity—that you have provided for the Federal Court to bring matters up. In that case, you do not really need this amendment. You do not need to cut off that opportunity.17:15:0010443Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—In essence, Minister, without protracting the debate, my concern is that, principally, the hearing of industrial relations matters within the federal magistracy, as I envisage it, might be structured such that the magistrates themselves would not necessarily have the particular expertise to deal with such a narrow scope of law which, as you yourself have said, is so inherently complex. The Democrats remain to be convinced, therefore, that it would be efficient for that practice to occur.17:15:0010444Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—With respect, Senator Greig, I think you are doing a great disservice to those people who will be appointed as federal magistrates by suggesting that there is some area of law that is so complex that they could not possibly handle it. The people are entitled to practice. I frankly do not see the force of the argument, but I do not want to go on about it.17:16:0010444Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Senator Vanstone, just because you are a lawyer does not make you a High Court judge, and I suppose that is a response to your point.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—The question is that schedule 25 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.Bills, as amended, agreed to.Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.10444Bills (on motion by Senator Vanstone) read a third time.Bills10444r64610444Debate resumed from 22 November, on motion by Senator Ellison:That the committee does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and agrees to the additional amendment made by the House.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—We do have a few amendments before us at this stage. The debate on the second reading, as it may be called, may be over, but I am not totally sure about that. Are we now proceeding to particular amendments?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—Yes. As I understand it, we are moving to the amendments, Senator Bolkus, if we are ready to do that. The first amendment is on opposition sheet 1617.17:19:0010444Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move the opposition amendment on sheet 1617:Omit all words after "at the end of the Bill, add:", substitute:9 The Wood and Paper Industry Council The Wood and Paper Industry Council is established.10 Objectives The Council, in the performance of its functions, must pursue the objectives of enhancing: (a) the development of Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (b) employment opportunities in Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (c) the downstream processing and value-adding of forest products; and (d) the international competitiveness of the forest and forest product industries; and (e) the principles of ecologically sustainable development of forest industries.11 Functions of Council (1) The functions of the Council are: (a) to investigate market and import replacement opportunities for the industry and make recommendations to the Minister about pursuing such opportunities; and (b) to inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, matters referred to it by the Minister in relation to the industry; and (c) to develop, and to submit to the Minister, recommendations, guidelines and plans for measures consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development designed to safeguard or further the interests of the industry; and (d) to consult, and co-operate, with other persons and organisations in matters affecting the industry; and (e) to periodically inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, policies and procedures governing the export of unprocessed wood; and (f) to establish subcommittees and working parties in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Council (g) such other functions (if any) as are conferred upon the Council by the regulations. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Council, in the performance of its functions, may take into account any matter raised at an industry conference convened under section 13.12 Powers of Council The Council has power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.13 Industry conferences (1) The Chairperson may, from time to time as he or she considers appropriate, and after consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, convene conferences of persons concerned with the industry. (2) The Chairperson must convene a conference under subsection (1) whenever he or she is directed to do so by the Council. (3) The purpose of convening a conference is: (a) to assist the Council in identifying matters of concern to the industry; and (b) to promote a better understanding of problems within the industry; and (c) to foster a consensus on policies to be instituted to safeguard the interests of the industry; and (d) to increase markets, downstream processing, value-adding and international competitiveness. (4) A conference is to be convened at a time and place determined by the Chairperson. (5) Persons entitled to attend a conference are: (a) the members of the Council; and (b) such other persons concerned with the industry as the Chairperson, consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, invites. (6) The Chairperson is to preside at all conferences.14 Publication of Council reports (1) Where a Council report is given to the Minister, the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable after its receipt by the Minister. (2) Where a member disagrees with a finding or recommendation to be included in a Council report, the report must include a statement of the views of that member in respect of that finding or recommendation and must identify the member holding those views.15 Constitution of Council (1) The Council is to consist of the following members: (a) a person representing the Commonwealth; (b) a person nominated by each of those States which have entered into RFAs under this Act; (c) 2 persons nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; (d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems; (e) a person representing the interests of the hardwood sawmilling sector; (f) a person representing the interests of the softwood sawmilling sector; (g) a person representing the interests of the pulp and paper sector; (h) a person representing the interests of the timber furniture sector (i) a person representing the interests of the reconstituted wood products sector; (j) a person representing the interests of merchandisers and retailers of timber products; (k) such other persons (if any) as represent such other bodies or organisations connected with the industry as are specified by the Minister in the instrument of appointment. (2) The members hold office on a part-time basis. (3) The members, other than a member referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), are to be appointed by the Minister and hold office for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as is specified in the instrument of appointment but are eligible for re-appointment in accordance with this Act. (4) The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are each to represent one of the following interests: (a) the interests of the industry; (b) the interests of employees in the industry. (5) A person represents the interests of the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), or (j). (6) A person represents the interests of employees in the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(c). (7) If the Chairperson represents one of the interests mentioned in subsection (4), then the Deputy Chairperson must represent the other interest mentioned in subsection (4). (8) After each 12 months in office, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson must exchange positions. (9) The members hold office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are determined, in writing, by the Minister. (10) The performance of the functions, and the exercise of the powers, of the Council are not affected by reason only of vacancies in its membership.16 Acting Chairperson (1) The Deputy Chairperson is to act in the office of Chairperson: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Chairperson (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chairperson is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (2) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under subsection (1) is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the person's appointment had not arisen; or (b) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the person's appointment; or (c) the person's appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased.17 Deputies of members (1) The Minister may, if requested by a person, body or organisation referred to in subsection 15 (1), appoint a person to be the Deputy of a member referred to in that paragraph. (2) The Minister must, if requested by the person or body that nominated a person to be the Deputy of a member, terminate the appointment of that person. (3) A Deputy of a member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation. (4) The Deputy of a member is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council that is not attended by the member of whom he or she is the Deputy and, while so attending, is taken to be a member. (5) The appointment of a Deputy of a member, and anything done by or in relation to a Deputy of a member, is not invalid merely because: (a) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the Deputy's appointment; or (b) the occasion for the person to act under this section had not arisen or had ceased.18 Resignation of members A member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation.19 Termination of appointments etc. (1) The Minister may: (a) terminate the appointment of an appointed member for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity; or (b) on the ground of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity—give a written direction that a member, other than an appointed member, is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (2) If: (a) a member becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit; or (b) a member falls, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 20; or (c) a member is absent, except with the leave of the Chairperson, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Council; the Minister must: (d) in the case of an appointed member—terminate the appointment of the member concerned; or (f) in the case of a member other than an appointed member—give a written direction that the member is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (3) In this section: appointed member means a member other than a member referred to in paragraph 15 (1) (a) or (b).20 Disclosure of interests (1) Where: (a) a member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered, or about to be considered, by the Council; and (b) the interest could conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties in relation to the consideration of the matter; the member must, as soon as practicable after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Council. (2) A disclosure under subsection (1) must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.21 Meetings (1) The Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, may, convene such meetings of the Council as he or she considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, provided that the Council must meet at least every 2 months. (2) The Chairperson must convene a meeting of the Council on receipt of a written request signed by at least 4 members. (3) Meetings of the Council are to be held at such places and at such times as the Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, determines. (4) The Chairperson is to preside at all meetings of the Council at which he or she is present. (5) If the Chairperson is not present at a meeting of the Council, the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at the meeting. (6) The Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at all meetings. (7) At a meeting of the Council, a quorum is constituted by 5 members. (8) A question arising at a meeting of the Council is to be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting. (9) At a meeting of the Council, the member presiding has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. (10) The Council must keep minutes of its proceedings. (11) The Council may invite a person to attend a meeting of the Council for the purposes of advising or informing it on any matter.22 Remuneration and allowances (1) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but, if no determination is in operation, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. (2) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (3) Subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 . (4) A member (other than the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of the Council) is to be paid such travelling allowance as is prescribed in relation to the performance of his or her duties as a member. (5) A member of the Council is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .23 Staff of Council (1) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council—and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, engage such employees as are necessary for the performance of the Council's functions. (2) The terms and conditions of employment of persons engaged under subsection (1) are as determined by the Council in writing. (3) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council—and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, arrange with a Commonwealth authority or another body for the services of officers or employees of the authority or body to be made available for the purposes of the council.24 Consultants (1) The Council may engage as consultants persons having suitable qualifications and experience. (2) The terms and conditions of engagement are to be determined by the Council.25 Money to be appropriated (1) There is payable to the Council such money as is from time to time appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Council. (2) The Minister for Finance may give directions as to the amounts in which, and the times at which, money referred to in subsection (1) is to be paid to the Council.26 Money of Council (1) The money of the Council consists of money paid to the Council under section 25. (2) The money of the Council is to be applied only: (a) in payment or discharge of the expenses, obligations and liabilities of the Council arising under this Act; and (b) in payment of remuneration and allowances payable under this Act; and (c) in making any other payments required or permitted to be made by the Council. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent investment of surplus money of the Council under section 18 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 .27 Taxation The Council is not subject to taxation under any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory.28 Annual report (1) The Council must, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and give to the Minister a report of its operations during the year that ended on that 30 June. (2) A report under subsection (1) must be prepared in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 . (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), if this section does not come into operation on I July in any year, that subsection has effect in relation to the period commencing on the day on which this section comes into operation and ending on the 30 June next following that day as if that period were a period of one year ending on that 30 June.29 Regulations The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters: (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed in carrying out or giving effect to this Act.This particular amendment has been before us before, and it seeks to amend the government's amendment to the bill which was made in the House of Representatives. The government's amendment sought to establish a Forest Products Advisory Council. Instead, our amendment seeks to establish a fully functional Wood and Paper Industry Council and defines its objectives, functions, powers, composition, meeting procedures, remuneration and allowances, financial procedures and reporting requirements. It also empowers the council to employ staff and engage consultants.Essentially, the genesis for this can be traced back to the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement, a statement which encompassed more than just regional security and conservation matters. Industry development was an aspect of that, and we think it is important for the Senate to proceed on the basis of a council which is much broader and much more fully composed than the government's proposal. That is embodied in this amendment.86XGREIGSenator Greig—I might just seek your guidance for a moment, Chair, this being my first involvement in a message from the House of Representatives. As circulated on sheet 1630, we Democrats propose to reintroduce our original amendments to Labor's original proposal for a Wood and Paper Industry Council. Am I able to do that now? Is this the point at which I can do that?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. But, before you go on, we do have an Australian Green amendment on sheet 1629, and it was my intention to go to that first. It is an amendment to the opposition amendment on sheet 1617.17:22:0010448Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—If it will help the committee, I will move that amendment:After paragraph 15(1)(d), insert: (da) a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation; This amendment places a member of the Australian Conservation Foundation on the council that is being established. I think this is acceptable to the Labor Party. It follows part (c) in the `Constitution of Council', which would have `two persons nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions', and it is more specific than the standing part (d), which says:. . . a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems—I am sure Senator Bolkus would agree with me that that would leave the way open for the government to appoint anybody at all under the elastic definition of the environment and ecosystems which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, has and which includes anything and everything.It is important that we be specific and that we not have somebody from the woodchip corporations—who I think will dominate this council anyway—representing forest environments and ecosystems. As I have said so many times before in this debate, the woodchip corporations which run the forest industry in Australia—and there are only a handful of them—are in the business of wreaking havoc in Australia's unprotected, grand wild forests. They are in the process of logging those forests. In Tasmania and also on parts of the mainland where those forests are logged, 90 per cent of them do not go to sawmills, do not go to downstream processing and do not go to creating more jobs in Australia; they go to the woodchip mills to line the pockets of companies like Bunnings, North and the other corporations involved in woodchipping.It is very important, if this council is going to have any validity at all and not simply be a taxpayer funded cipher to the logging industry, that it at least have a voice for the environment that is recognised as such. That is why I have put forward this amendment in specific terms.The Australian conservation movement represents 80 per cent of public feeling in this matter. I am being conservative when it comes to Western Australia, but that is what the opinion polls show as the proportion of Australians who do not want the continued destruction of our grand wild forests and their wildlife by the woodchip industry. So if they are going to be represented adequately, they need to have faith in that representation, even though it will be but a voice on this council. It will not be able to affect outcomes. My amendment, which says that `a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation' be on the council, would fulfil that democratic role.17:25:0010449Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition does support Senator Brown's amendment, which would in essence put on the council a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation. Senator Brown has disappeared for the moment, but I indicate that at this part of the debate.17:26:0010449Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—This amendment by Senator Brown is in accord with what we Democrats had been advocating previously. It is a sensible and appropriate amendment, and it brings home the point that there is such inherent distrust with the Australian people towards the process that we know as the RFA.Senators may be interested to note that, within the last two or three days, some 114 environmental experts and/or scientists have outed themselves, as it were, in a list through the Western Australian media to the effect that, although they were a part of the RFA process in Western Australia, they are not by any means happy with the outcome and, by inference, resent the implication that they had somehow endorsed the process—a curious contradiction, I think, to what the state minister, Mrs Edwardes, had been saying.In that sense, the inclusion of somebody from the ACF to such a council is an appropriate step. It will hopefully reinstate, to the extent that it can, some sense of faith and trust in what is an inherently flawed process but which must at all times have a voice from all stakeholders.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the Australian Green amendment on sheet 1629 to the opposition amendment on sheet 1617 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now proceed to Democrat amendment No. 13. Senator Greig, are you proceeding with this amendment? I understand it overlaps the previous amendment and has been dealt with by that amendment.86XGreig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG—You are quite right and, on that basis, I withdraw amendment No. 13.17:30:0010450Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Green amendments on sheet 1621:(1) After paragraph 15(1)(j), insert: (ja) a person representing the interests of the forest-related tourism sector; (jb) a person representing the interests of the forest-related water sector;(2) Subsection 15(5), omit "or (j)", substitute "(j), (ja) or (jb)".These amendments would put on the Wood and Paper Industry Council, firstly, a person representing the interests of the forest related tourism sector and, secondly, a person representing the interests of the forest related water sector. Let me speak briefly to both of those appointments.Firstly, in Tasmania, from where two-thirds of the woodchips exported out of this country emanate, the cry has always been that the forests are there for jobs. We have seen that as the rate of woodchipping increases the number of jobs has fallen—in fact it has fallen by more than 5,000 since the woodchip industry began in Tasmania. This has been matched by an increase in jobs in the tourism and service industries by people wanting to come and see the forests. This is a very real use of the forest resource. It is particularly vital in Tasmania where, as senators will know, the unemployment problem is worse than in other parts of Australia.The tourism industry in Tasmania supports more than 18,000 jobs; the logging industry in native forests supports 2,000 jobs. When you look at that component of the tourism industry that depends on wild forests, you find that it is 3,000 jobs. So already in Tasmania there are more jobs in the tourist and service industries dependent on natural forest being protected than there are dependent on the woodchip and associated industries which are involved in destroying that same resource.You cannot have it both ways. You cannot log a resource and expect tourists to go there. Other people who live in Tasmania will corroborate my experience that, while visitors proclaim the beauty of Tasmania, they are universal in their condemnation of the ugliness of the woodchip industry and the destruction which it occasions all over the state, not just in state forests, publicly owned forests, but increasingly in private forests where the destruction of the rural landscape and even the urban visual amenity has become unprecedented in Australian history since Prime Minister Howard and then Liberal Premier Mr Rundle signed the Regional Forest Agreement.Far from the forest agreement leading to the security of jobs that the industry and the Labor and Liberal parties in Tasmania always said would follow, 500 jobs have been shed from the industry since the Regional Forest Agreement was signed. That agreement opened the way to the greatest onslaught on Tasmania's forests in history. That surely is saying something. Nevertheless, the tourism and service industries in Tasmania continue to bolster the employment figures.It is very important that senators, including Senator Troeth, understand this: you cannot have it both ways. You cannot destroy the resource upon which the tourism and service industries depend for thousands of jobs and say that you are creating jobs. It would be totally remiss for a council which is looking at the health of the wood and wood products industries in Tasmania to not include looking at the biggest employer of the lot—that is, the tourist related industry—which depends on wild forests and