1999-11-243914SENATE1050701999-11-24The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills10507r64610507Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Ellison:That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, and agrees to the additional amendment made by the House of Representatives to the bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering message No. 322 from the House of Representatives in relation to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 1617, as amended, be agreed to.09:31:0010507Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 16:(16) After subclause 15(1); insert: (1A) In paragraph 15(1)(ba), the conservation council of a State includes any of the following organisations: (a) the Queensland Conservation Council; (b) the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales; (c) Environment Victoria; (d) the Conservation Council of South Australia; (e) the Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.; (f) the Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc.This is one of those core amendments proposed by the Democrats to the proposed Wood and Paper Industry Council of the opposition. I say `core' in the sense that at its very heart it is designed to focus very strongly on environmental and ecological aspects of the council. In particular, it seeks to ensure:. . . the conservation council of a State includes any of the following organisations: (a) the Queensland Conservation Council; (b) the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales; (c) Environment Victoria; (d) the Conservation Council of South Australia; (e) the Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.; (f) the Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc.As I stated yesterday, it is to their great credit that much of the more enlightened debate which has occurred within the whole process of the regional forest agreements has come from such organisations. It is imperative that these organisations be represented on any such industry body, for their particular expertise and advocacy. I commend the amendment to the Senate.09:33:0010507Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the amendment, because it does bring onto the proposed wood industry or forest management council the very important conservation interest. As I said last night, this cannot be underestimated. If you look at the opinion polls you will find the majority of Australians line up with environment groups in wanting an end to the destruction of native forests in this country. Yet, with the exception of a person from the Australian Conservation Foundation and someone to represent the important interests of the forest based tourism industry being members of the council, in accordance with the amendment that we passed yesterday, that interest is missing on this council which is going to look at the management of the forest industries in the future. There is a whole range of logging interests on this council. To reflect balance in our democratic system there needs to be a range of interests representing other aspects of forest management for the future. This Democrat amendment provides for and specifies the inclusion of representatives from each of the states which are most affected by logging.I draw the committee's attention to a graph, which I have distributed to leaders in the House, which points, for example, to information about the skyrocketing export of whole logs out of Australia to be processed downstream overseas. This is basically an export of jobs and value adding—that is, profits. It is occurring on a massive scale. These figures show that in the last year, in 1999, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the amount of whole log exports from plantations in Australia increased by 90 per cent.If you go to the wharves of Burnie, for example, or to Georgetown in my home state of Tasmania you will see the whole logs piled up to be sent off to Korea and elsewhere. These logs should instead be going to the sawmills of Australia as part of domestic use. They should be creating jobs in this country. The profitability coming out of them being processed for various end uses ought to be accruing here in Australia. At the same time, of course, they have this massive capacity to save us logging native forests.But under the mismanagement of the regional forest agreements, native forest logs are being used for domestic purposes and the plantation logs, which could provide for our domestic purposes, including such uses as framing for new houses in Australia, are being exported overseas. It is crazy. It is a lose-lose situation. We lose the value added from our plantation resource and we lose ournative forests. It is no wonder that Australians are opposed to this. The lesson was learned in Queensland, where the Beattie government took into account the plantation resource in coming to a decision on the regional forest agreement, and a much better outcome was the result.But in Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, for example, plantations have been ignored. We have got this absurd situation where a regional forest agreement was based only on looking at how to cut down native forests. The prudent and feasible alternative—the plantations—was totally ignored by Prime Minister Howard and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill. That is gross mismanagement of the forest source that belongs to all Australians. I would ask that the graph I have provided the committee, headed `Exports of Softwood Plantation Saw and Veneer Logs Tasmania and Australia', be incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The graph read as follows—Source: ABS Trade StatisticsQD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I thank the committee because the graph is illustrative of the point that I am making.The other point that needs to be brought in here, because it is an urgent one, is the situation which will arise when the World Trade Organisation meets in Seattle next week. This has massive ramifications for the management of forests in our own country, but you will not hear anybody else bring this up in this debate. Decisions are being made offshore which affect our forest industries, and they will not be brought up in the council as constructed here unless the representatives, as outlined in this Democrat amendment, are on that council and can express their alarm. The World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle will have proposals before it for increasing the logging of the world's remaining forests, including Australia's. According to a report just released by the US trade representative and the Council of Environmental Quality, an increase of 9.2 per cent in logging of Australia's forests is predicted by 2010 as a result of the support of the global logging agreement which is to come before the World Trade Organisation in Seattle, supported by the United States.Where are we debating this? What is Australia's position? I ask the