wild landscapes. It would be absurd to do so. It would reflect thinking of a couple of decades ago.The forest industry these days has changed. Industrial forestry has no place destroying the job creating service industries in Tasmania, Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. This is a very important matter. I was very disappointed that the emergent new tourism industry based on Tasmania's wild and scenic attributes and its wilderness did not take a much more aggressive role in the regional forest agreement business. But the power base in Tasmania which has been established by the logging industry over these last few decades is awesome indeed. There is a small business community which is very much interconnected, and the people who are involved know when to keep their heads down. It is truly a great pity that the tourism industry did not bore in there in defence of business, jobs and, I might add, the service industries which, very much distinct from the big woodchip industries based outside Tasmania, put their money back into the Tasmanian economy. You will note that this is a Green not talking about the environmental amenity per se but talking about jobs and the economy. I would be very happy for the government or anybody else to provide a different set of figures to that which I have put before the Senate just now.Once again, placing a person representing the interests of the forest related tourism sector on this council is not going to enable them to have sway. They ought to, but they are not going to have it; the woodchippers will get that. Nevertheless, it is excruciatingly important that their voice be there and that it be heard and that it be a genuine person representing the forest related tourism sector.Further, this amendment would ensure that a person representing the interests of the forest related water sector be there, and that also is hugely important. Forests and water go together. What is left of our forests is very often high in the catchments of rivers and streams flowing to the sea via townships and through agricultural areas which are very dependent on the water. Members will know that, these days, high-tech forestry also involves such things as pesticides and herbicides on a large scale and that there is great alarm about water pollution from the mud which gets into these stream systems and is currently threatening marvellous species like the world's largest crayfish, Astracopsis gouldii, in Tasmania's north-west streams and also the wellbeing of the human population further down. It threatens that much-touted clean green image. It threatens organic farming. It threatens other economic and job important components of the future. Again, we cannot have it both ways. It is extraordi narily important that somebody who is involved in that forest related water sector be on this council.I might add here, Chair, because you might not be aware of this, that studies in Victoria have shown that the value of forests in Melbourne's water catchment to supplying a clean and natural water system to the metropolis of Melbourne is far greater than the value of cutting those trees down and transporting them off to the woodchip mill and the rubbish dumps of Japan—far greater. That is an economic fact. This is not me coming up with an assumption. This is a result of independent studies and is there for all to see, and everybody of course knows about it.It is putting our heads in the sand if, when it comes to the future of forests, we do not have somebody involved in the water related industries, which are themselves dependent on what happens in forests, not only in headwaters but throughout catchments in this wonderful country of ours on a wood and wood products council. Again, they are going to be underrepresented. But it would be very remiss were their voice to be shut out altogether. We are still at a very primitive stage in the way in which governments deal with the forest resource in this country, but it is time that we started to catch up. It is essential that the voice of the tourism sector and the water sector be heard on this council and that it have a say in formulating an informed policy and putting that to the body politic as well as to the public in the most rounded out way possible.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Before I call Senator Bolkus, I clarify that the matter before the chair is Senator Brown's amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet 1621, which is an amendment to opposition sheet 1617, as amended.17:42:0010451Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I wish to briefly come into the debate at this stage. This is an issue that has been discussed both in this place and also privately with Senator Brown in terms of trying to get the opposition to support his proposal on sheet 1621. Discussions we have had indicated at an earlier stage that we were prepared to support one part of the proposal, the part that goes to the forest related tourism sector. The opposition, as expressed to Senator Brown previously, had difficulties in accommodating both aspects of it.I suggest to Senator Brown that he may be able to move his amendment in an amended form at a later stage. He may want to test the numbers with respect to the whole amendment. If he were to move an amendment which basically encompassed (ja) and had a consequential amendment to the second part of his amendment on sheet 1621, we would be able to support the insertion of `a person representing the interests of the forest-related tourism sector'.17:43:0010452Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have yet to hear the force of Senator Bolkus's argument on this, but I can count. Therefore, I would take that suggestion and will test it separately if the committee will permit me to do so; that is, to separate (ja) and (jb) as in the amendment that the Greens are putting forward. Therefore, we would first deal with a person going on to the council who would come from the tourism sector, then separately deal with the representation by somebody from the water sector.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Brown, we can divide the question, and we will do so. The question is that amendment (1) to insert a new paragraph (ja) be agreed to.17:44:0010452Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting this amendment in relation to the forest related tourism sector and a person from such a scenario being involved in the proposed council. It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which those who advocate a thriving forest industry in terms of employment and jobs ignore or overlook or are wilfully blind to the immense and greater potential of tourism; that is, enjoying the forests as they are rather than chopping them down.I have been struck by some interesting images over the last few months. On Sunday nights, I—and I am sure many of us—have been watching on television the spectacular BBC program on dinosaurs. It intrigued me that the background footage—the landscape—used in that program was chosen from very specific places on the globe, one of which was the Tasmanian highlands. It was chosen for its ancient and existing beauty. It stuck me that, at the very time such immense beauty is shown around the world—Opposition senators interjecting—86XGreig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG—I accept that it is protected. But the point I am making is that it is constantly advocated and demonstrated as being something which we should all support and enjoy and be lured to. When I last spoke on this in the Senate I explained that I had recently spent some time in and around the region of Deloraine and Meander—this was my first time in Tasmania—and I had spent some time in the logged and being-logged region of Mother Cummings Peak and its surrounds. I hesitate to refer to it as logging; it is more like mining. The utter devastation has to be seen to be believed. Yet as you stand on that peak in the midst of this utter devastation, you cannot but be struck by the immense beauty of the place and wonder why the tourism industry, most particularly in Tasmania but also in my home state of Western Australia, is continuing to be denied the greater patronage that it is crying out for. I understand there is a tourism exhibition about to take place in Tasmania as I speak.I was also struck by the fact that, in my home state of Western Australia in the Karri forests around Pemberton, there is a magnificent tree of some—unless I am mistaken—70 metres in height known as the Gloucester Tree. It is very famous in Western Australia. It is a tree which almost every Western Australian, who is able to, is keen to climb and enjoy. It is marketed very much as one of the highlights of that region. People can no longer climb that tree. The reason offered is that it is now dangerous. I am led to believe that that is nonsense and that the real reason the Gloucester Tree was closed is that, when people climb to the top of it, they can see the logging that is going on in nearby districts and are horrified by it.In my home state, I was struck recently by some imagery of the state Minister for the Environment, Mrs Edwardes, handing out awards to members of the tourism industry within Western Australia and basking in the glow of how wonderful our south-west forests were and that we should be doing more to promote tourism within them. This was occurring at the very time when in excess of 80 per cent of people in my home state were screaming out in outrage over the continued logging of native forests in that very region. For that reason it comes as no difficulty for us whatsoever to support the notion that should any such council exist, as is being advocated by the Labor Party, then it is imperative that it involve at least one person from the forest related tourism sector.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Brown to insert paragraph (ja) be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000Greig, Sen BrianThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that Senator Brown's amendment to insert paragraph (jb) be agreed to.17:49:0010453Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I draw the committee's attention again to the amendment which proposes that a person representing the interests of the forest-related water sector should be on this council. I will not go over the argument again, but I want to repeat that we are not talking here about some minor or side issue to the proper management of forests. We are talking about a multimillion dollar component, if not multibillion dollar component, annually of the forest industry impact on Australia's wellbeing. I reiterate that studies in Victoria for one have shown that the value of forests in important catchments being unlogged—that is, staying as they are—is greater than the value of cutting them down and carting them off to the woodchip mill.It needs to be said that the value accrues differently, though. When you are talking about the value of keeping catchments pristine, and being able to slowly release the water into the river systems and then into the water systems of cities like Melbourne, you are talking about the interests of millions. But when you are talking about the woodchip industry, which would cut down those catchments and cart them off to a woodchip mill, you are talking about very few indeed who want to exploit—for the short term and for a premium on their woodchip shares—the forests against the interests of the majority.There are much wider ramifications in this amendment than I will go into here. But water, as everybody knows, is a prime commodity in these days when six billion people are on the planet. The majority of people in this largely dry continent of ours live in areas which hug our coastline. Our forests and the water that we all depend on are also along our coastline. Increasingly, it is an economic premium that that water be unsullied, and increasingly one of the biggest factors degrading the water catchments near the populated areas of the eastern and far south-west seaboard of Australia is the logging industry.Where logging occurs, you get a disturbance to the flow of water. When you do not have a forest there is a more rapid run-off and a loss of water. Of course, this means that there is less insurance against drought. You also get pollution through the direct erosion of the soils—and it is massive in places. Consequent upon that is the pollution from industrial forestry where so much depends on chemicals these days. These are all injurious to the wider economy of the populace as a whole.I can gather the way this vote might go. I would expect the support of the Democrats, and Senator Greig has assented that that is the way they will be going. But I cannot understand the older parties not wanting to support something which is economically sound as well as environmentally sound and in the interests of the wider populace. Having somebody representing the forest related water sector on this council is not going to change the vote of the council, but it is going to make sure that those who persist in what is going to be the most rapid onslaught on the unprotected forests of Australia in history under the Howard government's regional forest agreements do so with their eyes wide open, knowing what damage they are causing economically as well as environmentally to the interests of the Australian populace as a whole. There should be somebody from the forest related water sector on this council.17:53:0010453Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—As Senator Brown stated, the Demo crats support this. It is a sensible imperative. One of the many things which struck me on a recent tour of forests in Tasmania was the extent to which there was water related damage on the hillsides around what would be the southern edge of Mother Cummings Peak. I think the water body in question was Dunnings Rivulet. Perhaps Senator Brown can correct me.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes, it was.86XGreig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG—I walked deeply into the forest and was shown the extraordinary damage to the landscape that had been done there, clearly as a direct result of the logging within that region. It was not simply the destruction of that immediate area but the immense amount of sand and dirt which, as a consequence, has been washing down that hillside through the Meander Valley and then dumping itself as silt in the Tamar River and regions. Of course, Tasmania is no different from other states in terms of environmental damage and water related issues as a result of logging, but if for no other reason I think it is imperative that a person with these particular credentials be represented on such a body.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that amendment (1) moved by Senator Brown, inserting after paragraph 15(1)(j) a new paragraph (jb) be agreed to. Question put.18:00:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Lees, M. H.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.42Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harris, L.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that Australian Greens amendment No. 2 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Following that result, Senator Greig, do you wish to continue with Democrat amendment No. 15, or do you think that overlaps? Do you need to proceed with that?18:03:0010454Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—In light of what has happened, I am happy to withdraw Democrat amendment No. 15.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Thank you. That now leaves Democrat amendments Nos 1 to 12, 14 and 16 to 26. Are you seeking leave to move those together?18:04:0010454Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Yes, I would. But to help facilitate things, I might move them in blocks, in which case I seek your consent to move amendments Nos 1 to 11 together.Leave granted.86XGreig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG—I move Democrat amendments Nos 1 to 11 inclusive:(1) Clauses 9 to 29, omit "Wood and Paper Industry Council" (wherever occurring), substitute "RFA Forest Management Council".(2) Clause 10, omit the clause, substitute:10 Objectives The Council, in the performance of its functions, must pursue the objectives of: (a) ecologically sustainable forest management in all RFA regions; and (b) increasing the areas available for conservation purposes; and (c) protecting threatened species, wetland areas and areas of important ecological diversity; and (d) collecting and analysing information about the state of the forests in RFA regions; and (e) enhancing: (i) the development of Australia's forest and forest product industries towards plantation use and away from existing native forests; and (ii) employment opportunities in Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (iii) downstream processing and value-adding of forest products; and (iv) the principles of ecologically sustainable development of forest industries.(3) Before paragraph 11(1)(a), insert: (aa) to inquire into and report annually to each House of the Parliament on progress in achieving ecologically sustainable management of all RFA regions; and(4) Subclause 11(1), after "Minister" (wherever occurring), insert "and the Minister for the Environment".(5) Paragraph 11(1)(b), omit "industry", substitute "environment in RFA regions, the industry and any industry users of RFA regions".(6) Paragraph 11(1)(c), omit "development designed to safeguard or further the interests of the industry", substitute "management".(7) Paragraph 11(1)(d), omit "the industry", substitute "forests in RFA regions".(8) Omit clause 13.(9) Subclause 14(1), omit "the Minister" (first occurring), substitute "a Minister".(10) At the end of subclause 14(1), add "and, in any case, must cause a copy of the report to be published on the Internet within 14 days after its receipt".(11) Paragraph 15(1)(b), omit "under this Act".These amendments ought to be supported for the key reasons I argued the first time around in what has become somewhat Groundhog Day legislation. The Democrats' argument in relation to this proposed council has always been that it must not be so heavily focused— as it is—towards logging interests and the logging industry. The amendments that I propose again today, including amendments Nos 1 to 11, aim to make what we see as a bad council better—that is, to improve Labor's proposal for its Wood and Paper Industry Council.The key amendment of the section I am now moving is amendment No. 2, relating to the objectives of the council, which we believe ought to be far more ecologically and environmentally supportive of the notion of forest industry. In part, amendment No. 2, within this section of amendments, proposes and advocates ecologically sustainable forest management within all RFA regions—increasing the areas available for conservation purposes and protecting threatened species, wetland areas and areas of important ecological diversity, and so on—in addition to adhering to the principles of ecologically sustainable development for forest industries.The other amendments within this particular block are largely administrative, but the intent of them is clear. We Democrats continue to argue that, should any council of this nature exist, it must have a much stronger focus on those aspects of forests and forest industry which are so absent within this particular proposal.18:07:0010455Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I could facilitate the debate here at the moment. Basically, we have two different models: the one that the opposition has put up and the one that the Democrats are now pursuing. As Senator Greig said, we have had this debate before. We have put up our Wood and Paper Industry Council and the Democrats are pursuing an alternative proposal, even though they have, to date, supported some amendments to the composition of the proposed Wood and Paper Industry Council. So we have two different models and, in proposing our own model, we do not see it open to us to support the Democrat proposal.18:08:0010455Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I take a totally opposite point of view. I think the amendments that Senator Greig has brought forward on behalf of the Australian Democrats are eminently sensible and very appropriate to the aspirations of Australians at the end of this century. But, again, we are going to see the Democrats and the Greens outvoted by Labor and the government on this matter. Senator Greig has proposed that there be a council looking after the management of the regional forest agreements—which we are dealing with here—and, in particular, that it have an eye to ensuring ecologically sustainable forest management. That should be a major aim sought by any council—whatever its set-up—but we are not going to get that. We are going to see a council which is there primarily to promote the interests of the logging industry.I know that some of the Tasmanian Labor senators, including Senator Murphy, have been very concerned that this council be established. I am not going to speak for Senator Murphy, but one of the things that I have gleaned from him over the years is that he is concerned that the industry is top heavy and dominated by the woodchip industry and the out-of-state corporations and that it is time the smaller players had a real say. A council like this is going to enable the smaller players and the interests of workers to be represented. In those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate that the council be looking at the way forward. If you leave out ecological sustainability, you are not looking at the way forward; you are looking at a way to an end—you are looking at the way to the ultimate end of the native forests that are unprotected. They are being cut down rapidly and the forest product is being shot out of this country. This is of course increasing, by huge amounts, other problems like greenhouse gas release, which is quite unnecessary because the standing forests are the best carbon banks this nation has.All sorts of things need to be looked at here. I see the pivotal words in Senator Greig's amendments as being `ecologically sustainable forest management'. Surely that should be central to the whole matter. That is what the national forest policy of Labor and the government is aimed at: ecologically sustainable forest management. But, although Senator Greig and the Democrats have brought forward a proposal for the council to have that as its first aim, we can see that we are going to get voted down. There is a disjunction here between the rhetoric and the reality. The reality is that the big logging corporations are calling the shots. They essentially wrote the legislation and they have essentially written the regional forest agreements, against the wishes of the vast majority of the Australian public, who own those forests. They also—and I am going to keep saying this because it is so important to understanding the process we are dealing with here—put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the coffers of the big political parties, and they do not do that without expecting a dividend.I find it quite remarkable that, just last week in the House of Assembly in the Tasmanian parliament, a move by both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party was successful in calling on all members of this parliament, particularly the Tasmanian members, to support this legislation without any of these amendments—that is, with no amendments at all. The Tasmanian Labor Party, which is in office at the moment, is the most gung-ho destroyer of forests of any of the governments in Australia—and that is saying something. They even wanted to log the very small area of national park which the Liberals, who are dependent on the Greens in the state parliament, set aside last year for the nation's future—for future generations. You can only ask when Tasmania is going to follow the example of the Hawke government in the eighties and bring in legislation or allow legislation to be brought in which brings transparency at least to the donations being handed across by the woodchip corporations and other logging entities to the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in Tasmania.I know from my own times in the Tasmanian state parliament that such proposals got hammered down by the big parties. There is a very unhealthy relationship there that is against the public interest and certainly against the job-rich industries that I talked about earlier today—not least, the service and tourism industries. This is highlighted by what we are seeing here right now—that is, this Senate, this parliament, reflecting that atavistic sentiment in the Tasmanian parliament by not wanting to support an amendment which says that this council should be looking at implementing ecologically sustainable forest management in all the regional forest agreement areas. It is time—is it not?—that the big parties who talk about user pays applied that to the big industries, and that includes the big industries `picking up the tab', in the rawest terms, for the environmental damage which they have put on the shoulders of industry as a whole.At the moment in Tasmania we have the extraordinary example of a new concert hall being built next to the Grand Chancellor Hotel across from Constitution Dock in downtown Hobart; it is a mixture of private enterprise and public support. Recently, there was great speculation that the whole thing would fall through. Why? Because costs had soared by $5 million. Why? Because the log trucks roaring through Hobart, down Davey Street, laden with the grand forests of the southern regions of Tasmania on their way to the woodchip mills to be exported to Japan, created such difficulties that the sum of $5 million was needed to protect the concert hall from these thundering beasts of destruction that were roaring past outside.It is not as though I am talking about one or two trucks. Under this legislation, under the regional forest agreements a la Labor and Liberal in Tasmania, 150,000 log trucks a year are taking the most magnificent forests in this country to the woodchip mills. It is very difficult not to be angry about that. It is very difficult not to feel outraged—by not just the environmental but also the economic and employment madness of this situation.It is shown up for what it is when there is an amendment here which says that this council should have ecologically sustainable forest management as its purview and the big parties are about to vote it down. That is not just bad management; it is culpability in my books. Remember, the taxpayers will be funding this council. The Greens and the Democrats will be left to try to improve the membership so at least there will be a flow of information, which will be in the wider public interest, to and from the council.We cannot do anything but mark the argument and the dereliction of duty of the government in particular in the direction in which this vote will go. I congratulate the Democrats for their proposal; it is the right one. But, as we know, in this place right is never necessarily going to lead to the right outcome. I support wholeheartedly the Democrat amendments, and I recommend that the big parties again have a look at their opposition to them.Amendments not agreed to.18:17:0010457Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 12:(12) After paragraph 15(1)(b), insert: (ba) a person nominated by the conservation council of each of those States which have entered into RFAs;This amendment allows for a person nominated by the conservation council of each of those states which have entered into RFAs to be a part of the council. Again I think that it pretty much speaks for itself. I find it hard to see how or why you would argue against that. It is interesting that—and I speak largely on the basis of events in my home state of Western Australia—most often it has been members of the conservation council who have produced the more accurate and more reliable information and evidence as to what is really happening within our forests and our timber industries. All too often it has been the conservation councils that have led the charge against the wanton and unwanted destruction of our native forests when it can be and has been shown to be so demonstrably unacceptable. All too often it has been the conservation councils that have been able to dig out and produce those experts and academics who might otherwise, without their encouragement, not have come forward to speak openly to the press, given the curious intimidatory environment some feel that they are under in relation to this issue.Quite simply, the amendment seeks to allow for, as I have said, a nominated person from each conservation council within those states which have thus far entered into RFAs to be a part of that council. I commend that amendment to the Senate.18:19:0010458Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support this amendment also. It is plain commonsense and, for the reasons I gave in my last contribution, it should be supported. I might add that again we go back to: what does the public think about this?Western Australia is an aberration because in that state an opinion poll in recent times showed that 89 per cent of people wanted an end to the destruction of that state's grand wild forests. I will be conservative and say that 70 to 80 per cent of people right around this country have shown in opinion polls consistently for the last decade that they agree with that sentiment. But money speaks louder than democracy. That is why we are not succeeding with the amendments that Senator Greig is putting forward. However, it is sensible that conservation councils, which represent that majority viewpoint of the Australian people, be on this council. The council will also have a member from the Australian Conservation Foundation, which is seen by many as the umbrella organisation for conservation groups in Australia—and that is a move in the right direction.But where we have, for example, the Tasmanian forests feeding two-thirds of the inexhaustible appetite for woodchips of the overseas pulp and paper industry, there is no Australian Conservation Foundation field officer in Tasmania. It is appropriate that there be a conservationist from Tasmania, a person representing that state's conservation interests, on this council—a person with on the ground knowledge and with an ability to work through and follow the arguments as they relate to the island state.This is not a small matter. It has huge economic, employment and environmental ramifications. If this council is going to work successfully, it needs to be based on good, sound knowledge. You do not get that result by cutting out a pivotal part of the knowledge base because you do not like its point of view. That is what Labor and Liberal in Tasmania stand for: they are anti-conservationist; they are anti-green; they are anti protecting forests. They are exploitative parties in the business of permitting, at the bidding of the big woodchip corporations, the record destruction which this process allows of one of the most important economic and employment resources the state has. We need to have someone speak up for the alternative at a regional level, someone that can really argue on behalf of the industries which provide more jobs from keeping forests intact than the industries that want to destroy the forests, such as woodchipping, and that continue to shed jobs.I am afraid we are going to see the committee vote this amendment down, but I am glad it is on the record. I again say that Senator Greig's amendment is the right one and that the committee should think about it again. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Greig's ) be agreed to.18:28:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)7Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.40Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. *Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Tchen, T. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.18:31:0010459Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move Democrats amendment No. 14:(14) After paragraph 15(1)(d), insert: (da) 2 scientists having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems;This amendment means that two scientists would be encompassed within the notion of the board which would constitute such a council. I believe that this amendment very much speaks for itself and ought to be supported.18:32:0010459Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the amendment.Amendment not agreed to.18:32:0010459Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—On a point of clarification, I understand that what was Democrat amendment No. 15 is now redundant. Is that the case?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That was your request, yes.86XGreig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG—Thank you. I understand that amendment No. 15 on subsection (ja) is not necessarily precluded by what has gone before. I wonder if I might now move that.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is an overlap. You can do it.86XGreig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG—I move:(15) After paragraph 15(1)(j), insert: (ja) a person representing the interests of threatened species;This amendment is such that a person representing the interests of threatened species would also constitute part of what would be the board for such a council. Threatened species are, regrettably, an integral part of our forests. I say `regrettably' because of the extent to which they are threatened and not because they exist. I am very conscious, for example—and I spoke of this previously—of the chuditch, one threatened species amongst others in the south-west of Western Australia, which has so endeared itself to the populace of Western Australia that it has been adopted as the icon and emblem of the Small Business Association of Western Australia—an association which is, incidentally, strongly opposed to the logging of native forests. Again, I think this is a sensible amendment, and I seek Senate support for it.18:34:0010459Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Greig has my support for it. Around the world, the greatest cause of the loss of species is destruction of forests. We have the cute argument by the industry in Australia that nobody can specifically identify a tree that has fallen that has led to the extinction of a species; but this process of gradualism is extraordinarily important. In Australia 50 per cent of the species are in our forests.Under this legislation, millions of hectares of forests are going to be destroyed. We do not have the minister for the environment in here. He has avoided this whole debate because he is not up to protecting the environment of this country. He repeatedly sells out on it. We cannot allow this to go by with a shrug of the shoulders, because inherent in this legislation is the deliberate destruction of habitat and the deliberate movement towards extinction of a whole range of species in our forests.There is a glib look of satisfaction on the face of the greenwash experts who assure us that the regional forest agreement legislation is going to actually enhance species in our forests. But you could not get away with that in a kindergarten. You cannot go ahead and destroy half of what is left of the forests of Australia and cogently argue that the species base—the thousands of species of plants, animals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and insects—in those forests is going to be, at the end of that process, as well off as it is now with the wild forests intact. This is a process of extinction.So we have a council set up to look at the way this industry is going, and we have a Democrat amendment here which says, `Let's put somebody on that council representing the interests of threatened species.' Is the Liberal Party, with its absent minister for the environment, going to say yes to that? No. Will the Labor Party say yes to that? I doubt it. And the reason for that is the woodchip industries and their financial clout, which not only goes against current Australians and future generations of Australians having all that is left in this much depleted country of theirs as part of their variety of life, interest and natural realm; it sells out our fellow species themselves.It is noteworthy that the particular amendment that Senator Greig is putting forward says `a person representing the interests of threatened species'. That would run a shudder down the spine of most of the woodchip industry, certainly economic commentators and I think the majority of people in this parliament, when they think about it, because other species have no rights in our society. We have enough arguing of the anthropocentric point of view, which is that we gain through having other species as part of our realm of existence. But when it comes to moving for leaving living room and the right to survival of other species, you would not get a debate on it except a jocular put-down from those opposed to it. It is part of this materialist, marauding world which needs rectifying.That is why I am here as a Green—because not only future generations but other species do need a voice. Whereas many members of this place might think that this is almost an irrelevant amendment brought forward by the Democrats, I think it is a pivotal amendment. I think it is crucial. I think it is as important as the debate on taxes, which I recognise as being important. We are dealing here with the planet that we hand across to future generations. We are dealing here with the right to survive, with what is left of their natural habitat, of the panoply of species in this country and on this Earth.I have no doubt that there are many members in the big parties who could get up here and give at least a little talk on why the Amazon forest should not be knocked down and why they are concerned about that. Senator McGauran, National Party Senator for Victoria, for one, agrees. But would you hear senators from the big parties getting up here to say that we should not knock our own forests down for exactly the same reasons, that is, because they are species rich, they are full of life, they are ancient, intact ecosystems, and we have lost too many of them already? And we do not need to because this country has a plantation base which is totally adequate to provide all our wood needs, including woodchipping for export.It is profit that cuts across the field of vision of people who think it should stop in the Amazon and in Siberia, in West Papua and in Cameroon. But, oh no, not here in Australia. I remember trying to argue this with the former minister for the environment, Ros Kelly, who went to the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro representing Australia. The argument made to Minister Kelly was: `If you are cutting down the tallest trees in the Southern Hemisphere and the tallest hardwood forests on the face of the planet in Tasmania because the woodchippers want to turn them into profits, you are not going to be able to argue for saving the rainforests or the temperate forests in the rest of the world.' And that is exactly what happened.At Rio, where an agreement was expected to come out of that conference trying to protect the forests and the majority of the world's living species which live within them, Australia was silent. It could not raise a voice to Vietnam, Brazil, the Congo or a great range of other countries. Why? Because those countries would immediately say, `Minister Kelly, look what you are doing in your own backyard. Look what is happening in Tasmania, in south-western Australia, in Victoria, in New South Wales and in Queensland. Of course, included in this is the current outrageous destruction of woodlands, rating at half a million hectares per annum in Queensland. This has Amazonian proportions of its own.So here we have a council which is being set up in the wake of the regional forest agreements to ensure good management of this resource. Here we have the opportunity for those persons who say, `Don't cut down the Amazon' and `Stop the destruction in Thailand and Vietnam' and `Protect the forests of Tibet' to be honest and say, `Let's be consistent about this; let's protect the forests of this great nation of ours and, if we cannot do that, let's ensure that we have the maturity to have somebody on this council who speaks and can inform the council about threatened species.'Do you know what the results will be? The big parties will outvote us on this matter. That is what is going to happen. It is an extraordinary bind that this nation is in on the environment, which has been put on the backburner, where former Prime Minister Keating said it should be. He was wrong, and the Howard government now is wrong. If there is any commitment I make in my time in this place, it is to keep resolute about giving a voice to the environment in the Parliament of Australia because that is what I believe the people of Australia want to have heard, along with the other arguments.We are going to have representatives galore of the industry on this council. Surely there is room for somebody to represent, if not the threatened species themselves, then the public interest in the threatened species. You know what it is like. If you go to a kindergarten these days and ask the children what worries them, they will talk about the environment.The pictures on the wall are of trees, animals and birds. If you ask the children, `If you're going to have a council that looks at the future management of Australia's forests, do you think anybody should be there to speak up for the birds and animals?' they will all say yes. So what is it in a mature group of adults elected into this place that squashes that wisdom of the infants in this country? What is it? It is ultimately greed and profit that, like a magnet across a computer, somehow erases long-term sensitivity and concern for this beautiful little planet of ours from the dinkum consideration of members here.Once again, we cannot do anything but appeal to the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and even One Nation, which is not supporting these amendments, to think again. These are critical matters. They are every bit as critical as the other matters we will be dealing with between now and Christmas. They deserve to be supported.I go back again to that vote in the Tasmanian parliament last week where every member of the government, with one exception, called on this parliament to have no amendments at all—a lay down misere for the woodchip industry. The one exception, of course, was the Green MHA for Denison, Peg Putt—one voice of sanity in a sea of insensitivity. Fortunately there are a few more of us in this place, but the majority here are not reflecting the public interest in this matter. There is a serious flaw in the democratic system that allows that to happen, and that serious flaw is called money—money being power. Again, I ask the big parties to think once more about whether it is too much to ask that, in a wood industry council, there ought not be somebody there representing the interests of the threatened species of this nation. Of course there should be.Amendment not agreed to.Progress reported.Bills10461r92510461Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Troeth) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1046118:49:0010461Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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 that is part of the package of measures announced by the Prime Minister on 27 June 1999 in response to a massive increase in the numbers of attempts at illegal entry to Australia.The bill is part of the Government's ongoing commitment to combat the flow of unauthorised arrivals and other breaches of our laws at our borders.The changes the bill proposes will strengthen legislative provisions relating to the prevention of the smuggling of people into Australia. These changes will maintain the integrity of Australia's borders against attempted intrusions of the criminal elements behind most people smuggling activities.The bill also implements a number of recommendations made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to the detention of non-citizens fishing illegally in Australian waters.The recent events in East Timor provide a graphic and immediate illustration of circumstances that can drive people to leave their normal places of residence and seek safe haven elsewhere.There is however another side to the mass movement of people. This is the cynical world-wide trade in smuggling people from one country to another.It is a trade which preys on the misery and hopes of people. It is a criminal industry that the United Nations estimates has a turnover of seven billion dollars a year and involving up to four million people.It is a trade which is increasing in scale and sophistication, and one which is now targeting Australia.It is a trade which taxes the ability of law enforcement agencies to respond effectively.It is a trade which requires a strong, determined response from Governments.The trade is often closely related to extortion, prostitution, drug trafficking and other criminal activities.The true concern of the criminals behind this trade is profit.These criminals have no concern for the safety of the people they move—as was shown only recently with the tragic sinking of an unseaworthy vessel off Christmas Island which took the lives of fifteen people. These people were all on their way to Australia.These criminals can also deal in large numbers of people. Earlier this year a ship was organised which was to leave Kenya with around 2,000 people of Somali descent on board. These people were all on their way to Australia.It is a trade that needs to be dealt with before more lives are put at risk.The activities of these criminals violate the sovereign rights of states to determine who can enter their territory.The people being smuggled are, in most cases, not refugees seeking haven in the first safe country available. They are instead young migrants from less developed countries who are seeking to work in developed countries. Australia is increasingly a preferred destination and unwilling recipient of the attention of these people.In 1997-98 for example, there were 13 unauthorised boat arrivals in Australia with 157 people.In 1998-99, this had increased to 42 boats with 926 unauthorised arrivals on-board. In this financial year to date ( 1 July-18 November 1999), there have been 35 boats carrying 1671 people.These figures do not include the much larger number of persons detected and deterred by our overseas posts.Clearly this is a significant problem for this country and one that demands our immediate attention.The Government is responding quickly to the increase in this criminal trade.The first of the influx of Chinese boats arrived in December last year, travelling at the conclusion of the monsoon season in the Northern Hemisphere.A total of 471 Chinese nationals arrived, most targeting our Eastern coastline.This could happen again this year.This legislation is needed to be able to respond should it re-occur.In order to ensure that Australia is no longer seen as a soft target, the changes made by this bill have to be in place before the end of this year.Australia is not alone in adopting a more active approach to people smuggling.The United States of America for example has announced its intention to broaden the scope of its border enforcement powers beyond its territorial waters. Canada is also reviewing its laws to combat this criminal activity.It is expected that other countries will soon follow.It may be helpful to outline an example of where Australia's existing laws to combat people smuggling are inadequate.Earlier this year "Snakeheads", or people smugglers, from Fujian in China, conspired to bring a boatload of would-be illegal entrants to Australia.The Fujian group were attempting a totally clandestine entry, attempting to avoid detection and to disappear into the Australian community.The vessels involved in the Fujian operation were steel-hulled and equipped with modern navigational and communications equipment.These ships travelled, by a circuitous route, through international waters, across the top of Papua New Guinea, before targeting Australia's eastern coast.They avoided contact with those neighbouring countries whose officials might alert Australia of their imminent arrival.The Snakeheads coordinated the route taken by the vessel and arranged for accomplices onshore in Australia to receive and conceal the ships' human cargo.Their plans were to exploit the limitations of our current laws.The "mothership" was to wait in international waters. Accomplices in Australia were to travel out to the vessel in high-powered ocean going speed boats that had been specifically purchased for this purpose.Those accomplices were to ferry the passengers to Australia under cover of darkness.The mothership, relieved of its human cargo, would then sail back to China without being detected or arrested.As it stands, the Captain, crew and the Snakeheads in command were immune to Australian law, which does not extend to people smugglers sitting so far off Australia.They were beyond the reach of the law.This legislation is designed to ensure that these smugglers, operating on mother ships sitting off Australia's coast, will not be immune.They will not continue to be beyond the reach of Australian law.The bill will create new powers that will allow officers to undertake enforcement action beyond the territorial waters, and to arrest and prosecute those involved in attempts to breach Australia's sovereignty in this way.The bill ensures that the investigatory and enforcement powers held by officers of front line border agencies are complementary so they may function more efficiently on behalf of Australia.The powers proposed will enhance the ability of officers to deal with other forms of illegal activity they encounter at sea such as drug smuggling and illegal fishing.The bill achieves these aims by making amendments to the Migration Act 1958, the Customs Act 1901 and the Fisheries Management Act 1991.This bill revises and enhances existing powers of investigation and enforcement at sea in the context of this country's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary international law.Amendments to the Migration Act and the Customs Act will allow the detention, forfeiture, seizure and (as necessary) disposal, of ships and aircraft used in people smuggling operations.In addition, vessels found to be unseaworthy, a risk to safety or navigation or a threat to the environment, will be able to be moved or destroyed.The main target of the bill is smuggling of human cargoes by sea. However, future attempts could also be made by air. Accordingly the bill gives Australia's main border agencies similar powers over aircraft being used in this criminal trade.To ensure the safety of officers, in the increasingly violent world of people smuggling, amendments to the Customs Act will allow Customs officers to carry approved firearms.They will also be able to carry other approved items of personal defence equipment in the performance of their duty.Customs officers will also be officers for the purposes of the