parliamentary secretary: what is Australia's position on the proposed world global logging agreement which will come before the Seattle meeting next week? Can the committee be informed of these things?09:40:0010510Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I refer to what I said last night. The council that the opposition has put up is proposed to be constructed in such a way—and, after the debate we have had in the Senate, will be constituted in such a way—that at least three people will be representative of the interests of environmentalists with the ACF, scientific interests or, as Senator Brown proposed last night, tourism related forest industries. So we do accommodate those interests. It can, I think, be very strongly argued that we do not go far enough. That is the argument that has been put up today. But, as I said last night, the structure and the composition of what we have proposed is something that we have discussed at length with other parties, and we do not see it as being open to us at this stage to pick up the Democrat amendment.That is the issue of substance. As to the issue of the technicalities of the amendments, I think we have a problem. Your amendments in this block basically go to the constitution of the council but also to some machinery aspects about deputy chairpersons, the provision of minutes, and so on. The problem we have is that your amendment No. 16 is actually predicated on amendment No. 12 having passed in a previous debate. Amendment No. 12 has not passed. We have already debated the issue of representation from the conservation councils of each state, and that was negatived yesterday evening. Were we to pass amendment No. 16 as you propose, we would have legislation which is inherently inconsistent. Not having endorsed the concept of conservation council members going on the body, we now, in this part of the debate, discuss the nature of those members that you want to put on the body. So, basically, I suggest to you that, having negatived amendment No. 12, we should not be proceeding with at least half this block of amendments.09:42:0010510Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I ask Senator Greig whether it is possible to move his amendments Nos 18 to 24 together, when we get there. I would like to put in that request.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Okay, when we get there. The question is that Democrat amendment No. 16 be agreed to.09:43:0010510Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Chair, just three minutes ago I asked Senator Troeth, through you, to inform the committee about the Australian government's position on a proposed global logging agreement to be discussed at the World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle next week. I want to hear from the government what the position is because there is an enormous latent interest within the Australian public about the matter. It is not right that global agreements like this are struck by the Howard government, or by anybody else, or enjoined by the Howard government, without the community being acquainted with the arguments for and against and the ramifications. We know, for example, from the furore over the endangering of the Atlantic salmon industry in Tasmania by the imports of salmon from Canada and elsewhere, how easily moves in the world forum can lead to major economic and other impacts here in Australia without the industries being aware.It is absolutely critical that Australia's position on any world or global logging agreement be flagged a week before the Seattle meeting. It is incumbent upon Senator Troeth, who has carriage of this matter for the government in this committee today, to tell the committee what the position of the Howard government negotiators in Seattle is going to be.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat agreement No. 16 be agreed to. Those of that opinion, say aye.09:45:0010510Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Chair, it is totally unsatisfactory for Senator Troeth to sit there and refuse to give the information that I am seeking. It is totally unsatisfactory. This is a parliament, a place for debate; and debate has to be based on information. This is a critical matter. One has to assume from this one of two things: either that effectively the minister dealing with this matter has no information and does not know—which is totally unacceptable—or that the Howard government does not want its position made public—which is equally reprehensible.It is totally unacceptable that a committee like this is met by total silence on an important issue like this. You will know, Chair, that there is nothing that you or I can do to evince this information from Senator Troeth on behalf of Senator Hill, Mr Wilson Tuckey—the minister for forests and so-called conservation—or the Prime Minister. What is happening here is that the government is refusing to meet the public interest by providing this information in the parliament. That is to be condemned as a total dereliction of the government's responsibilities.09:46:0010511Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Can I follow that up? Although we are not agreeing with Senator Greig and Senator Brown on this particular point, he has asked quite a relevant question. I ask the advisers either to give Senator Troeth an answer so that she can read it out in the Senate or else to put a new set of batteries in so that we know that she is alive this morning.09:47:0010511Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am not prepared to allow this to just float by, because I and my constituency are very alarmed about the prospects of an agreement being signed or enjoined by Australia in Seattle next week with a total lack of public debate here in Australia. We are talking here about the effect on our forests of the removal from Australia of its right to have defence mechanisms—including trade barrier mechanisms—in respect of the movement towards complete integration of the world economy. We need to know, the nation needs to know, why the government believes this is the right way to go. And you cannot do that by sitting in silence, by not even agreeing to the fact that a logging agreement is coming up as part of the Seattle process.I agree with Senator Bolkus that the parliamentary secretary should at least get some advice and put it before this committee. I ask her to give a commitment that she will find out what Australia's position is as far as a world logging agreement goes and provide it to this committee before this debate finishes. That is a matter of a simple phone call to Senator Hill or to Mr Tuckey or to Prime Minister Howard's office. This is a critical matter. We are talking about what Australia is doing in a world forum on trade, which has massive implications not just for trade but for this nation's environment and, I might add, for the environment of forests right around the world.Is the Howard government saying that Australians do not care? Or is it simply saying that Australians ought not be informed of this matter? Isn't this just another case of the government secretly taking up the cudgels for the big logging interests which put large amounts of money into its election coffers? It is totally unacceptable that the government stays silent on this issue. It is totally unacceptable that Senator Troeth, the parliamentary secretary, is not even prepared to seek the information that this committee has a right to have at this juncture. She and the Howard government stand condemned for this anti-public attitude.