Fisheries Management Act and carry approved firearms in matters relating to surveillance and enforcement against illegal foreign fishers.The measures contained in this bill are a major part of the Government's strategy for dealing appropriately with unauthorised arrivals. Another element of this strategy is contained in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998.That bill is presently before this Chamber, and its passage through the Parliament is crucial in this Government's view.The bill will limit the grounds for judicial review of migration matters, particularly for unauthorised arrivals, and provide a clear message that people will not be able to use the judicial review system simply to prolong their stay in Australia.Passage of that bill will help ensure that the Snakeheads and other people smugglers cannot hold out false hopes that an extended stay in Australia can easily be arranged.Senators are encouraged to take a broader view of that legislation and this current bill in the context of the issue of people smuggling into this country.The Chamber is reminded that there is a qualitative difference between organised people smuggling and the irregular movement of people in need of safe haven.Australia recognises that genuine refugees are sometimes caught up in the criminally organised people smuggling operations. However this country's refugee determination system works to identify genuine refugees and accord to them protection irrespective of how they gain entry.It is the very generosity of Australia's refugee determination system that some see as an incentive to make their way to Australia illegally.For example, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people from Iraq who are arriving illegally by boat. Of the 1675 unauthorised arrivals this financial year, Iraqi nationals have numbered 954, a sevenfold increase over 1998-99 numbers. Afghanis make up the next biggest national group of arrivals, with a 620 per cent increase in their numbers from the last financial year.One of the factors behind this dramatic increase may be the perception that past illegal arrivals from those countries had been successful in engaging Australia's protection obligations.These perceptions have also led to expectations.It was disturbing to hear reports of some of these arrivals asking for "Pert" shampoo immediately upon their arrival.Some of them have arrived with details of medical treatment that they wanted to receive whilst in detention—including dental work.There has been more than one case of demands being made for very expensive medical treatment—with the full expectation that the Australian taxpayer would foot the bill.Others have been critical of the conditions in which they are being detained.Whatever the reasons for the increase, the fact remains that travelling to Australia by boat is a hazardous undertaking.It places people in leaking, rusty boats which are prone to breakdown.It places them at the mercy of the weather.Most of all, it makes these people vulnerable to the criminals behind the smuggling trade.It is these factors that require this Parliament to deal with this bill quickly and for it to gain passage and come into force before the end of the year.It was heartening to read that the Shadow Minister for Employment, Training and Population had placed a motion in the other place indicating the "utmost concern" about the activities of people smugglers.The Government trust's that this concern will result in unequivocal support for this bill and other legislation for which the Government will be seeking the support of the Parliament.This bill also proposes a number of amendments to the Fisheries Management Act to allow for the detention of foreign fishermen who are suspected of fisheries violations.These amendments flow from a recent report on this issue by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.Consequential amendments to the Migration Act will provide a scheme by which these fishermen are taken to hold a visa immediately upon enforcement action by Fisheries officers. This new visa will come into effect automatically for the duration of the period of detention of persons suspected of fisheries violations.Once Fisheries detention is concluded any continued detention will be under existing provisions of the Migration Act. Amongst other things these provisions enable any custodial sentences to be served.The bill also makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Migration Act. Some of these changes are consequential to the main thrust of the bill and act to streamline operational aspects of enforcement practice.Others revise existing provisions relating to bringing unauthorised arrivals into Australia where these persons need to travel to Australia for various reasons.The bill provides for such circumstances and also ensures that the officers implementing these returns are not acting contrary to the law and therefore vulnerable to prosecution. It also ensures that those returned will be detained on arrival and will not reactivate entitlements that they had already used.In summary , this bill is part of a package announced by the Prime Minister on 27 June 1999 to combat the international trade in people.This bill will allow Australia to increase its capacity to detect and to deter people smuggling.It will ensure that the organisers of this criminal activity are not beyond the reach of our laws.The Government has responded promptly and unequivocally to this growing and real criminal activity. The Government acknowledges the support of the Opposition to this bill in the other place, and for its assistance and contribution in settling the schedule of amendments moved by the Government in that place. The Government looks forward to that continued support in this Chamber, so that this bill can enjoy a speedy passage and become law before the end of this year.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Senate adjourned at 6.51 p.m.Documents1046410464The following government documents were tabled:Administrative Appeals Tribunal—Report for 1998-99.Australia Foundation for Culture and the Humanities—Financial statements for 1998-99.Australian Electoral Commission—Report for 1998-99.Australian Hearing Services (Australian Hearing)—Report for 1998-99.Australian National Railways Commission (Australian National)—Report for 1998-99. Australian War Memorial—Report for 1998-99.Centrelink—Report for 1998-99—Erratum.Defence Housing Authority—Report for 1998-99.Department of Transport and Regional Services—Australian Transport Safety Bureau—Investigation report B98/166—Systemic investigation into Class G airspace demonstration, November 1999.Director of National Parks and Wildlife—Report for 1998-99.Employment National Limited—Financial statements for 1998-99.Family Court of Australia—Report for 1998-99.Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal—Report for 1998-99.Industry Research and Development Board—Report for 1998-99.Members of Parliament (Staff) Act—Report for 1998-99 on consultants engaged under section 4.National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 1998-99.Office of Parliamentary Counsel—Report for 1998-99.Official Establishments Trust—Report for 1998-99.Privacy Commissioner—Report for 1998-99 on the operation of the Privacy Act 1988 .Productivity Commission—Report—No. 7—International telecommunications market regulation, 23 August 1999.Public Service and Merit Protection Commission—Reports for 1998-99— State of the service. Workplace diversity.Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund—Report for 1998-99.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section 19—Determination No. T15 of 1999.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —RHQ Company Determination 1999 (No. 3).Return for 1998-99 for— Bounty (Books) Act. Bounty (Computers) Act. Bounty (Machine Tools and Robots) Act. Bounty (Ships) Act.The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 1 December 1998:Public servants—Accountability, rights and responsibilities—Statements of compliance—Department of Family and Community Services.Answers to Questions on Notice10466The following answers to questions were circulated:10466(Question No. 1237)123710466Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister Aged Care, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:With reference to the providers who acquired residential aged care places in Queensland over the period 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1999, can the Minister indicate:(a) the approved providers who have acquired residential places in aged care inQueensland through the period;(b) the number of high care places the provider acquired;(c) the number of low care places the provider acquired;(d) whether the approved provider has places in other states (please indicate the state and number of places).10466Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) and (b) Table 1 shows the approved providers who have acquired high care residential places in Queensland over the period 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1999, either by acquiring new places or through the transfer of existing places.(a) and (c) Table 2 shows the approved providers who have acquired low care residential places in Queensland over the period 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1999, either by acquiring new places or through the transfer of existing places.(d)Table 3 shows the approved providers who have residential places in Queensland and in other States, the States and number of places as at 1 August 1999.Please note that this table only identifies current providers that operate with identical names. A provider who operates several companies under different names may not be identified.Table 1Providers Who Acquired High Care Places in Queensland 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1999ProviderServiceNo of New Places AllocatedNo of Places TransferredTotal Places AcquiredAged Care Service GroupMorayfield Terrace3434Alzheimers AssociationRosalie Nursing Home4040Amity Group Pty LtdRangeview Nursing Home7373Cannossian SistersVilla Maria3535Crana Pty LtdCrana Nursing Home8080Department for Social MissionHopetoun Nursing Home1010Herstonville Pty LtdHerstonville Nursing Home8989Ellbrun Pty LtdLeamington8080Linbrell Pty LtdParadise Lakes3030Moran Health Care GroupCaloundra8080Moran Health Care GroupNambour8080RAC Investment Group Pty LtdAllora Lodge3030RSL (Qld) War Veterans Homes LtdCarrington Nursing Home5555 RSL (Qld) War Veterans Homes LtdWesthaven2626Marooma Pty LtdMarooma Nursing Home6161Queensland Department of HealthBarcaldine Multi Purpose Health Service66Queensland Department of HealthMornington Island Hospital & Community Hlth55S & F Ding NomineesRiver Lodge4040St Vincent's Community Services*Palm Lodge1010St Vincent's Community Services*St Vincent's Nursing Home2020Sundale Garden VillagePalmwoods Aged Care Facility44Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q)Pine Woods Nursing Home4242Warwick Benevolent Society IncAkooramak Nursing Home11Total80851931* These high care places were later converted to low care placesTable 2Providers Who Acquired Low Care Places in Queensland 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1999ProviderServiceNo of New Places AllocatedNo of Places TransferredTotal Places AcquiredBaptist Union of QueenslandShalom6060Boyne Tannum Community Advancement AssociationBindaree Lodge Hostel2020Burpengary Gardens Aged Care Pty LtdBurpengary Gardens4646Corporation of the Diocesan Synod of North QldGood Shepherd Lodge Hostel2020Corporation of Sundale Garden VillagePalmwoods Hostel3030Ellbrun Pty LtdGolden Grove1818K & M Healthcare Pty LtdUnknown4545Lestlin Nominees Pty LtdVilla Fortuna4040Linbrell Pty LtdParadise Lakes1717Moran Health Care Group Pty LtdLandsborough Gardens Nursing Centre5050Netherlands Retirement Village Association of QldNetherlands Retirement Village44 Charleville Hospitals Board (Queensland Health)Waroona Hostel22Queensland Department of HealthBarcaldine Multi-Purpose Health Service88RBD Qld LtdKeperra3030Renton Family TrustBundaleer Lodge1010Retirement Aged Care Pty LtdUnknown4040Rosewood Aged Peoples Home Committee IncCabanda Hostel and Day Respite Centre1515St Vincents Community ServicesSt Vincents Malanda3030Shalimar Australia Pty LtdUnnamed—Redlands4040Tara Shire CouncilTarcoola1515Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q)Blue Nursing Service Redland South1616Warwick Benevolent Society IncAkooramak1212West Moreton Aged Homes CouncilKallara Court Hostel1212Woombye Care IncNangarin Lodge1010Total51080590Table 3Providers That Acquired Places in Queensland 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1998—Number of Places in Other StatesApproved ProviderACTNSWSATASVICWATotalAmity Group Pty LtdO41000041Moran Health Care Group02074002954132782Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust051070042633556610468(Question No. 1258)125810468O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional services, upon notice, on 18 August 1999:(1) Has the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) granted Flight West Airlines approval to operate a Fokker F28MK4000 and a Fokker F28MK0100 to Norfolk Island.(2) (a) When was the approval granted to operate these aircraft; and, (b) did that approval include an exemption from safety standard, Airworthiness Directive AD/GENERAL/69 Amdt 1 (3) Does Civil Aviation Regulation 37A state that where CASA considers that an unsafe condition exists, is likely to exist or might develop, it can issue in Civil Aviation Orders, or otherwise in writing, an airworthiness directive.(4) By issuing an exemption from AD/GENERAL/69 Amdt 1 in relation to the operations of the above aircraft, has CASA identified that an unsafe condition exists, or is likely to exist or is likely to develop.(5) Does Airworthiness Directive AD/GENERAL/69 Amdt 1 cover type design approval, in-service experience, flight manual amendment, additional maintenance and airworthiness, flight dispatch and reliability monitoring. (6) What are the terms of the exemption issued in relation to the operation of the above aircraft and, specifically, what is the nature of the unsafe condition.(7) (a) When was the above exemption applied for; (b) who lodged the application; (c) was the application made on CASA Form 158, Application for Exemption/Variation of an Airworthiness Directive.(8) Does the above application form require the applicant to state the reason for seeking the exemption.(9) Does the form state, "The exemption/variation process should not be used as an alternative to proper planning and as such, hardship, inconvenience, lack of parts or an operator's cost saving measures. . . whilst they may be reasons, do not override the need to address safety".(10) Was the only reason for seeking the above exemption operator cost saving; if not, what were the reasons for the exemption.10469Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following information—(1) Yes.(2) (a) Type design approvals were granted on 18 June 1997 to operate the F28 and on 16 February 1999 to operate the F100; and (b) no.(3) Yes.(4) No exemption was issued.(5) Yes.(6) No exemption was given.(7) (a) No exemption was applied for; (b) not applicable; and (c) as stated in answer to part (a), there was no application for an exemption. Flight West Airlines did, however, apply for type design approvals for extended range operations for an F28 and an F100 against the ETOPS (Extended Range Operations with Twin Engined Aeroplanes) requirements set out in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 20.7.1B and Airworthiness Directive AD/GENERAL/69 Amdt.1. In both cases the application for approval was made, as a matter of convenience, using CASA form AW/057(158). The application for approval could have been made by letter.(8) Yes.(9) Yes.(10) No exemption was sought. 10469(Question No. 1259)125910469O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional services, upon notice, on 18 August 1999:(1) Does Division 7 of the Civil Aviation Regulations provide the Civil Aviation Safety Authority with the power to issue exemptions from airworthiness directives that are related documents to prescribed regulations.(2) What are the prescribed regulations referred to in Division 7 of the Civil Aviation Regulations.(3) Is Airworthiness Directive AD/GENERAL/69 Amdt 1 a related document to the prescribed regulations specified by Division 7 of the Civil Aviation Regulations.10469Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following information—(1) Yes.(2) The prescribed regulations in question are defined in Regulation 42ZQ as 36A, 39, 41, 42G, 42U, 42V, 42W, 42X, 42Y, 42Z or 42ZA.(3) Yes. The documents defined as "related document" in Regulation 42ZQ include airworthiness directives.10469(Question No. 1260)126010469O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 August 1999:(1) Did the Civil Aviation Safety Authority issue an exemption to the Airworthiness Directive AD/GENERAL/69 Amdt 1 for Flight West Airlines, to operate a Fokker F28MK4000 and a Fokker F28MK0100 to Norfolk Island, pursuant to Civil Aviation Regulation 42ZS.10469Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety authority has provided the following information—(1) No. 10470(Question No. 1261)126110470O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 August 1999:(1) Is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Air Operator Certification Manual a document prescribed by either the Civil Aviation Regulations or the Civil Aviation Act.(2) Does the Air Operator Certification Manual define a benign area of operation as an area having numerous adequate airports, a high level of reliability of communications, navigation and air traffic services and stable prevailing weather conditions that generally do not approach extremes in temperature, wind, cloud ceiling and visibility.(3) Does Norfolk Island fit within the above definition of a benign area; if so, on what basis does it meet all the above criteria; if not, on what basis does it fail to meet the above criteria.10470Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following information—(1) No. The Air Operator Certification Manual is an operational document prepared by CASA containing policy, procedures and guidance material for the assessment of Air Operator Certificate and associated applications. The policies and procedures are provided for both high capacity and non-high capacity regular public transport. The manual can be viewed on CASA's Website.(2) Yes.(3) No. In accordance with Airworthiness Directive AD/GENERAL/69 "Additional Airworthiness Requirements for Extended Range Operation with Twin Engined Aeroplanes" (Amendment 1), CASA has categorised Norfolk Island as a "Demanding Area of Operation".The Federal Aviation Administration document FAA-AC 120-42A Appendix 5 ETOPS Operation Program Criteria states: Demanding Area of Operation—A demanding area of operation for thepurpose of a 75 minute approval has one or more of the following characteristics: (1) Weather: Prevailing weather conditions can approach extremes in wind, temperature, ceiling and visibility for protracted periods of time. (2) Alternates: Adequate airports are not numerous. (3) Due to remote or overwater area, a high level of reliability and availability of communications, navigation and Air Traffic Control facilities may not exist.It is because the aircraft is operating into an environment that has the above characteristics that approval is sought to operate the aircraft on "Extended Operations". Engineering and Operational approval is granted by CASA only when all safety requirements have been met.10470(Question No. 1381)138110470O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 31 August 1999:(1) What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of the sale process for the Australian National Line (ANL), subsequently Australian River Co. Ltd, in 1998 and to date in 1999.(2) Of this cost, what was the cost of: (a) Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing staff and other costs; (b) legal advisers; (c) sale advisers; and (d) other costs.(3) What is the current estimate of the net sale proceeds to the Commonwealth of the businesses that constituted ANL at the commencement of the sale process in 1998.(4) What is the current estimate of ANL redundancy costs that the Commonwealth directly and indirectly funded.(5) What is the current estimate of ANL debt that the Commonwealth directly and indirectly paid out.10470Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 1998—$5,294,461.62; 1999—$1,254,599.57.The above includes the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology (OASITO) and project adviser costs only.(2)—19981999OASITO*$822,662.18$99,497.43Legal advisers$2,052,506.56$555,889.96Business advisers$1,775,799.00$422,935.00 Other costs$643,493.88$176,277.18Total$5,294,461.62$1,254,599.57* Includes estimated staff costs based on nominal charge out rates.(3)—Business UnitPurchaserPurchase PriceLiner ShippingANL Container Lines Pty Ltd$10m*Quality Container Management Pty LtdOwens Group Ltd$1.029mPortside United Pty LtdLinfox Transport (Aust) Pty Limited$3.375mTrans United Pty LtdCJ & RS Kelly Transport Ltd$1.193mBulk ShippingAuscan Self Unloaders Pty Ltd$5.1m** Purchase prices are subject to completion adjustments.ANL was offered for sale on the basis of either a 100% share sale or a sale of its individual operating businesses. The latter option was adopted. As a result ANL Limited was, in effect, the vendor and received the sale proceeds.(4) The Commonwealth is not funding ANL redundancy costs. Subject to the terms of each business sale, Australian River Co. Ltd is funding these costs either directly, as an offset to sale proceeds or by way of reimbursement to purchasers.(5) ANL accrued $157.7m in losses in the 5 years prior to the decision to sell. The sale stemmed these losses and shifted net financing liabilities of $64m to the buyers. As part of the sale process $50 million was appropriated in the 1998/99 Budget for a capital injection to discharge an ANL promissory note.10471(Question No. 1403)140310471Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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 their 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 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. 10472Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Agencies within the portfolio are in the preliminary stages of scoping the action required to manage the effects of the GST. This includes discussions with the Australian Taxation Office, Department of Finance and Administration, and Treasury, consultations with expert service providers, and identification of specific issues and business risks.(2) The actions to date have been to gain a preliminary understanding of the GST's impact. The costs of these actions have been relatively minor and associated primarily with staff time. Some agencies within the portfolio have created project teams to look at the impact of the GST and have achieved this within existing resources.(3) Each agency's 1999-2000 budget was appropriated to achieve the outcome `Linking Australia through transport and regional services'. Like all costs, including corporate management requirements, specific funding for the implementation of GST is expected to be met with funds for each agency's appropriation for outputs.(4) Project teams have been, or will be, created to consider future preparations. These teams will look at all aspects of the GST implications including examination of all contracts, configuration of financial management systems, GST registration requirements, and management of GST returns.(5) While it is expected that costs will be incurred in most of the categories nominated, the extent of those costs cannot be estimated at this point.(6) Each agency's 1999-2000 budget was appropriated to achieve the outcome `Linking Australia through transport and regional services'. Like all costs including corporate management requirements, specific funding for the implementation of GST is expected to be met with funds for each agency's appropriation for outputs.(7) Agencies no longer record running costs. Little change is expected, however, to the cost of delivering outputs.(8) At this point it is envisaged that no significant additional GST-associated costs will be incurred other than those specifically raised.10472(Question No. 1409)140910472Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, 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.10472Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Department of Family and Community Services(1) The Department has taken several initiatives to determine the scope and extent of work required in relation to impact of GST implementation on its internal operations. Specific actions taken to date include close consultations with the GST Implementation Unit established by the Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA) as well as the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), development and testing of the Department's financial management information systems to ensure GST capability and readiness and the appointment of appropriate taxation consultancies to assist with the development of necessary functional arrangements. (2) (a) Total specific costs incurred to date on the impact of GST implementation on internal operations are not easily separable from the overall costs of the operational areas of the Department involved with preparations for GST implementation. Where known, these amounts are shown below.