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendment No. 16 be agreed to.09:54:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.46Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Harris, L. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. 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.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.09:59:0010512Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—by leave—I move:(17) Subclause 15(3), omit "by the Minister", substitute "jointly by the Minister and the Minister for the Environment".(18) Subclause 15(4), omit "Deputy Chairperson", substitute "2 Deputy Chairpersons".(19) At the end of subclause 15(4), add: ; (c) conservation interests(20) After subclause 15(6), insert: (6A) A person represents conservation interests if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(ba), (ca), (da), (ja) or (jb).(21) Omit subclause 15(7), substitute: (7) The Chairperson and the 2 Deputy Chairpersons must each represent a different interest mentioned in subsection (4).(22) Omit subclause 15(8), substitute: (8) After each 12 months in office, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson must rotate positions.(23) Subclause 16(1), omit "The Deputy Chairperson", substitute "A Deputy Chairperson".(24) After subclause 16(1), insert: (1A) As far as practicable, the 2 Deputy Chairpersons must act in the office of Chairperson on an alternating basis.(25) Subclause 21(7), omit "5", substitute "10".(26) At the end of subclause 21(10), add "and publish them on the Internet within 14 days after each meeting".These remaining amendments are largely administrative and technical. In that sense, they do things such as replace the term `by the minister', referring to the forestry minister, with a term which jointly includes the minister for the environment, again in keeping with the Democrats' ethos of ensuring that environment and ecological issues remain paramount within the proposed council. It also expands the notion of deputy chairperson to two deputy chairpersons, ensuring that there is greater flexibility within discussions and the opportunity for people to participate.The rest are largely technical, and I have spoken to them on a previous occasion. The final amendment, No. 26, is one which I am most keen on—that is, to ensure that the committee would be obliged to publish its findings on the Internet within 14 days after each meeting. We live in an increasingly technological age where so many more people are referring to Internet technology. I think that particular amendment is in keeping with where we as a nation are going but it also facilitates, I believe, the transparency in terms of what the proposed council would and should be doing.10:01:0010512Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support these Democrat amendments, which are to improve the functioning of the proposed Wood and Paper Industry Council, which in turn is to advise government on the management of Australia's forests. I agree with Senator Greig that it is important that the minutes of the meeting, the proceedings of the meeting, are available on the Internet so people can see what is going on there. That is a very sensible move.I will be interested to see what the government's reaction to that is because what we have just seen in the Senate is a total dereliction of the government's responsibility to the Australian public. If the government is not prepared to say what it is doing in terms of signing a world logging agreement in Seattle next week, what can we expect in terms of its wanting this wood and forest products council to be open and transparent? There is a big question about transparency, and that is the public interest. It is the government's responsibility to tell the public what is going on. I again challenge the government to tell the Australian people what is happening in Seattle.A letter from Australians for Animals and other groups is going to the Prime Minister at this eleventh hour regarding this really important meeting in Seattle. It says:At the coming World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle, proposals to increase logging of the world's remaining forests have serious implications for Australia. According to a report just released by the US Trade Representative and the Council of Environmental Quality, an increase of 9.2% in logging of Australia's forests by 2010 is predicted as a result of support of the Global Logging Agreement which will be presented to the WTO by the US.A 9.2 per cent increase in logging in Australia! The letter goes on:We are writing to urge you—the Prime Minister—to ensure that Australia opposes any Global Logging Agreement at the upcoming meeting.Of particular concern is a plan being pushed by the US administration and others to accelerate the liberalization of trade in wood products through the elimination of tariffs via Accelerated Tariff Liberalization (ATL) and non-tariff measures (NTMs).We are concerned that US administration's negotiations over trade in wood products may lead to increased logging while at the same time removing key environmental protections such as export bans and eco-labelling. We are concerned that thorough analysis of the impact of such initiatives on global carbon storage, forest protection and biodiversity has not been completed.It is like, `Sign the treaty before you know the consequences.' The letter goes on:The world's forests are presently being logged at unsustainable rates with disastrous effects on global warming.We urge you, as Prime Minister, to oppose the Global Logging Agreement at the WTO. Furthermore, we oppose the elimination of NTMs that threaten this country's ability to write and enforce the laws most needed to protect our environment and our communities.Specifically, we urge you not to agree to any measure that would prohibit the following NTMs:Raw Log Export Bans—These bans seek to ameliorate the devastation that massive exporting has had on our ancient forests and on the survival of the small local mills at the heart of many state's economies.It is a two-stage process. What is happening in Australia, as I have explained earlier, is that, this year, 600,000 tonnes of plantation logs are being exported overseas while the logging industry is saying, `We need to cut down native forests to supply logs to our sawmills.' So the profits and jobs go overseas out of the plantations