(b) (i) The Department has spent $10,700 to 18 October 1999 on consultancies related to internal operations to be affected by GST implementation. (ii) Not identified to date. (iii) Not identified to date. (iv) Not identified to date. (v) Not identified to date. (vi) Not identified to date.(3) No supplementary funding was provided in the 1999-2000 budget to specifically meet the Department's internal operational costs arising from implementation of the GST. These costs will be met from within existing running cost allocations.(4) As part of the GST strategy to enable GST-readiness by 1 July 2000, the Department will be:. liaising with the DOFA GST Unit and relevant contacts with the Australian Taxation Office to ensure consistency in actions with other government agencies;. implementing staff training and education on GST issues;. reviewing contracts, funding agreements and grants extending beyond 1 July 2000; and. reviewing cash flow implications.(5) (a) It is not possible to detail costs of future actions at this point of time. (b) See 5 (a).(6) See (3) above.(7) The likely ongoing impact of introduction of the GST on departmental expenses are likely to be small. The introduction of the GST will add some minor new administrative tasks to the Department's operations which may be offset by some minor indirect savings from abolition of the Wholesale Sales Tax (WST).(8) No GST-associated costs, in addition to these identified above, have been identified for the period prior to 1 July 2000. However, the Department will constantly monitor developments in this regard and take any appropriate action as required.Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (`Centrelink')(1) Centrelink have performed scoping and analysis work to determine the impact of GST on Centrelink business and begun work in relation to implementing a number of strategies. As part of these strategies, the following actions have been taken:. establishment of GST Steering Committee;. training of key personnel; . completion of an implementation plan for reconfiguration of the financial management system capable of GST compliance;. engagement of consultant to provide a GST training needs analysis;. tender preparation for advice on taxation law and other GST implementation and compliance advice; and. ongoing liaison with the GST Unit in the Department of Finance and Administration, as well as relevant contacts with the Australian Taxation Office.(2) (a) Total costs incurred to date on preparation of effects of GST implementation on internal operations are not easily separable from the overall preparation costs of GST implementation.(b) See (a).(3) No funding was provided in the 1999-2000 budget to offset the effects of implementation of a GST on the internal operations of Centrelink. Costs associated with implementation will be met from within existing running cost budgets.(4) For Centrelink, in addition to the strategies mentioned in (1) above, further work is required in analysing and mapping current business requirements to provide system specifications, implementing change management strategies which include training of all affected staff, the continuing review of all contracts, further analysing the costing and cash-flow implications and implementing the technical system reconfiguration.(5) (a) Centrelink expect that there will be significant costs required for GST implementation, as the large number of staff, the diversity of the national network, and the complexity of Centrelink business which impacts on system configuration, training, financial reporting and GST compliance. However, it is not possible to detail the total costs of future actions at this point of time. (b) See (a).(6) See (3) above.(7) The introduction of GST adds some minor administrative tasks to Centrelink although the cost is unknown at this stage. It is also expected that will be some minor indirect savings as a result of the abolition of Wholesale Sales Tax (WST).(8) There are no GST-associated costs expected to be incurred by Centrelink prior to 1 July 2000 other than those mentioned above.CRS Australia(1) A GST implementation plan is being prepared. The plan scopes the full range of changes required and includes a budget for the implementation.(2) (a) The cost of these actions undertaken to date is not easily separable from the overall costs associated with other CRS competitive neutrality and taxation issues. (b) (i) See 2 (a) above. (ii) As CRS Australia have not progressed plans to this level as yet, no costs have been incurred in these categories. (iii) See (ii) above. (iv) See (ii) above. (v) See (ii) above. (vi) See (ii) above.(3) Competitive neutrality and taxation related costs have not been included in the 1999-2000 budget appropriation. Costs associated with the implementation will be met from within the general operating cost budget.(4) As mentioned in (1) above, CRS Australia is developing a GST implementation plan. The plan includes software changes, staffing, stationery, staff training and external consultancy expenses and a comprehensive budget.(5) (a) As mentioned above, a GST implementation plan has not been finalised. As part of the implementation plan a budget will be completed. (b) See (a).(6) See (3) above.(7) There is expected to be a minor cost attached to funding the GST paid on purchases, payments from debtors of CRS Australia and from the delay in receiving a refund from the ATO. It is also expected that there will be some minor indirect savings as a result of the abolition of wholesale sales tax (WST).(8) Until CRS Australia complete their GST implementation plan, they are not in a position to accurately respond to this question.Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)(1) The Institute has commenced implementation of the GST with external training to key staff, inclusion of GST in contracts beyond 1 July 2000, and planning for upgrade of the Financial Management Information System (FMIS).(2) The costs incurred for staff training to date are $790. Internal staff time working on implementation cannot be accurately estimated but would be less than $1,000. Consulting fees and other system development costs to this point are negligible.(3) Not specifically included in the appropriation. Costs associated with implementation will be met from within existing running cost budgets.(4) Future preparations will comprise training of operational staff, upgrade of FMIS, and education of other staff of the GST's impact on the Institute. The Institute will maintain strong information links with DOFA's GST Unit.(5) It is not possible to quantify the total costs of planned actions at this point in time. However, most of the Institute's additional costs will be in the upgrade of the FMIS and associated system software, stationery and consulting costs. (6) See (3) above.(7) The Institute is not expecting any major change in net costs as a result of GST implementation.(8) There are no other GST associated costs to be incurred prior to 1 July 2000.10474(Question No. 1423)142310474Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 8 September 1999:(1) Is it a fact that in the 1998-99 financial year funds were allocated from the Natural Heritage Trust as follows: (a) $298 212 to Private Forestry Tasmania; (b) $141 910 to Forestry Tasmania; and (c) $78 750 to the Tasmania Farmers and Graziers Association and Farmwood Pty Ltd.(2) Can the Minister give an assurance that none of the projects for which this money was allocated involved the clearing of native vegetation; if not: (a) what area of native vegetation was to be cleared by the projects involved; and (b) what are those projects.10474Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) yes(b) no. The actual figure was $141 961.(c) yes(2) With two exceptions, I understand that none of the projects involved clearing of native vegetation.There are two projects which involve some disturbance to the land but these do not constitute "clearing of native vegetation" as normally understood.The project Key farm forestry demo sites for education, awareness and training programs, supported by the Farm Forestry Program for $35,800 (Private Forests Tasmania), set up five farm forestry demonstration sites (each 5 hectares in size) on already cleared agricultural land. The establishment techniques (for example, ripping and mounding and weed control) used on the site may have resulted in some disturbance to, for example, tussock grasses persisting on the sites.The other project, Coordination of pampas grass eradication (Forestry Tasmania $86,414) funded by Bushcare also involved some site disturbance across a range of affected sites. The objective of this site disturbance was to enhance native vegetation, not to clear it. 10475(Question No. 1433)143310475Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:With reference to the periods, (a) 24 July to 21 August and (b) 21 August to 18 September 1999—For each period:(1) What was the total Commonwealth Government advertising spent in each state and territory.(2) In each state and territory, which campaigns were being broadcast and/or published during these periods.10475Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) For the period 24 July 1999 to 21 August 1999 media expenditure and placement through the Central Advertising System for campaign advertising was:1. ExpenditureNSW$4,233,816Victoria$2,646,986Queensland$1,984,006SA$961,837WA$1,028,123Tasmania$288,006NT$118,115ACT$177,422Total$11,438,3112. CampaignsNSWAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceAustralian National Maritime MuseumArmy RecruitmentDefence Housing AuthorityNavy RecruitmentTri-Service RecruitmentDept of Environment—Breathe the BenefitDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformVictoriaAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentTri-Service RecruitmentDept of Environment—Breathe the BenefitDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformQueenslandAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentTri-Service RecruitmentDept of Environment—Breathe the BenefitDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformSAAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentTri-Service RecruitmentDept of Environment—Breathe the BenefitDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformWAAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentDefence Housing AuthorityNavy RecruitmentTri-Service RecruitmentDept of Environment—Breathe the BenefitDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformNTAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentDefence Housing AuthorityNavy RecruitmentTri-Service RecruitmentDept of Environment—Breathe the BenefitDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformTasmaniaAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceGovernment Information CentreArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentTri-Service RecruitmentDept of Environment—Breathe the BenefitDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformACTAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentTri-Service RecruitmentDept of Environment—Breathe the BenefitDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax Reform(b) For the period 22 August 1999 to 18 September 1999 media expenditure and placement through the Central Advertising System for campaign advertising was:1. ExpenditureNSW$2,193,007Victoria$1,241,974 Queensland$1,055,082 SA$491,652 WA$617,835 Tasmania$144,535 NT$61,706 ACT$ 88,507 Total$5,894,297 2. CampaignsNSWAustralian Electoral CommissionAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceAustralian National Maritime MuseumArmy RecruitmentDefence Housing AuthorityNavy RecruitmentDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformVictoriaAustralian Electoral CommissionAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentDefence Housing AuthorityNavy RecruitmentDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformQueenslandAustralian Electoral CommissionAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformSAAustralian Electoral CommissionAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformWAAustralian Electoral CommissionAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformNTAustralian Electoral CommissionAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformTasmaniaAustralian Electoral CommissionAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceGovernment Information CentreArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax ReformACTAustralian Electoral CommissionAustralian Quarantine and Inspection ServiceArmy RecruitmentNavy RecruitmentDept of Environment—Natural Heritage TrustOffice of the Employment Advocate—Freedom of AssociationOffice of Asset Sales & IT Outsourcing—Telstra 2 Share OfferAustralian Trade CommissionHealth & Aged Care—Cervical ScreeningHealth & Aged Care—National Tobacco CampaignHealth & Aged Care—International Year of Older PersonsAusIndustry—Business Entry PointAustralian Taxation Office—Tax Reform10480(Question No. 1447)144710480Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) (a) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.10480Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department of Education, Training & Youth Affairs (DETYA) current portfolio responsibilities came into existence on 21 October 1998. From 3 March 1996 until 20 October 1998 this Department's portfolio responsibilities were included within those of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). The records of DEETYA indicate that from 3 March 1996 until 20 October 1998 two DEETYA decisions were the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. One of these matters was finalised prior to 21 October 1998 and the other subsequently became the portfolio responsibility of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business as from 21 October 1998.This Department's records show that from 21 October 1998 to 21 September 1999 no decisions of the Department have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.Departmental Agencies. The Anglo-Australian Telescope Board (AATB) is an independent bi-national authority equally funded by the governments of Australia and the United Kingdom under the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970). AATB is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. AATB has advised that from 3 March 1996 until 21 September 1999 none of its decisions have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.. The Australian Maritime College (AMC) is an autonomous national institution for tertiary education set up under the Maritime College Act 1978). AMC has been within the portfolio responsibilities of the Department of Transport and Regional Services since 21 October 1998. AMC is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. AMC has advised that from 3 March 1996 until 21 October 1998 none of its decisions have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.. The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) is an autonomous body established under the Australian National Training Authority Act 1999 and run by an industry-led board. ANTA is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. ANTA has advised that none of its decisions have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 between 3 March 1996 and 21 September 1999.. The Australian National University (ANU) is an autonomous institution under the Australian National University Act 1991. ANU is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. ANU has advised that one of its decisions has been the subject of an application for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 between 3 March 1996 to 21 September 1999.. The Employment Services Regulatory Authority (ESRA) was established under the Employment Services Act 1994. ESRA is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. ESRA has been within the portfolio responsibilities of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business from 21 October 1998. The records of DEETYA for the period from 3 March 1996 to 20 October 1998 indicate that no decisions of ESRA were the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 between 3 March 1996 and 20 October 1998. . The National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) was established under the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988). A Bill to abolish NBEET is currently before the Senate (Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999). The records of DEETYA (for the period from 3 March 1996 to 20 October 1998) and of this Department (for the period from 21 October 1998 to 21 September 1999) indicate that no decisions of NBEET were the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 between 3 March 1996 and 21 September 1999.. The University of Canberra (UC) was established pursuant to the University of Canberra Act 1989. The Government of the Australian Capital Territory assumed jurisdiction for UC from 1 December 1997. UC is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. UC has advised that none of its decisions have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 between 3 March 1996 and 31 November 1997.(2) With respect to the Department, the application finalised prior to 21 October 1998 and referred to in (1) above related to a Departmental staffing matter.With respect to portfolio agencies, ANU has advised that the application referred to in (1) above related to a staffing matter.(3) With respect to the Department, the application finalised prior to 21 October 1998 and referred to in (1) above has been finalised and was decided in DEETYA's favour by the Federal Court of Australia. The records of DEETYA up to 21 October 1998 and of this Department from 21 October 1998 show that no other applications have been withdrawn by applicants or remain unfinalised.With respect to portfolio agencies, ANU has advised that the application referred to in (1) above has been finalised.(4) With respect to the Department, the total cost to the Department of defending the action finalised prior to 21 October 1998 and referred to in (1) above was $8,298.16. This includes the cost of DEETYA's own lawyers in relation to matters pertaining to the claim, as well as the cost of outside legal providers. The Federal Court of Australia decided the action in the Commonwealth's favour and no costs were awarded against the Commonwealth.With respect to portfolio agencies, ANU has advised that it has not yet been able to access records that show how much the application referred to in (1) above cost ANU. Once this information is to hand it will be provided in a supplementary answer.10481(Question No. 1451)145110481Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) (a) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.10481Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 6(2) (a) Nil(b) 5(c) 1 (public interest/regulator group)(3) (a) (i) 3(ii) 3(b) Nil(4) (a) $14,000$123,040$7,338$1,215$135,000$56,100(b) $131,300 10482(Question No. 1452)145210482Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) (a) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.10482Newman, 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) 11.(2) (a) 3, (b) 7, and (c) 1—an application under sub-section 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in relation to a matter involving statutory interpretation under Part IV of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.(3) (a) (i) 6, (ii) 2, (b) 3.(4) (a) There were 7 relevant matters incurring total costs of $34,167. The range for individual matters was from $249 for the simplest matter to $15,909 for the most expensive matter.(b) In none of these matters were costs awarded against the Commonwealth.10482(Question No. 1465)146510482Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs. (2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.10482Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department of Education, Training & Youth Affairs (DETYA) current portfolio responsibilities came into existence on 21 October 1998. From 3 March 1996 until 20 October 1998 this Department's portfolio responsibilities were included within those of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). The records of DEETYA indicate that from 3 March 1996 until 20 October 1998 no decisions of DEETYA were the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.DETYA's records show that from 21 October 1998 to 21 September 1999 no decisions of the Department have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.Departmental Agencies. The Anglo-Australian Telescope Board (AATB) is an independent bi-national authority equally funded by the governments of Australia and the United Kingdom under the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970. AATB is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. AATB has advised that from 3 March 1996 until 21 September 1999 none of its decisions have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.. The Australian Maritime College (AMC) is an autonomous national institution for tertiary education set up under the Maritime College Act 1978. AMC has been within the portfolio responsibilities of the Department of Transport and Regional Services since 21 October 1998. AMC is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. AMC has advised that from 3 March 1996 until 20 October 1998 one of its decisions has been the subject of an application for review under the common law.. The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) is an autonomous body established under the Australian National Training Authority Act 1999 and run by an industry-led board. ANTA is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. ANTA has advised that none of its decisions have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs, between 3 March 1996 and 21 September 1999.. The Australian National University (ANU) is an autonomous institution under the Australian National University Act 1991. ANU is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. ANU has advised that none of its decisions have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs, from 3 March 1996 to 21 September 1999.. The Employment Services Regulatory Authority (ESRA) was established under the Employment Services Act 1994. ESRA is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. ESRA has been within the portfolio responsibilities of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business from 21 October 1998. The records of DEETYA for the period from 3 March 1996 to 20 October 1998 indicate that no decisions of ESRA were the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs, between 3 March 1996 and 20 October 1998.. The National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) was established under the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. A Bill to abolish NBEET is currently before the Senate (Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999). The records of DEETYA (for the period from 3 March 1996 to 20 October 1998) and of this Department (for the period from 21 October 1998 to 21 September 1999) indicate that no decisions of NBEET were the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs, between 3 March 1996 and 21 September 1999.. The University of Canberra (UC) was established pursuant to the University of Canberra Act 1989. The Government of the Australian Capital Territory assumed jurisdiction for UC from 1 December 1997. UC is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. UC has advised that none of its decisions have been the subject of applica tions for review under the common law, including prerogative writs, between 3 March 1996 and 31 November 1997.(2) Not applicable with respect to the Department.AMC has advised that the application referred to in (1) above related to a staffing matter.(3) Not applicable with respect to the Department.AMC has advised that the application referred to in (1) above remains unfinalised.(4) Not applicable with respect to the Department.AMC has advised that the application referred to in (1) above has so far cost AMC the sum of approximately $1,500.00.10483(Question No. 1469)146910483Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.10483Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No such applications have been made in respect of decisions made after 3 March 1996. 10484(Question No. 1470)147010484Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staff matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.10484Newman, 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) 67.(2) (a) 8, (b) 58, and (c) 1—a matter involving the provision of legal advice.(3) (a) (i) 32, (ii) 5, and (b) 30.(4) (a) There were 39 relevant matters incurring total costs of $236,508. The range for individual matters was from a low of $386 to a high of $66,252.(b) In 9 relevant matters costs totalling $92,300 were awarded against the Commonwealth. The legal costs in these matters ranged from a low of $4,367 to a high of $16,000.10484(Question No. 1472)147210484Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, 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 1996.10484Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that it would be an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the Department to examine:. each Freedom of Information Act file to determine the identity of the decision-maker; and. relevant personnel files held by the Department to establish the decision-maker's qualifications and experience.However, I am advised that the following general information can be provided in response to the honourable senator's question:(1) Initial stage decisions were made by branch heads (SES Band 1 equivalent) or above. Officers at this level have a wide range of public sector and other experience, and generally have tertiary qualifications.