and the Australian forests, which people want protected, are devastated in this lose-lose situation.The second non-tariff measure that is of concern is eco-labelling and forest certification. The letter states:Such laws allow consumers to be better informed in identifying and purchasing environmentally friendly products.Is this agreement that Australia is apparently being asked to sign on to—and, as far as I know, may be promoting—going to prevent such eco-labelling? Eco-labelling enables buyers to see where wood products are coming from and selectively refuse to buy those that are part of the destruction of forests in this country and elsewhere around the world. A third point that is of concern is invasive species safeguards, and again the letter states:The most effective way to prevent bioinvasions of forests is to prevent the entry and spread of invasive species.Is that going to be prevented under a global logging agreement? The letter goes on:Our concern that the WTO threatens these vital laws is well founded. Every environmental law that has been challenged at the WTO has been found "illegal" and the guilty nation has been forced to eliminate the offending law.We are not talking about theory here; we are talking about what has already happened under the World Trade Organisation. For example, the United States put a ban on the import of shrimps because a bycatch of shrimps were rare and endangered turtles which were being killed. The United States were told by the courts that they could not, under the World Trade Organisation, keep up such a prohibition. Bad luck for the turtles. The letter continues:The United States has been forced to weaken the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act due to losses at the WTO. We believe environmental protection legislation has been considerably weakened in Australia as a result of this country's ratification of the WTO.Witness the failure of the government here to ban the import of salmon products which endanger the Atlantic salmon industry, for example. The letter goes on:According to the US study, by 2010, the ATL will have the following impact on forests allowing a significant increase in logging.World timber harvests—that is the destruction of forests, if you like—are predicted to increase by 0.5%. This small increase masks dramatic increases in some countries. Timber harvests are predicted to increase in Australia (9.2%), Chile (0.5%),—with its vast nothofagus forests—China (1.4%),—where the forests of Tibet are being marauded—Finland (11.0%), Indonesia (4.4%), Malaysia (2.6%), New Zealand (3.8%)—one presumes that there is a large plantation quotient in that one—and Sweden—likewise—(7.6%).We ask you to remove the ATL for wood products from the negotiations and explicitly oppose the inclusion of wood product NTMs in Seattle and in subsequent rounds of negotiations. We ask that the Australian government endorse and fund an immediate and comprehensive assessment of the impact of past and current WTO Agreements on forest ecosystems—that of course involves wildlife—and forest protection laws in the light of the RFA's and future contractual arrangements for Australian forests.Thank you for your prompt attention to this important issue.I hope those citizens are in a position to thank the Prime Minister. What I cannot do here today is thank this parliamentary secretary representing the government and the Prime Minister in this chamber. When I have sought information on what is going to happen next week, which vitally affects Australia's interests, I have not been met by an honest response from Senator Troeth of, `I'm not going to give the Australian public that information,' but she has sat in her seat and refused to even rise and utter a syllable. That is not acceptable.A democracy functions on information. As I said before, there can be only two explan ations for this: firstly, the parliamentary secretary does not have the information, in which case a phone call would get it; or, secondly, the government does not want the Australian public to know what will go on in Seattle next week. If you ask me, that is the answer. The opportunity is here again for Senator Troeth to get up and tell the Australian public what is going on in Seattle as far as the global logging agreement is concerned. The public deserves to know.10:11:0010514Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I was hoping that the parliamentary secretary would be rising. Will you answer that, Senator Troeth?Well, I indicate to Senator Greig that, as I mentioned earlier, we cannot support most of these amendments. In fact some of these also are dependent on amendments that you moved earlier, Senator Greig—amendments that were defeated. Can I suggest to you that you propose amendment No. 26 separate to the others. This is the amendment dealing with publishing of minutes on the Internet, and that is one we can support. It is not dependent on other amendments that have gone before us and failed before us.10:12:0010514Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Madam Chair, I am not clear on what the procedure is, but if you could facilitate amendment No. 26 being put separately, I am in accord with that.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendments Nos 17 to 25 be agreed to.10:12:0010514Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I just let it finally be put on the record that Senator Troeth—backed by one other government person in the chamber at the moment, and in the absence of the environment minister, Robert Hill, who has been absent throughout this critical debate—has refused to supply the information I have requested on the World Trade Organisation or to even honour the obligation to this chamber to say that she will get that information and provide it. I find that situation extraordinary and reprehensible.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We have been debating Democrat amendments 17 to 26. I shall now put them in two groups—Nos 17 to 25 and No. 26. The question is that Democrat amendments Nos 17 to 25 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that Democrat amendment No. 26 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that opposition amendment on sheet 1617, as amended, be agreed to.10:13:0010515Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Let me sum up by saying that we have here an amended forest and forest products council. It is not what the Greens would have established. The Democrat proposals were far better and would far better represent the interests of the Australian people. But I believe that it will at least allow discussion of what is going on in the logging industry and maybe get past some of the secrecy of the past, although I think Senator Troeth's performance here today shows that secrecy is still a bulwark of the forest industry's methodology, through government, of rapid destruction of Australia's forests, hopefully with the minimum of pain from public reaction.This is a critical