(2) Internal review decisions were made by division heads (SES Band 2 equivalent) or above. Officers at this level have a wide range of public sector and other experience, and generally have tertiary qualifications.10484(Question No. 1487)148710484Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 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 1996.10484Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised that considerable resources would be required to research the answers to these questions across the portfolio. This would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the department.10485(Question No. 1488)148810485Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 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 1996.10485Newman, 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:My Department has received approximately 48,000 requests since 3 March 1996. In order to respond to the questions the department would have to examine the files relevant to each request to determine the identity of the officer who processed the request. Such action would represent an unwarranted diversion of resources of my Department.(1) (a) There are no requirements for formal qualifications in any position.(b) The experience of officers making decisions varies from office to office and can change at any time due to the turnover of staff. The experience of staff can range from nil to five or six years, with one officer having 17 years experience.Training is undertaken by the Co-ordinator in National Office as and when required, particularly when there is new staff in the FOI Sections. My Department also conducts refresher training for all FOI staff and has conferences involving all FOI Managers.All staff involved in making decisions have access to the National Office Co-ordinator if assistance is required. All letters refusing access are also cleared through the National Office Co-ordinator and this is considered part of the ongoing training. (c) My Department has FOI Sections in all State Offices and in its National Office. The classification details of the officers is one Executive Level 1, one APS Level 6, four APS Level 5, six APS Level 4, one APS Level 3 and two APS Level 2.(2) Internal reviews in my Department are usually conducted in the National Office, by an Executive Level 1 with 17 years experience in FOI matters, or by a legal officer.10485(Question No. 1490)149010485Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 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 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 the courses in (4).10485Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department as follows:Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet(1) 426 (this figure includes 396 training courses specifically on information technology (IT) applications).(2) $102 016.(3) 2 497 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(4) (a) This information is not available; and (b) (i) nil, and (ii) this information is not available.(5) N/A. Public Service and Merit Protection CommissionThe Commission did not record training data in a form that enabled extraction of the information requested prior to 11 May 1999. Information for the period 11 May to 20 September 1999 is as follows:(1) 12.(2) $28 967.(3) 122 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(4) (a) 4; and (b) (i) nil; and (ii) 4.(5) $21 728.Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General(1) 18.(2) $48 398.(3) 455 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(4) (a) Nil; and (b) (i) and (ii) N/A.(5) N/A.Australian National Audit Office(1) 380 (this figure includes 112 courses specifically on IT applications).(2) $394 858.(3) 7 806 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(4) and (5) N/A.Note: The Auditor-General is an exempt agency under Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Consequently, no internal training courses on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act have been conducted.Office of National Assessments(1) 5.(2) $17 750.(3) 160 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(4) and (5) N/A.Note: The Office of National Assessments is an exempt agency under Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Consequently, no internal training courses on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act have been conducted.Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman(1) 15.(2) $189 673.(3) 403 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(4) (a) 1; and (b) (i) nil, and (ii) 1.(5) $3 550.Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; andOffice of the Strategic Investment Co-ordinator (1) Nil.(2)—(5) N/A.Note: The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is an exempt agency under Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Consequently, no internal training courses on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act have been conducted.10486(Question No. 1491)149110486Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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 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 the courses in (4).10486Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am not prepared to authorise the time and resources required to prepare responses to this question. 10486(Question No. 1497)149710486Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, 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 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 the courses in (4).10487Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:It is not possible to provide the requested information for the period since 3 March 1996 as FaCS has only been in existence since October 1998.Records for the required period cover Centrelink, DSS and FaCS (which included new staff from Health and Family Services, Attorney Generals and the Institute of Family Studies). The size, function and location of these organisations differ greatly, and complete records are not available to this agency.10487(Question No. 1508)150810487Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 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 the courses in (3). 10487Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department as follows:Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet(1) 1 155 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(2) $528 778.(3) (a) and (b) This information is not available.(4) and (5) N/A.Public Service and Merit Protection CommissionThe Commission did not record training data in a form that enabled extraction of the information requested prior to 11 May 1999. For the period 11 May to 20 September 1999, the information is as follows:(1) 48 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(2) $21 921.(3) (a) 2; and (b) (i) nil, and (ii) 2.(4) A panel of representatives from Commonwealth Government agencies.(5) $400.Note: The responses to questions (1) and (2) are estimates.Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General(1) 389 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(2) $104 186.(3) (a) 1; and (b) (i) 1, and (ii) nil.(4) The Australian Government Solicitor.(5) $300.Australian National Audit Office(1) 1 630 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(2) $878 441.(3)—(5) N/A.Note: The Auditor-General is an exempt agency under Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Consequently, no staff of the Australian National Audit Office have attended external training courses on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.Office of National Assessments(1) 247 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(2) $76 622.(3)—(5) N/A. Note: The Office of National Assessments is an exempt agency under Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Consequently, no staff of the Office of National Assessments have attended external training courses on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman(1) 408 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(2) $128 579.(3) (a) 9; and (b) (i) 9, and (ii) nil.(4) The Australian Government Solicitor and the Communications Law Centre (Victoria).(5) $4 799.Note: Practitioners from the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman all regularly attend a Freedom of Information Practitioners' Forum, co-ordinated by the Australian Government Solicitor and major law firms.Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security(1) 18 (this figure indicates the number of times staff have attended one or more courses).(2) $2 548.(3)—(5) N/A.Note: The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is an exempt agency under Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Consequently, no staff of the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security have attended external training courses on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.Office of the Strategic Investment Co-ordinator(1) Nil.(2)—(5) N/A.10488(Question No. 1509)150910488Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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 the courses in (3).10488Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am not prepared to authorise the time and resources required to prepare responses to this question.10488(Question No. 1515)151510488Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, 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 the courses in (3).10488Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:It is not possible to provide the requested information for the period since 3 March 1996 as FaCS has only been in existence since October 1998.Records for the required period cover Centrelink, DSS and FaCS (which included new staff from Health and Family Services, Attorney Generals and the Institute of Family Studies). The size, function and location of these organisations differ greatly, and complete records are not available to this agency.10489(Question No. 1526)152610489Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many requests have been made by: (a) a member of the House of Representatives; or (b) a member of the Senate.(2) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding access were: (a) partially successful; or (b) refused.(3) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding charges were: (a) partially successful; or (b) refused.(4) Of the cases relevant to (2) and (3), how many of the department's or agency's written reasons for decision used, as grounds for refusal under the Act, a reference to members of Parliament having access to parliamentary processes to seek information from departments.(5) Is the department, or any agency in the portfolio, aware of any provision contained in legislation, or departmental guidelines, or practice where the applicant's employment provision can be, or has been, used as grounds for refusing access to documents and/or refusing to waive charges, other than that set out in (4).10489Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that:In relation to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:(1) (a) 0(b) 4(2) (a) 1(b) 1(3) (a) 1(b) 1(4) None.(5) In relation to the question of access, an applicant's employment status is generally irrelevant, save where access to certain documents may be granted to one applicant where it would not be granted to another applicant. For example, documents might ordinarily be exempted where they contained sensitive commercial information supplied by a company, but access would be given to an applicant who was acting on behalf of that company.Where an applicant requests waiver of charges, the Freedom of Information Act requires decision-makers to consider whether full or part payment would cause financial hardship to the applicant or to a person on whose behalf the application was made. Income from employment may be a relevant factor in deciding whether or not to waive charges on the grounds of financial hardship.In relation to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission, and the Merit Protection and Review Agency:(1)—(4) None.(5) As above.The Office of National Assessments, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Auditor-General are exempt from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act.10489(Question No. 1553)155310489Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) (a) Can a breakdown be provided of expenditure of the $2.1 million allocated to the Gold Medal Disability Strategy; (b) how much was spent on the launch; (c) which disability groups were invited; and (d) what is the amount budgeted for the awards ceremony.(2) What is the intended life of the strategy.(3) Has the Government set targets for the number of businesses that it aims to see providing access to people with disabilities; if so, what is the timeframe under consideration.(4) Can a list be provided of all firms invited to tender for the strategy's media/public relations.(5) Why was there no formal consultation process with disability groups and people with disabilities in formulating the strategy.(6) Did the Government consider alternatives to the awards-focus of the strategy; and (b) was any consideration given to the concept of demanding tangible outcomes from business.10489Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) Strategy launch: $60,288 (actual); satellite broadcast to simultaneous State/Territory events: $26,950 (actual); eight Access Symposia in capital cities: $430,000 (est); information activities: $372,000 (est); Awards process: $225,000 (est); administrative costs: $870,000 (est. over 3 years); and $116,000 unallocated. Total: $2.1 million.(b) $60,288 (actual);(c) National and state peak disability organisations were invited to attend either the national launch or the simultaneous State/Territory capital city events.(d) $114,000 (est).(2) Until July 2000.(3) No, due to the wide variety of circumstances affecting individual businesses.(4) Burson-Marsteller; Edelman Public Relations; Hill and Knowlton; IPR Shandwick; and Turnbull Porter Novelli.(5) The Gold Medal Disability Access Strategy is an awareness campaign aimed at business, based on the very successful Prime Minister's Employer of the Year Awards.(6) (a) No. (b) Yes. To be considered for a Gold Medal Disability Access Award businesses will be required to demonstrate tangible outcomes for people with disabilities.10490(Question No. 1554)155410490Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Why does the front page of the Australian Taxation Office web site on the goods and services tax (GST) only identify individuals, tax practitioners and businesses as the entry points to the site.(2) Does the Treasurer agree that non-profit community organisations would not regard themselves as `businesses' and might therefore be misled into thinking that they were not going to be taxed through the GST.(3) (a) Will a specific entry point be added for non-profit community groups on the web page; and (b) what advice and assistance is being provided specifically for non-profit community groups.(4) (a) Is it fact, as stated on the web site, that the $500 million GST start up assistance will only be available `to assist small and medium business and the education and charities sectors'; and (b) why are other non-profit organisations excluded.10490Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following is provided to answer the honourable senator's question:(1) The inclusion of a clear entry point for charities and non-profit groups is planned to coincide with the release of sector specific publications planned for November 1999.(2) The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) commenced a comprehensive education and communication campaign in July 1999 to inform the general public and the business communities about the changes to the tax system. The campaign has focused on who is required to register for GST and highlighted the issues involved for all organisations.(3) (a) Refer to (1) above. (b) A range of mediums is being used to get information out to specific business and community sectors through general and industry specific publications, advertising and direct marketing, the media, infolines, the internet, seminar programs and individual client visits. The ATO has established a Charities Consultative Committee to clarify the main issues of concern to charities and non-profit community groups. Committee members have a broad range of expertise and are drawn from organisations across the sector. The Committee works in close partnership with the ATO's Charities Industries team which was set up to help the sector implement the new tax arrangements. The ATO is currently developing the content for public benevolent institutions and charities seminars to be launched in November 1999. These seminars will aim to cover the needs of non-profit community organisations but if necessary the ATO will conduct additional seminars specifically for these organisations later in November.(4) (a) The ATO's tax reform website states "The Government is providing $500 million to assist small and medium business and the education and charities sectors make the transition to The New Tax System". This is not meant to imply that assistance is only available to those sectors. The first Fact Sheet on the GST Start-Up Assistance Office website (www.gststartup.gov.au) states that "The Government has set aside $500 million to assist small and medium enterprises, the community sector and educational bodies prepare for the introduction of the GST". The term `community sector' is used in its widest sense.(b) Non-profit organisations are not excluded from GST start-up assistance. The $500 million start-up assistance package contains four programs:- Business skills information and education ($40m)- Adviser education ($7m)- Organisation-delivered assistance ($130m)- Direct assistance ($320m).The products of the business skills information and education program will be widely available. The GST Start-Up Assistance Office has written to many non-profit organisations outside the small business, charity and education sectors asking them to lodge proposals for organisation-delivered assistance and to nominate advisers to be trained under the adviser education program. The Government will announce further details about the direct assistance program, including how to access funding, as this program is developed.10491(Question No. 1556)155610491Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) How many more amendments will the Government be making to the goods and services tax package of bills; and when will these amendments be tabled.(2) (a) How many of the amendments are considered to be technical in nature; and (b) how many are considered to be substantive.10491Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government's aim is to have all amendments relating to the GST finalised before the end of the year. However, the Government reserves the right to make further changes and refinements to the legislation after that time if the need arises.(2) See above answer.10491(Question No. 1559)155910491Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:When a consumer buys, for instance, a computer game the consumer is acquiring the right to use the software under a licensing agreement; this right is for the consumer's life: does this mean all such sales before 1 July 2000 are subject to the goods and services tax under section 14 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1999.10491Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No. The A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 includes amendments to clarify the taxation treatment of computer software. The amendments will ensure that, where the purchase of a computer game or software is accompanied by an indefinite license agreement, no GST will apply to such purchases made before 1 July 2000.10491(Question No. 1561)156110491Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:When the goods and services tax is added to any item of supply and the price ends in two cents, for example, $45.22: (a) will that mean that the price is rounded down; and (b) conversely, if the price is $45.23 will it be rounded up.10491Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The normal guidelines for rounding prices will apply.10491(Question No. 1567)156710491Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) If a company offers a warranty as part of sale that are made before 1 July 2000 and the warranty extends beyond 1 July 2000, does the goods and services tax apply to the provision of the warranty.(2) How does the taxpayer who offers the warranty go about determining the amount of GST that is payable in respect of the warranty.10491Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No.(2) Where a warranty on goods sold prior to 1 July 2000 is provided as part of a separate agreement and the warranty period spans 1 July 2000, only that part of the warranty relating to the period from 1 July 2000 will be subject to GST.10491(Question No. 1570)157010491Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Is the goods and services tax payable on the provision of a property fringe benefit, for example, golf clubs, by an employer to an employee. 10492Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:It is the Government's intention that GST will not apply to the provision of a fringe benefit by an employer to an employee. As announced in ANTS, the FBT gross up formula will be adjusted to effectively recoup the GST input credit that was obtained by the employer in acquiring the fringe benefit.10492(Question No. 1573)157310492Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) When consumers buy a mixture of goods and services tax (GST) free goods and non-GST free goods, such as at a supermarket, how will they know which goods are GST free and which are not.(2) Will supermarkets have to mark on their customer receipts which goods are GST free and which are not.(3) If goods on a supermarket receipt do not have to be separately disclosed as subject to GST or GST free, how will consumers know whether they are being subjected to price exploitation or not.10492Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:(1) As part of a broad information and education campaign, consumers are being informed of how they will be affected by The New Tax System. This includes how the GST will apply to different types of goods and services. A booklet containing information on the New Tax System was mailed directly to all households across Australia during September and October 1999.(2) There will be no requirement for supermarkets to mark on receipts which goods are GST free and which are not. However, as it will be difficult for supermarkets to issue tax invoices on a date after the sale, it is likely that they will issue receipts to all customers that will satisfy the tax invoice requirements. The receipt will identify the goods that are subject to GST and show the total GST for the sale.(3) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will monitor the price of goods and services to ensure they are adjusted properly for The New Tax System and will apply heavy fines for those responsible for price exploitation. A consumer that is not able to identify which goods have been subject to GST and has concerns about prices can contact the ACCC information line or obtain information from the ACCC website. 10492(Question No. 1578)157810492Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Given that the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), Mr Macfarlane, recently warned that the goods and services tax (GST) could trigger an interest rate rise because of the fiscal stimulus caused by $12 billion worth of income tax cuts, what is the Government's assessment of the impact $12 billion worth of income tax cuts will have on the economy.(2) Does the Government believe that a $12 billion fiscal stimulus could see the need for a tightening in monetary policy; if not, why not.(3) If the $12 billion fiscal stimulus leads to inflationary pressures, does the Government believe that the RBA will be obliged to use monetary policy to contain the inflation threat.(4) If the $12 billion fiscal stimulus puts the RBA's inflationary targets under threat, does the Government support the use of monetary policy in order to ensure that the inflationary targets are not broken.10492Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government will deliver $12 billion worth of income tax relief to the people of Australia commencing 1 July 2000—the largest personal income tax cuts in Australian history. This initiative is only one part of the Government's comprehensive overhaul of the Australian taxation system, as detailed in A New Tax System (ANTS), which is designed to greatly reduce distortions to choices about work, saving, spending and investment.(2) The Government does not comment on the possible future course of interest rates.(3) See answer to question 2.(4) See answer to question 2.10492(Question No. 1579)157910492Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:With reference to recent reports that, due to the goods and services tax (GST), banks will be faced with increased compliance costs of up to $300 million per year: (1) Does the Government support this analysis(2) With reference to this analysis, conducted by Mr Chris Murphy, which found that the banks would be $3000 million worse off, is Mr Murphy's analysis correct or incorrect.(3) What flaws or errors, if any, has the Government found in Mr Murphy's analysis conducted for the banks.(4) If the Government has found no errors or flaws in Mr Murphy's analysis, does this mean that Mr Murphy analysis is indeed correct.