issue. Wherever we can we need to be informed about what is happening in the forests of Australia. In summary: the government brought forward the regional forest agreements. It was originally a Labor government and now it is the Howard government saying that this was peace in our time. As recent events, not least in Western Australia, have shown, that is far from the case. The government cannot take a vital national asset like the wild and ancient forests of this nation and place them on the altar of quick profit making woodchip industries—and that is what this debate is about—in the face of opinion polls showing that 70 or 80 per cent of people do not want that to happen and glibly say, `Well, this is the process which is going to meet everybody's expectations.' It does not. It is an outrageous outcome.The tallest forests in the Southern Hemisphere in my home state of Tasmania are to be logged from end to end under the Howard government's agreement with the Bacon Labor government in Tasmania. It is anti-jobs; it is anti-economy in Tasmania, where the majority of jobs in the forest industries these days is in the service and tourism industry, taking people to see these wonderful forests; and it is anti-environment. You cannot expect it in New South Wales, where thousands of hectares of forests which are the habitat of koalas are targeted under this legislation for destruction. You cannot expect it in Western Australia where, as Senator Greig has been saying, threatened species like the chudditch, the native tiger cat, are having their habitats serially reduced under these totally unnecessary regional forest agreements which fail to take into account the massive plantation base in Australia which can provide all our wood requirements and provide it right now. You cannot expect it in Victoria, where a wild and scenic forest like Goolengook, since the signing of the regional forest agreement, has been illegally logged under the Kennett government and environment minister Tehan, who simply put through a bill and retrospectively made their illegal activities legal.This is legislation which flies in the face of public sentiment in this country. It is legislation which does service to massive donors to the big political parties—I am talking about the woodchip corporations and logging corporations. It is legislation which sells out future generations because it diminishes the already much diminished forest domain in Australia. It is legislation which is going to drive species to extinction. It is legislation which is going to sully pristine rivers and catchments supplying populations downstream and other industries. It is legislation which is going to deprive Australians of jobs because as the forests diminish so do the service industries which increasingly are dependent upon them.Let me repeat that in Tasmania 2,000 people are involved in destroying native forests—unnecessarily, because the plantations can supply our needs and the plantation logs are being exported whole to Korea—but 3,000 jobs are dependent on keeping the forest intact for the tourism and service industries, which are creating jobs at the same time as the woodchip industries are shedding jobs due to automation and aggregation. This legislation has all sorts of hidden costs and long-term opportunity losses. It is extraordinary that this legislation is going to pass the parliament against the public interest.The Howard government should hang its head in shame. I guess it shows its cavalier attitude to the public that there are only two members of the government in this chamber at this moment. I guess it shows its disdain for the critical issue of the forest environment, including the wildlife that Australians love and want to see protected, that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Robert Hill, has absented himself throughout this long debate. I find that a total dereliction of his responsibility to that portfolio, to those forests and to the Australian people. This is a black moment for Australia's forests, for Australia's environment and for public sentiment in this country.Maybe the conservatives opposite ought to look at what is happening in New Zealand at the moment, where there has been a surge for the Greens in the weeks leading up to next Saturday's poll, and recognise that this is not just a one-off and that, when it comes down to it and other issues are talked out by the big parties, quality of life, a fair go and environmental excellence do count. In New Zealand the Greens are still fighting against unnecessary and wanton logging of forests on the South Island; and that matters to young people—it matters to all people. If I were a New Zealander in this country—and apparently there are 100,000 of them—I would make sure I got to the polling booth before next Friday to cast a vote for the Greens to ensure they do get across the five per cent line and get seats in parliament and are able to speak up for environmental and other issues which the Nationals in New Zealand have held in such disdain over recent years.This government thumbs its nose at public sentiment on issues such as forests, in the way it has done today, at its own long-term peril. That does not concern me near as much as the peril of the forests themselves. These regional forest agreements usher in an age of unbridled and unprecedented destruction. It is almost incredible that we could be legislating here today to open the way for the greatest rate of destruction of Australia's wild forests and wildlife at a time when we have less left before than in all of human history. And it is so unnecessary, because we have that plantation base which can meet all of Australia's wood product needs, including its export woodchip requirements. Those plantations were built up over past decades using taxpayers' money. They were put in in the expectation that they would meet a need for Australia as the demand grew. What we now know, from independently assessed factual material, is that those plantations can meet all our needs. This destruction of native forests and wildlife is so unnecessary, but that is what the Senate is being asked to give its stamp of approval to.In Tasmania last week, the Labor and Liberal parties got together and passed a motion—there was one dissenter, Green MP Peg Putt—calling for no amendments to this legislation at all. How far out of touch with public sentiment are the big parties on this matter? Let me say a word of commendation for the movement that is obvious with the Labor Party at a national level. It has no doubt been fostered by the enormous public reaction against the continued woodchipping of forests in Western Australia as well as in the eastern states, but it is to be encouraged. My word of advice to the Labor Party is that, at its national conference in Hobart next year, it should come up with a new suite of environmental policies which involve ending the unnecessary destruction of wild forests in this country. That will give it a plus with the Australian people when they next go to the polls.In the meantime I make this commitment as an Australian Green: I will continue to fight in this place for the protection of Australia's wildlife and its forests and its ecosystems. I will continue to fight against this prejudiced and ill-informed destruction involved in the passage of this legislation. I have never seen a situation like that which I saw this morning where, on a matter which is of global importance—that is, Australia's role in Seattle next week—not only did the government refuse to give information, but the government repre sentative failed to get out of her seat and make a commitment to inform the Australian people. This whole process is reprehensible; it is anti-public as well as anti-forests. I hope it is the government and not the forests that ultimately end up being the receivers of the damage from this totally unacceptable process.We live to fight another day. It is obviously up to the people of Australia to tackle governments and oppositions on this matter. The issue is far from over. I, for one, will continue to fight for our forests as long as I draw breath in this place.10:26:0010517Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—This proposal by the opposition for its Wood and Paper Industry Council is certainly a far cry from what we Democrats had advocated and had fought for throughout the duration of this debate. It now stands on record that we Democrats principally fought to improve on the council with our particular arguments for environmental and ecological advocacy. These were best encapsulated by our attempt at passing Democrat amendment (2) relating to the objectives of the council. This would have sought to alter the functions of the proposed council so that it would be obliged to pursue certain objectives, the first of those being ecologically sustainable forest management in all RFA regions—not unremarkable, I think. Secondly, the council would have had to pursue the objective of increasing the areas available for conservation purposes. Given the overwhelming public opinion in favour of that, I find it difficult to understand why that too could not be supported. The third objective would have included protecting threatened species, some of which we have spoken of by name. The one which I am most familiar with is the native cat, or chudditch, in my home state. It is in grave danger of extinction in that state.Further, there would have been a focus on protecting wetland areas and areas of important ecological diversity. Again, that is nothing too remarkable. Our proposal to alter the objectives of the council would also have ensured that the principles of ecologically sustainable development for forest industries were also a part of that council. I find it astonishing that that could not have been supported.The Democrats fought also to ensure that the conservation council should have included the notion that every state ought to have representation on such a council, in part through the participation and advocacy of groups such as the Queensland Conservation Council, the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, Environment Victoria, the Conservation Council of South Australia, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and the West Australian Conservation Council. That too was rejected.I think it is very sad that, in the question before us about one particular industry council advocated by the government and another proposed by the opposition, both fall far short of any serious attempt to consider our forest industries, such as they are, as to any extent focusing on those things that most people really care about within the forests—that is, their protection, the animal and bird life living within them and the actual vegetative diversity that the forests themselves constitute. I was particularly appalled that no real recognition was granted to the notion of consideration and protection of threatened species within such logged areas of native forests.On the question before us, what is it that we do? Senator Brown has said on a previous occasion that he can count. I too can count, and I can see that at the end of the day one of these industry councils is going to be successful. The question in front of us, therefore, with any semblance of ecological imperative and advocacy is: on which do we decide? To that end, the Democrats have decided with great reluctance that we will support the opposition's amendment in relation to this council.In doing so, I am pleased to place on record that we Democrats fought as best we could in trying to vastly improve on the proposition before us. We are sincere and passionate about protecting our native forests. We too will live to fight another day, but for now I remain confident that we have argued on every point that we could in making what we see as a proposition for a bad council better to some small extent. I am very pleased that I have been able to represent the concerns of the many passionate Western Australians so keen on protecting the native forests in that state. We certainly did what we could. In summing up, I am saying that we support this amendment with great reluctance. It is a great pity that Labor could not have approached this issue with more sincerity.Amendment, as amended, agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, I think your amendments on sheet 1619 have been overtaken by the passage of this. We now move to the final questions. I recall from the debate several weeks ago when we started that we said we would actually divide these questions. The first question is that the committee does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives. The second question will be that the committee agrees to the additional amendment made by the House of Representatives as amended. I now put the first question. That question is that the committee does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives.10:33:0010518Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—We are nearing the end of a debate which the opposition has made clear will not result in a bill to which the government can agree. For reasons that I have already explained at length, the government cannot accept the opposition's proposals for parliamentary scrutiny and potential disallowance of the regional forest agreements. To do so would result in widespread disruption and unemployment, particularly for small sawmills and their contractors—the very people who the opposition claims to represent.When the bill was last before the Senate, Senator Murphy, who for some inexplicable reason is not here today, challenged me to explain why these things would happen. `Scaremongering' was the term that Senator Murphy and the opposition used. Let me therefore bring home to you once again what you are trying to do to these small sawmills and their employees. The opposition amendments propose that an RFA is not an RFA until it has undergone a parliamentary scru tiny process