(5) Does the Government believe Mr Murphy and his economic modelling to be credible; if so, then, is not the figure of $300 million in extra costs for banks also credible and believable.(6) With reference to the Government's A New Tax System (ANTS) package estimates that the cost to banking will fall by $670 million or 2.8 per cent, does the Government still stand by this estimate.(7) (a) How can the Government's estimate be a $670 million decrease while Mr Murphy has found a $300 million increase; and (b) how does the Government explain this $1 billion difference.(8) With reference to the Government's estimate and Mr Murphy's estimate, who is to be believed, the Government or Mr Murphy.(9) With reference to the Government's ANTS package estimates of a 10.6 per cent decrease in the price effect for banking, does the Government stand by this estimate.(10) Will the banks be allowed to pass on, in full, the $300 million cost they claim the GST will impose on them by way of higher fees and charges.(11) Will the Government support the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission taking action against any banks which increase fees and charges as a result of the GST, given the Government's estimate of decreasing costs for banks of $670 million(12) How does the Government intend to ensure that the $670 million in cost savings for banks is passed on to consumers.(13) In light of the Government's estimates, does the Government believe that bank fees and charges should fall and not rise as has been intimated by the banks.10493Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No.(2) See answer to (1).(3) See answer to (1).(4) See answer to (1). (5) See answer to (1).(6) The Government stands by the estimates of the cost and price impact of its original tax reform package published in the A New Tax System (ANTS). Those estimates will have been affected by the agreement reached with the Australian Democrats in May 1999.(7) See answer to (1).(8) See answer to (1).(9) See answer to (6).(10) See answer to (1).(11) The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) has issued guidelines setting out the circumstances where it will consider businesses have contravened the new price exploitation prohibition in 75AU of the Trade Practices Act 1974.(12) See answer to (11).(13) See answer to (1).10493(Question No. 1581)158110493Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:With reference to reports that the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants (ASCPA) has called for the granting of direct cash rebates to small businesses to help defray the cost of complying with the goods and services tax:(1) Does the Government support the ASCPA's call; if not, why not.(2) Does the granting of direct cash rebates to small business have any merit from a Government policy perspective; if not, why not.10493Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government will use part of the $500 million GST start-up assistance package to provide direct assistance to small and medium size enterprises. The New Tax System Advisory Board is providing advice on the most effective form of delivering direct assistance to enterprises.(2) See response to (1).10493(Question No. 1583)158310493Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:With reference to the recent report that the Government's plan to tax trusts as companies will see up to $170 billion of assets transferred to new entities:(1) Does the Government support this estimate as being credible.(2) Is it still the Government's policy to tax all non-widely held trusts as companies, in particular, family discretionary trusts.(3) Does the Government believe that family discretionary trusts are able to be used for maximum income splitting and therefore tax minimisation purposes; if not, why tax them as companies.10494Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The report referred to the $171 billion worth of assets currently held in trusts. This estimate is as published by the Australian Taxation Office in the 1996-97 Taxation Statistics.(2) The Government's policy is to tax trusts like companies, other than trusts specifically excluded from the unified entity regime and collective investment vehicles.(3) Taxing trusts like companies under the unified entity regime will provide simplicity, clarity and fairness in the tax treatment of trusts and greater integrity in the operation of the business tax system.10494(Question No. 1584)158410494Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Is Mr John Hoare, a legal adviser to the Queensland National Party, correct in claiming that the proposal to tax trusts as companies is equivalent to a hidden death duty and wealth tax; if not, why is he incorrect.(2) Is Mr Hoare seen by the Government as a credible legal commentator on the taxation of trusts proposal, or is he just spreading misinformation on the Government's proposals.(3) Can the Government confirm whether Mr Hoare has briefed members of the Government on the taxation of trusts proposal; if so, who has he briefed.10494Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Claims that taxing trusts like companies is equivalent to introducing a hidden death duty and wealth tax are incorrect.A wealth tax is essentially a tax imposed upon the stock of a taxpayer's wealth. A death duty is essentially a wealth tax imposed on a taxpayer's stock of wealth when they die. The proposal to tax trusts like companies will not have these features.Mr Hoare's is not currently a legal advisor to the Queensland National Party.(2) See answer to Question 1.(3) Members of the Government receive representations from members of the public on various matters, including taxation.10494(Question No. 1585)158510494Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Is the Government concerned at the recent drop in new car registrations in July 1999 being 11 per cent lower than July 1998 and August 1999 being 10 per cent lower than August 1998.(2) Does the Government agree that part of the reason for the decline in new car registrations is attributable to a buyers' strike as consumers await the anticipated fall in new car prices due to the abolition of wholesale sales tax (WST) on new cars from 1 July 2000; if not, why not.(3) Is the Government considering any changes to phase in the WST abolition for new cars in order to avoid a buyers' strike.(4) Does the Government support calls by the motor vehicle industry to make changes to the Government's planned abolition of WST on new motor vehicles.(5) Is it the Government's view that the 11 per cent and 10 per cent falls in new car registrations are more likely due to a slowing domestic economy than a goods and services tax-induced buyers' strike.10494Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) A decline in new motor vehicle sales in 1999 is not unexpected in the wake of the record sales levels in 1998.(2) See (1) above.(3) See (1) above.(4) See (1) above.(5) See (1) above. 10495(Question No. 1586)158610495Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Will the Government be reviewing its decision to deny full input tax credits to goods and services tax (GST)-registered entities who purchase new motor vehicles in the 2 years following the introduction of the GST.10495Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No.10495(Question No. 1587)158710495Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Can the Government confirm that input tax credits will not form part of assessable income, as claimed by Price Waterhouse Coopers tax expert Mr Geoffrey Lehmann.10495Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:The Government has recently introduced legislation which sets out the rules for taking GST into account in calculating taxable income. The proposed amendments to the income tax law are contained in Schedule 3 to the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999, which was introduced on 30 September 1999.The amendments will exclude GST liability from amounts included in assessable income. Deductible amounts will exclude the GST from expenditure incurred to the extent of the entity's input tax credit entitlement. GST will be deductible only to the extent that the entity is not entitled to claim the corresponding input tax credit, for example, because the entity has an annual turnover of less than $50 000 and has chosen not to register for GST purposes.The exclusion of GST components from transaction amounts in calculating income tax liability is the method used in New Zealand and in the UK (in relation to VAT). The accounting profession, through the Urgent Issues Group, has also recently expressed support for accounting for sales of goods and services net of GST and for purchases net of recoverable GST, that is, after allowing for input tax credits. 10495(Question No. 1588)158810495Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:If a goods and services tax (GST)-registered entity makes GST taxable sales of $110,000 and has $99,000 worth of GST taxable expenses, how will the net GST payment of $1,000 be treated for tax purposes: will it be deductible or non-deductible.10495Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:The Government has recently introduced legislation which sets out the rules for taking GST into account in calculating taxable income. The proposed amendments to the income tax law are contained in Schedule 3 to the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999, which was introduced on 30 September 1999.The amendments will exclude GST liability from amounts included in assessable income. Deductible amounts will exclude the GST from expenditure incurred to the extent of the entity's input tax credit entitlement. GST will be deductible only to the extent that the entity is not entitled to claim the corresponding input tax credit, for example, because the entity has an annual turnover of less than $50,000 and has chosen not to register for GST purposes.In the honourable senator's example, the GST registered entity will have assessable income of $100,000 and deductions of $90,000 leaving a taxable income of $10,000. The entity's actual expenditure of $99,000 is reduced by $9,000, reflecting its input tax credit entitlement from that expenditure, to determine the deductible amount.10495(Question No. 1589)158910495Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:If a goods and services tax (GST)-registered entity buys an item of plant for $1 100 000 which is GST inclusive, will the $100 000 GST form part of the cost base for depreciation purposes.10495Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:The Government has recently introduced legislation which sets out the rules for taking GST into account in calculating taxable income. The proposed amendments to the income tax law are contained in Schedule 3 to the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999, which was introduced on 30 September 1999.In the example contained in the honourable senator's question, the cost base of the plant for depreciation purposes will be $1 million. This assumes that the entity would be entitled to an input tax credit of $100 000, that is, assuming the plant was acquired wholly for a creditable purpose. If the acquisition of the plant was only partly creditable, the input tax credit would be reduced, and the cost base of the plant for depreciation purposes increased, by the same amount.10496(Question No. 1590)159010496Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Given that input tax credits on the purchase of a motor vehicle will not be able to be claimed by a goods and services tax (GST)-registered entity: will the GST component of a new car purchase form part of the cost balance for depreciation purposes; if not, will the GST paid be claimable within the tax period in which the asset was acquired or will the GST input tax credit have to be claimed back over the estimated life of the asset.10496Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Depreciation is calculated on the cost of the motor vehicle. The availability of input tax credits to a registered business (full or partial) reduce the cost of a new motor vehicle to a registered business and need to be taken into account when calculating depreciation.10496(Question No. 1591)159110496Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) With reference to the Government's goods and services tax Regulation Impact Statement, which estimates recurrent goods and services tax compliance costs per business of only $385 per year for the 2001-02 financial year: What is the Government's estimate for the 2000-01 financial year.10496Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The aggregate net recurrent GST compliance costs for all firms have been estimated at $385 million for 2001-02.10496(Question No. 1594)159410496Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999: With reference to small businesses that run manual accounting systems.(1) Does the Government believe that it will be better for them to move to a computerised accounting system in order to account for the goods and services tax (GST).(2) Does the Government agree that the GST will encourage non-computerised small businesses to become computer literate.10496Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) This is a decision for each business to make.(2) See answer to (1).10496(Question No. 1595)159510496Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:With reference to the Government's A New Tax System package estimates that air and space transport (price effect) will fall by 0.8 per cent:(1) Does the Government still stand by this estimate.(2) With reference to Qantas' prediction that the goods and services tax (GST) on domestic travel will see a significant flow through: Why should there be a significant flow through of the GST, no doubt into higher airfares, when the Government's own estimates have predicted a 0.8 per cent fall.(3) If Qantas, or any other airline, increases domestic airfares as a result of the GST: (a) will it be subject to action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and (b) will the Government support such action.(4) Given the Government's estimates, shouldn't airline travel at worse remain static in price and at best experience marginal falls.10496Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government stands by the estimates of the cost and price impact of its original tax reform package published in the A New Tax System (ANTS). Those estimates have been affected by the agreement reached with the Australian Democrats in May 1999.(2) The estimate of a 0.8 per cent increase in the prices of industry 64.01 Air and space transport is an estimate of the average price change of the industry group as a whole.(3) Airlines are permitted to charge GST on contracts for only that portion of the contract to be performed on or after 1 July 2000. Any price changes that contravene Part VB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 will be subject to remedial action by the ACCC.(4) See answer to (2).10497(Question No. 1597)159710497Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 24 September 1999:How much of the television coverage of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and of the celebrations of the Centenary of Federation will be captioned for the deaf and hearing impaired.10497Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:On 13 July 1999, the Seven Network, the rights holder for the broadcast of the Sydney Olympic Games, announced plans to close caption all prime time free to air coverage of the Games. During the period of the Olympic broadcasts, closed captioning will be provided on weekdays from 7pm to 11pm and on weekends between 1pm and 11pm. Both the Opening and Closing Ceremonies fall within these times and will therefore be captioned.In relation to the captioning of television coverage of the Centenary of Federation, broadcasters have not announced their plans for the broadcast of events associated with the Centenary of Federation celebrations. However, given that a captioning standard, associated with the implementation of digital television, will apply to commercial and national broadcasters transmitting in the digital mode from 1 January 2001, certain programming related to the celebration of the Centenary of Federation may be required under the standard to be captioned.10497(Question No. 1598)159810497Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 27 September 1999:(1) Has the papaya fruit fly eradication program in north Queensland been completed.(2) Is the government confident that all papaya fruit fly have been eliminated.(3) What has been the total cost of the eradication program since the incursion of the papaya fruit fly was first detected.(4) In broad terms, how were these costs spread across the various elements of the eradication program, for example,costs of chemicals, labour costs, et cetera.(5) Have there been any claims for compensation made against the Commonwealth or its agencies and/or any other person or entity because of the entry of the papaya fruit fly into north Queensland.(6) Does the government have any figures for losses suffered by farmers following the entry of the papaya fruit fly into north Queensland; if so, what are they.(7) Did the Government make any assessment of the impact of the eradication program on organic fruit and vegetable growers in north Queensland; if so, can a copy of the assessment be provided.(8) Has the Government received any reports of health problems associated with the use of chemicals in the eradication program.(9) Has the Government received any reports of complaints about the use of chemicals, liquid or gas, on fruit or vegetables necessary to enable these products to be exported from north Queensland during the period following the discovery of the papaya fruit fly.(10) What measures are now in place to ensure that there will not be further incursions of the papaya fruit fly into north Queensland.(11) How do these measures compare with measures in place for each of the 10 years, prior to the discovery of the papaya fruit fly in north Queensland, in terms of: (a) the cost of any monitoring program; (b) the nature of these monitoring, that is, what kind of traps were used and where; and (c) the reason for the breakdown in these programs which allowed for the entry of the papaya fruit fly into north Queensland.(12) (a) What kinds of certification and/or approval are necessary in order to ensure confidence in the claim that papaya fruit fly have been eliminated from north Queensland; and (b) from whom does the certification and/or approval have to be obtained.10497Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The papaya fruit fly (PFF) eradication campaign was completed when formal recognition of eradication was declared in May 1999. Area freedom status was achieved in August 1998. All that remains to be finalised under the eradication program is the documentation of the campaign and the preparation and publication of scientific papers.(2) A scientific Technical Advisory panel, which comprised fruit fly scientists with international and national recognition, was established to oversight the scientific activities of the eradication program. Acting on the advice of this panel, the criteria for establishing the eradication of the pest were developed and implemented. This included maintaining the intensive monitoring for the presence of the pest for over twelve months following the last detection of a wild fly. Given that this criterion was met and papaya fruit fly has not been detected in the wild since July 1997, the government is confident that the pest has been eradicated.(3) The total cost to the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments under the national cost sharing agreement for the eradication campaign was $33.54 million. In addition, the Queensland Government provided an additional $3.8 million for the purchase and refurbishment of a building for fruit fly disinfestation research in Cairns, and a further $4.5 million to support affected horticultural growers in north Queensland, through waiving of government service charges.(4) Labour and non-labour costs for the cost shared component of the eradication program were approximately $23.5 million [70%] (labour), $7.75 million [23%] (consumables, including chemicals, supplementary traps and other equipment for fruit fly control), $2.25 million [7%] (capital).(5) There have been a total of five claims for compensation made in relation to the PFF program. Two claims related to damages arising out of the actual eradication program. One was a minor claim relating the alleged death of goldfish in a garden pond which was settled. The other involves alleged damage to a number of coffee crops near Mareeba.There have also been three other claims lodged for compensation for damages arising out of the application of post harvest quarantine treatments required for the movement of produce out of the PFF quarantine area. Two claims have been settled and the other is the subject of current civil action.(6) The cost to the north Queensland horticultural industry resulting from the PFF outbreak has been estimated by industry at approximately $100 million. This primarily consists of initial lost markets and the costs of the implementation of PFF quarantine protocols. The government has no direct figures on the amount of any losses that may have been suffered by farmers as a result of the PFF outbreak. In the initial stages of the outbreak the estimate of the potential economic loss to the Australian horticultural industry had the pest not been eradicated was calculated by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) to be $73.51 million annually.(7) The impact of the eradication program on the organic fruit industry was considered during the program. Every effort was made to accommodate the organic industry in meeting their strict protocols, minimising market disruption for organic produce and still maintaining the eradication program. Extensive consultation was maintained with organic growers throughout the eradication program.No formal economic assessment was undertaken.(8) There were a number of complaints lodged by the plant industries and the general public relating to the chemicals being used in the eradication program. The complaints lodged by plant industries related to workplace health and safety issues arising from the requirement for post harvest chemical disinfestation of produce leaving the quarantine area. These complaints were dealt with on an individual basis, working closely with the local Health and Workplace Health and Safety agencies.Complaints from the public included concerns relating to the use of chemical insecticides in the eradication treatments. These were addressed through the formation of a PFF Health and Environmental Liaison Group. In addition, close collaboration with the National Registration Authority (NRA) on the use of the eradication chemicals was maintained throughout the program. The NRA also conducted an independent audit into the use of chemicals in the eradication program. This audit established that the eradication program was being conducted in an effective and safe manner. In conjunction with the local Queensland Health office, the NRA also established an adverse chemical consequences register relating to the eradication program. However, the NRA received no reports of adverse chemical consequences.(9) Apart from the Workplace Health and Safety issues mentioned in the answer to question 8 (above), there have not been any formal complaints about the use of chemicals on fruits and vegetables associated with the PFF quarantine requirements.(10) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has two operating groups with responsibilities with regard to exotic pests and diseases. One group has responsibility for the exclusion of exotic pests and diseases and in the event that there is a breach in the quarantine barrier, the other group is responsible for the management of incursions of exotic pests and diseases.The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) has prime responsibility for the exclusion of exotic pests and diseases from Australia. Measures in place to ensure that no further incursions of papaya fruit fly occur include the airports program, aimed at preventing people entering Australia carrying items of quarantine concern, such as fruit and vegetables that may harbour papaya fruit fly. The import clearance program facilitates the entry of among other things agricultural products from overseas and ensures that such products are free of pests and diseases.The National Office of Animal and Plant Health (NOAPH) administers a national fruit fly surveillance program designed to identify and define incursions of targeted exotic fruit fly pests, including papaya fruit fly, entering through international pathways at ports and associated urban areas. It is the aim of this program to ensure that, where incursions of papaya fruit fly and other exotic fruit fly species occur, they are detected quickly enabling a response strategy to be rapidly implemented.The Queensland Department of Primary Industries administers the operational aspect of the national program, under contract to NOAPH, as well as administering a supplementary fruit fly surveillance program which operates in other centres at high risk of fruit fly incursion, such as the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast.The Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) within AQIS performs crop and field surveys throughout northern Australia, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia to provide data on the pest status of these regions for the formulation of quarantine programs to combat such pests. Papaya fruit fly is a known pest of the South East Asian region.