and potential disallowance. Under current regulations, exports of woodchips would not be allowed after 31 December 1999 unless an RFA was in place. The government has announced that it will recommend that these regulations be extended to 31 March 2000. I acknowledge that the opposition has indicated it will support this extension, which is consequent to delays arising out of the Victorian election.The opposition amendments would prevent any RFAs from being finalised by even the extended date, except possibly those signed before 31 March 1999. As a result, were your amendments to be accepted, woodchip exporters would immediately cease accepting sawmill waste, which would in turn jeopardise the financial viability of small sawmills in particular. If you want further confirmation of that, ask NAFI, ask the woodchip exporters, ask the Forest Protection Society or even ask the CFMEU. They will tell you exactly the same thing.It is the opposition's intransigence on this issue which will be solely responsible for this bill being laid aside. The opposition's position will become even more absurd when all the RFAs are signed and the 31 March deadline is reached because then the effect of the opposition amendments will be to invalidate all the RFAs. In case the opposition believes that the woodchip regulations can be indefinitely extended, let me tell you that the government has no wish to join the opposition in making a farce of the RFA process, nor would further extensions be supported by the Labor government in Victoria and New South Wales.Finally, throughout this debate the opposition has repeatedly claimed that arrogance, stubbornness or refusal to negotiate on the part of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation has prevented an outcome to this debate. Let me state for the record that the government and the minister have always been willing to negotiate sensible amendments to this legislation. The opposition has rejected those approaches. It is now exposed as an opposition which opposes for opposition's sake, an opposition which has no policy other than opposition and an opposition which has betrayed its own constituency.To those opposite who have been preaching negotiation and compromise, particularly senators and members of the other place from Tasmania—and I do note that there are no opposition senators from Tasmania present in the chamber today—I say: make sure that you advise your constituents of the truth when you return to your states for the summer recess. I can assure you that the government will make sure that the timber states and the electorates are fully aware of the way in which you have denied them the security, the certainty and the optimism for their future to which they are entitled.10:38:0010519Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—We have heard it all before. It is a bit rich for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, having sat here mute all morning and having not once answered a question put to her by opposition or Independent senators, to suddenly find a voice—a voice that has been scripted for her by Mr Tuckey, her master's voice. Senator Troeth, why did you wake up so late? What have you been doing for the last two hours?GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Where were you for the rest of the debate?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I have been here all morning; I was here all night. Senator Troeth, you were sitting there like a dummy without batteries, saying absolutely nothing.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Address the chair, please, Senator Bolkus.Senator Troeth interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—And what have you come up with now? You have come up with rhetoric that we have heard time and time again and that does not wash in the community. This has been a truly pathetic contribution from a parliamentary secretary who, as a former Premier of Victoria used to say, should not be here. Is this the best the government can do in its defence? We have here two sets of amendments proposed by the Senate that go to the two particularly important aspects of this debate.If you are concerned about the logging industry, you need to be concerned about the sustainability of it and its resource. You cannot just go out there and promise that tomorrow will never come, as Mr Tuckey does. You have to be concerned about the sustainability of the resource, and you have to be concerned about where the industry is going. This government has not shown any such concern. This government is sitting on its hands while job after job is being lost. If you look at the figures of employment in the industry, you see that this industry needs direction.That is why we have put up the proposal for an industry council—a proposal that the government has opposed. You cannot have it all ways, Senator Troeth. You cannot just sit there and watch jobs going away, claiming that you are in support of jobs, without trying to give some focus to this industry. In giving that industry focus, we are concerned about sustainability. What is wrong with recognising that in this legislation we are giving industry—and, let me say, a lot of people across the community have problems with this—a 20-year blank cheque?In those circumstances, is it incumbent on the parliament to show some responsibility or do we turn a blind eye to, for instance, what is happening in Western Australia? If you are concerned about the national forest policy, as you claim to be and as we are, you need to be sure that those policy elements are being put into effect. You cannot just say, `Righto, Richard Court, do what you like.' You cannot say to the states, `Do what you like,' and you cannot say to the industry, `Do what you like.' You have to say, `We have a policy that we are pursuing.' We need to ensure that the policy elements are being pursued.The accountability mechanism is all about on the one hand recognising that this is a big give to the industry sector—much more than most people in this community can chew—and on the other hand saying, `We want to ensure that we don't have the bodgie process that has continued in WA.' That is what this needs to be about. You are isolated because, in the state of Western Australia, this minister—who cannot get on with anyone— cannot even get on with his own state party colleagues. It is now incumbent on the Prime Minister to move Wilson Tuckey. We need to put an end to division in this sector. We need to get people working together, and there is absolutely no way that this rabid minister is capable of doing that.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator, please do not reflect upon a member of either this place or the other place.