(11) (a) The cost of the national surveillance program in the financial year 1999/2000 will be $464,165. There is also a limited outlay of funds for consumable items associated with surveillance such as traps and other trapping equipment. The national surveillance program has been in operation for each of the financial years 1996/97, 1997/98 and 1998/99 at a cost similar to that of the current financial year. Before the 1996/97 financial year, there was no national surveillance program in operation.No figures associated with financing the Northern Monitoring [see (11) (b) below] are available for the years sought.(b) Surveillance for exotic fruit flies in northern Australia has been carried out since the mid-1970s, initially under the Northern Monitoring Program. This program was largely carried out by state and territory departments in the region, funded by the Commonwealth quarantine authority. Initially, the program maintained surveillance sites along Australia's northern coastline between Derby in Western Australia and the Torres Strait. Following the release of the 1991 review commissioned by NAQS, a decision was made not to undertake surveillance in Cairns under the NAQS program. This decision was made on the basis that surveillance in settled areas was not a NAQS responsibility but should be considered in the broader context of surveillance at ports of entry.The first surveillance program with national coverage was initiated in 1996. The program, as it has operated since 1996, provides a minimum 5 km density of trap sites in all major and minor trafficked `first port of call' ports. The network includes over 1,600 traps directly administered by the National Office of Animal and Plant Health and serviced by the state departments of agriculture/ primary industry in Western Australia, Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Tasmania and South Australia carry out more extensive surveillance in port cities and towns to support those states' pest free area programs. The NAQS carries out surveillance in the more remote areas and port city areas in northern Australia. Traps are maintained in the urban areas of: Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, Yamba, Coffs Harbour, Darwin, Gove, Groote, Brisbane, Cairns, Townsville, Gladstone, Mackay, Bundaberg, Weipa, Thursday Island, Mourilyan Harbour, Karumba, Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Whyalla, Ceduna, Hobart, Launceston, Devonport/ Burnie, Melbourne/Westonport, Geelong, Portland, Albany, Bunbury, Esperance, Perth/Freemantle, Geraldton, Dampier, Karratha, Carnavon, Broome, Wydham, Derby and Port Hedland.Three trap types are located at each surveillance site. Each trap type contains a lure type specific to one fruit fly group. Methyl eugenol lures are used for papaya fruit fly and related species, capi-lure for Mediterranean fruit fly and related species and cue-lure is used to detect Queensland fruit fly and related species. The trap types used in fruit fly surveillance differ in architecture and have specific applications depending on the environment and climate they are used in. Within the national surveillance system the so-called `Steiner', `Lynfield' and `Jackson' traps are utilised.(c) It was recognised by the Consultative Committee that was formed to manage the eradication campaign for PFF, that the likely pathway that led to the establishment of the PFF was the illegal entry of fruit carried by a private individual through the quarantine barrier.It is possible that PFF may have been present in the Cairns region for two or more years before the species was identified. There was no structured fruit fly surveillance system, utilising traps with lures, operating in the region.(12) (a) There was no pre-established national or international certification or approval mechanism in place to ensure confidence in the claim that PFF has been eradicated from north Queensland. In the case of PFF, a specific criterion was agreed upon, nationally, to ensure confidence in eradication claims. The Papaya Fruit Fly Technical Advisory Panel considered PFF to be eradicated if a minimum period of nine months of nil detections was reached, in the absence of eradication measures, including one peak activity season for fruit flies (summer). A period of 20 months of nil detections had elapsed at the time of declaration of eradication.The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), under the Food and Agriculture Organisation, has associated standards for phytosanitary measures, including a standard for pest surveillance. These standards are recognised by the World Trade Organisation. The particular standard relating to pest surveillance encompasses general requirements for achieving and maintaining pest free areas. The standard provides a scientific framework for national governments to assess claims of pest freedom as the need arises. Australia has met this general standard in regard to eradicating PFF and maintaining a pest free area in the eradication zone. To remain assured of the PFF-free status of fruit exported from Australia, AQIS inspects such fruit for freedom from quarantine pests and documents this through phytosanitary certification issued in accordance with IPPC requirements.(b) Endorsement of the eradication criterion for PFF within north Queensland was made by the National Papaya Fruit Fly Consultative Committee. All states and territories of Australia endorsed the declaration of eradication through the committee processes working under the auspices of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management.The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service sought and received the endorsement of international trading partners of the criterion and outcome of the eradication campaign.10500(Question No. 1634)163410500Harris, Sen LenSenator Harris8HCQldIND00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(a) How much net tax was paid by Schedule 25A companies in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 financial years; and (b) what were their aggregate taxable incomes for each of those years.10500Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(a) In 1995-96 and 1996-97, net tax for schedule 25A companies was $7.7b and $8.3b respectively.(b) In 1995-96 and 1996-97 aggregate taxable incomes for schedule 25A companies were $41.7b and $46.4b respectively.10500(Question No. 1638)163810500Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:(1) Did the Minister or the Prime Minister raise the issue of the Falun Gong with the President of China Jiang Zemin, during his recent visit to Australia.(2) Can the Minister outline any action the Australian Government has taken to date, regarding the arrests and allegations of torture of practitioners of Falun Gong in China.(3) With reference to reports from the Falun Gong which indicate that hundreds of thousands of practitioners are currently being held, does the Minister have any confirmation of these figures.(4) Is the Minister aware of when the trials for the imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners are being conducted.(5) Given that if the Falun Gong practitioners are found guilty of subversion the penalty could be death, has any representation to the Chinese Government been made to ensure that the trials are fair and open and can be monitored by international and human rights bodies.10500Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No(2) The Australian Government has raised its concerns about the treatment of Falungong with the Chinese government: first, to the Chinese Charg d'Affaires in Canberra on 23 July 1999; secondly, to a senior official of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing on 29 July; and thirdly, in a number of senior-level meetings during the third round of the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, held in China from 16-20 August. On each occasion, we told the Chinese that, although we take no position on the beliefs of Falungong, we consider that actions taken against its adherents are in breach of the international human rights covenants which China has signed.(3) I have no confirmation of the numbers of Falungong adherents currently in detention in China. On 28 September, Amnesty International put the number at "hundreds". (4) I have no concrete information on the timing of trials.(5) The Australian Government's strong view that all trials should be fair and open and conducted in accordance with standards laid out in international covenants is well known to the Chinese authorities and has been conveyed to them on numerous occasions.10501(Question No. 1640)164010501McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKiernan1I4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) With reference to the company Gold Coast Holdings Pty Ltd, has the Australian Securities Commission (ASC) held investigations into the company; if so: (a) has the ASC completed the investigation; and (b) did the ASC find any breaches of the law.(2) Does the ASC intend to refer the results of the investigation to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP).(3) With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 272 (Senate Hansard , 5 December 1996, p.6868) and the company Power Engine Flush Australia Pty Ltd, was the company ever prosecuted by the DPP as a result of a referral by the Australian Companies and Securities Commission; if so, what was the result of the prosecution.(4) Is the former director of the company Power Engine Flush Australia Pty Ltd, Mr Samuel Papotto, a director of Gold Coast Holdings Pty Ltd, or has he ever been a director; if so, when did he become a director.10501Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) Normally, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), does not comment on current issues which it may or may not be examining. However, as this matter has already been canvassed publicly, ASIC has advised that it is assisting the liquidator of Gold Coast Holdings Pty Ltd to obtain the books and records of the company and expects to be in a position to assess the matter when the final report of the liquidator has been lodged.(3) The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has advised that the DPP has not prosecuted the company Power Engine Flush Australia Pty Ltd for any offence arising from the then Australian Securities Commission's investiga tion in 1995-96. However, the DPP did prosecute Samuel John Papotto for an offence against section 229 of the Corporations Law relating to his involvement in the management of Power Engine Flush Australia Pty Ltd.(4) Samuel John Papotto is recorded on ASIC's data base as having a date of birth of 23 June 1955. There is no record of a person with the same name and date of birth being, or having been, a director of Gold Coast Holdings Pty Ltd.10501(Question No. 1653)165310501Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) Is it a fact, that with the demise of the Cox Peninsula transmitter, current Radio Australia broadcasts do not reach all parts of Indonesia and East Timor.(2) Is Radio Australia planning to extend the range of all of its broadcasts to ensure that they do reach the whole of Indonesia and East Timor; if not, why not.10501Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows:Radio Australia currently broadcasts 19 hours/day to Eastern Indonesia, including East Timor (via Shepparton). An additional hour is broadcast, Monday to Friday, from the same site for the Australian defence forces in East Timor.The ABC has, on a temporary basis, extended the range of its Radio Australia broadcasts to Central and Western Indonesia by leasing transmitting capacity from offshore facilities. This arrangement currently permits Radio Australia to broadcast for 2 hours/day, however, it plans to increase its broadcasts to a total of 6 hours/day (conditional on approval from relevant offshore authorities). I understand that the ABC is actively pursuing such approvals.10501(Question No. 1654)165410501Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:(1) What was the criteria used in selecting Mr Alistair McFarlane to assess the Mirrar people's application under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 in relation to the Boiwek-Almudj sacred site area. (2) What are the attributes which make Mr McFarlane suitable for this appointment.(3) What are the terms and conditions of Mr McFarlane's appointment.(4) Were the Mirrar people consulted over this appointment; if so, how.(5) Did the Mirrar people approve of the selection of Mr McFarlane; if not, does the appointment accord with the Government's commitment to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee to engage in constructive dialogue with the traditional owners over assessment of the Boiwek-Almudj sacred site.(6) Has the appointment been advised to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.(7) What is the process by which Mr McFarlane will conduct his assessment.10502Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, I must nominate a person to write a report on s.10 matters for my consideration. Mr McFarlane was chosen as the section 10 reporter on his merits. He is an experienced lawyer, widely respected in legal circles for his objectivity and fairness, and he possesses extensive, highly relevant experience in Aboriginal heritage and native title issues.(2) This question has been answered in question 1.(3) This question is no longer relevant.(4) The Mirrar people were consulted on the appointment of a section 10 reporter by me personally on several occasions. On returning from the World Heritage Committee meeting in Paris, I travelled to Jabiru on 26 July 1999 to specifically talk with officials of the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation about on-going issues relating to Jabiluka, including the appointment of a s.10 reporter. I again met with officials of the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation on 10 September 1999 to discuss the appointment of the section 10 reporter. In addition, I designated a senior Officer from my Department to liaise with the Mirrar and other interested parties to ensure the process moved ahead in a sensitive manner and to help facilitate the continuation of the consultation process.(5) The Mirrar people questioned the selection of Mr McFarlane, which I addressed in full in correspondence to them. While the section 10 application has been withdrawn by the Mirrar, the Government remains open and committed to the continuation of constructive dialogue with the traditional owners over the assessment of the Boyweg-Almudj sacred site.(6) The appointment of Mr McFarlane was advised by letter to Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in Paris, on 7 October 1999. Mr Bouchenaki will pass this information on to the World Heritage Committee.(7) With the application withdrawn, this question is no longer relevant.10502(Question No. 1656)165610502West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1206 (Senate Hansard , 24 August 1999, p7658) on 30 September 1999:(1) Why are the figures for December 1998 and the projected figures for December unavailable.(2) Are there any similar dates for which there are figures and projected figures available.10502Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The figures for December 1998 are not available as they were not collated for that period.Centrelink does not have projected staffing figures at the level required to provide details about Social Workers.(2) Figures are available for 30 June 1998.They are as follows:Total number of social workers employed—555Total number employed full-time—446Total number employed part-time—109.10502(Question No. 1661)166110502Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 October 1999:With reference to the recent Review of Business Taxation by Mr John Ralph:(1) Is it a fact that the Federal Government agreed that, in preparing his report, Mr Ralph should accept the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) financing and selecting the author of crucial research on capital gains tax.(2) Does this not raise critical issues of conflict of interest. (3) Is it a fact, that if the recommendations of the report are adopted, the ASX will benefit greatly.(4) On what basis did the Federal Government choose to contract out this research rather than have Treasury carry out its own research.(5) Given the reluctance to allocate funds for research into taxation issues: (a) is it a fact that the Australian Taxation Office has contracted the Australian National University (ANU) to carry out research at a cost of $1.5 million; (b) what is the taxation research reputation of ANU staff conducting the research; and (c) what are the publications in taxation reform of the ANU staff conducting the research.10503Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No.(2) No.(3) The Ralph report's capital gains tax recommendations will provide substantial benefits to the Australian economy.(4) The Government did not choose to contract out this research.(5) (a) Yes.(b) The principal researchers are internationally recognised academics in the field of regulatory compliance, trust and governance.(c) The researchers have published extensively in the field of tax compliance.10503(Question No. 1662)166210503Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 October 1999:(1) How many polling booths at the 1998 federal election were inaccessible by wheelchair.(2) How does this compare with the 1996 and 1993 federal elections.(3) Does the Australian Electoral Commission have a strategy to increase accessibility for disabled people at polling booths; if so, can a copy be provided.(4) What voting provisions are made for people in wheelchairs where access is not available.10503Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) For the 1998 Federal election a total of 3,377 polling places had no wheelchair access. It should be noted that, for this election, a new system of placing polling places into three wheelchair access categories (full access, access with minimal assistance, no access) was introduced. The categories are identified on all polling place advertising. The change followed meetings and discussions with the Commonwealth Disability Commissioner and also a desire by the AEC to accurately reflect Australian standard (AS 1428) access requirements. While many buildings do not fully comply with AS 1428, they may still allow for reasonable wheelchair access.(2) In 1993, 4,967 polling places had no wheelchair access. In 1996, 3,771 polling places had no wheelchair access. The significant improvement between 1993 and 1996 was as a result of both efforts to locate and utilise polling places with higher levels of wheelchair access and a full review of polling places to more accurately classify them. As wheelchair access levels constantly change due to building improvements and/or replacement and new buildings, the review of polling place locations is an ongoing process between major electoral events.(3) Yes. A copy of the Commission's Disability Discrimination Plan, which has recently been subject to broad consultation within the disability community, can be provided. The plan sets out the Commission's strategy for increasing the number of polling places with wheelchair access. The plan is also available on the Commission's web site aec.gov.au(4) There are three options for voters in situations where wheelchair access is not available. With the first option, a voter can apply for and then cast a postal vote from their own place of residence. With the second option, pre-poll voting, the Commission ensures that pre-poll voting centres have wheelchair access and are normally open for a period of two weeks prior to election day. In regard to the third option, an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 just prior to the 1998 Federal election enabled Presiding Officers to take voting material and a ballot box outside a polling place to a voter with a disability so that they could still vote without having to enter the polling place.10503(Question No. 1677)167710503Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 13 October 1999:(1) Has Telstra been advised whether Basslink will operate in a mono-pole or bi-pole configuration.(2) If Basslink operates on a mono-pole configuration, what effects will this have on Telstra's fibre-optic cables and other installations.10503Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Telstra has not been advised by Basslink of the proposed configuration.(2) Regardless of the configuration chosen for the Basslink cable, Telstra will work with Basslink and the successful tenderer to ensure that the integrity of Telstra's transmission systems is not compromised.10504(Question No. 1689)168910504Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin7Y6NTALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 October 1999:(1) Is the Treasurer aware that a number of small investors in the film production Michael have had claims in relation to their investments under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 refused by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), resulting in taxation liabilities dating back to 1995.(2) Is the Treasurer aware of any advance opinions or private binding rulings made by the ATO in relation to this production; if so, can the Treasurer advise: (a) when these opinions or rulings were made; and (b) what they said about investments in this project under the Act.(3) Has the ATO made any investigations into the companies involved in this film, Kamisha Productions Limited and Shooting Star Holdings Pty Ltd; if not, will the ATO investigate whether these companies misled investors about the allowableness under the Act for investment in this production.10504Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:(1) The ATO has been conducting a review of claims made by investors for film production costs. The review has been examining claims for deductions, under the general deduction provisions of the income tax law, of amounts that are claimed to be contributions for the production of overseas films.The ATO decision to amend assessments of participants is consistent with the self assessment system under which assessments are issued on the basis of information in a taxpayers' return. The Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) is authorised to amend an assessment if he subsequently becomes aware that there has been a tax shortfall or if a taxpayer has overpaid an amount of tax.(2) The Commissioner has advised me that he is not aware of any advance opinions or private binding rulings in relation to the production of Michael.(3) Due to the secrecy provisions of the tax law the Commissioner is unable to provide me with any details concerning the taxation affairs of the companies involved with this film.However, the Commissioner advises me that the prospectuses issued in relation to the film make it clear that the tax consequences `may not ultimately be as anticipated' and that the Commissioner may `as a matter of administrative policy, or otherwise, disallow deductions'.10504(Question No. 1693)169310504Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:With reference to the bilateral talks on human rights which took place between an Australian Government delegation and a Chinese Government delegation in China in 1999:(1) Was an agenda agreed to by the delegations at the talks.(2) Was a record taken of the discussions between the two delegations.(3) Can the Minister specify each topic discussed by the delegations and, in respect of each such topic: (a) any conclusion agreed to; and (b) the outcome of the discussion.10504Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) A broad outline of topics to be covered was agreed in advance of the third round of the dialogue, held in China from 16—21 August 1999. There were nine separate meetings with ministries and agencies during the first three days: these meetings did not have discrete agendas.(2) Each side took separate notes of the discussions.(3) The main topics fell into three broad categories: domestic, regional and international. Under the domestic heading, Australian concerns about the following matters were discussed: restrictions on the freedoms of assembly, association, expression and religion (for example, the detention of leaders of the China Democracy Party, the "reform through labour" system, the treatment of adherents of the Falun Gong, independent trade unionists, members of the unofficial Catholic church and Protestant house churches); the human rights situation in Tibet and Xinjiang and that affecting other ethnic and religious minorities in China; the welfare of the boy identified by the Dalai Lama as the new Panchen Lama; the use of the death penalty; reports of the use of torture and other degrading practices; problems in law enforcement, including the execu tion of judgements; women's rights; and reports of coercion in the implemention of China's family planning policies. The timetable for China's ratification of the two main human rights instruments, new activities under the Human Rights and Technical Assistance Program, and a number of other matters were also discussed. Multilateral and regional human rights mechanisms and activities were principally covered at the meeting with the Foreign Ministry.(a) For the most part, the topics did not lend themselves to agreed conclusions. In some cases, as for example on the death penalty, the positions were diametrically opposed. In others, there was more common ground.(b) The two sides agreed on new activities under the Human Rights and Technical Assistance Program. More details can be found on DFAT's human rights website at www.dfat.gov.au/hr/