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I withdraw. But I could put on the record everything that his own state parliamentary colleagues have said about him, which would be much worse than calling him `rabid'. You cannot end the division, give sustainable direction and get people working together with Wilson Tuckey. This minister is a red rag to a bull, and you know it very well. If he cannot fix up his own backyard in respect of Western Australia, he has Buckley's in respect of this.The victims in all this are not parliamentarians of one side or another; the victims of Wilson Tuckey's rabid behaviour are people working in the logging industry. You cannot keep on feeding these people with the bulldust that this minister continues to feed them. You have to give them something substantive, and that is why we say that it is a bit belated for the parliamentary secretary to enter this debate.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—It's belated for you! Where were you in the 25 hours of this debate?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Well, she has found a voice! Who put the batteries in? Would someone put their hand up? Someone has finally put the batteries in the bunny—how about that.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—She's a wind-up job!XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—She may very well be, Senator Quirke.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Would you please stop reflecting upon honourable members in this place or the other place.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Let me close on this particular point: repeated rhetoric from a rabid minister does this debate no good. If you really want policy outcomes, look at a way of implementing the national forestry statement. If you want to do that, these two sets of proposals that the Senate looks like endorsing today are the way to go.10:44:0010520Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The committee should insist on the amendments; that is the least that we can do. The extraordinary thing that Senator Troeth contributed to this debate, at the outset of her winding-up comments, was that this government cannot allow parliamentary scrutiny of what is going on in the forest industry in this country. That says it all. What an extraordinary, anti-Australian sentiment that is! Over $200 million of taxpayers' money can be fed into the woodchip corporations' interests through the regional forest agreements and the Prime Minister can fly to several states to sign agreements with premiers for the destruction of forests over the next 20 years—which will involve a massive loss of Australian heritage, people's rights and opportunities for businesses and job creation—but the government does not want parliamentary scrutiny.Senator Troeth is saying that, as far as the forests are concerned, the parliament should be abolished. The next step from that—because we are getting very close to where the government stands here—is to hand the matter across to the woodchip corporations. That would do away with the public good, the public interest and the workers' interests, almost as rapidly as the woodchip companies are putting workers out of jobs, and leave things to these big donors to the government's election coffers who are calling the shots for these regional forest agreements and this legislation. I remind this committee about clause 7 of this legislation—put in last at the request of the woodchip corporations' lawyers. It is the compensation clause.If this government cared two hoots about jobs in the industry, it would have made sure that such a clause endorsed those jobs and made it incumbent on the woodchip industry, if it is to keep shedding jobs at the record rate that it is doing at the moment, to compensate the workers losing their jobs or at least reskill them. Many of these people are in regional areas and they do not have other opportunities. But that is not the case here. Since the regional forest agreement was signed by Prime Minister John Howard in Perth in Tasmania two years ago and he mouthed off about jobs, 500 Tasmanians in this industry have effectively been sacked. The last batch that I read about included men with families and commitments. They have log trucks worth between $250,000 and $500,000, which are mortgaged, and they are members of the Forest Protection Society—this front for the woodchip corporations and a society in which, no doubt, a number of members opposite have paid-up membership as well.Did that protect them? Did the Prime Minister's signature on the forest agreement in Tasmania protect them? No, it did not. They have been sacked by North, which is always in the business of downsizing. Its aim is to get rid of jobs to maximise profit—a profit extracted from the Tasmanian forests at a loss to everybody. So here we have a dozen men who said, `We went to the forest protests against the greenies'—which means against the majority of Australians—`and we packed up and went to support the woodchip corporations. We thought this would give us security and we were told that the regional forest agreement guaranteed our jobs. We joined the Forest Protection Society funded by the woodchip corporations and we thought that this was our ticket to an assured income so we could send our kids to school and have the things that people want to have in this country.'But the ink is hardly dry from the Prime Minister's pen and the pens of leaders like Premier Bacon and Deputy Premier Lennon in Tasmania and these guys are being sacked. Who is raising a word of support for these workers? Where is Deputy Premier Lennon? Where is Premier Bacon? Where, indeed, is Prime Minister Howard when these members of the Forest Protection Society are being destroyed as far as their livelihoods are concerned? They are being put on the rack. They are losing not only their trucks but their houses as well. Senator Robert Hill is not here to listen to this or to answer for it. I can tell you something else: Senator Troeth, the most junior person possible that the government has to take carriage of this legislation, is not going to get up and answer for them either. When it gets down to it, they do not care two hoots. There is a much more important factor at play here: the political donations coming in from those corporations profiting from our forests.The whole process is corrupt and insidious. It eats away at the fabric of democracy in this country and the livelihoods of such people as I have just described. These people are, on the one hand, given these glib assurances by PR machines and greenwash and then, on the other hand, when they have given the support that was required for the political fix, they are dumped. For 15 years I have been calling on the Tasmanian parliament and this parliament for the rights of these workers to be guaranteed. If you are going to insist on destroying Australia's forests and you say that the argument is jobs, then guarantee it in legislation like this. But neither the government nor the Labor Party has done that. What is guaranteed instead is the woodchip corporations' profit. Clause 7 says that, if any future federal minister intervenes to protect one stick, one tree or one valley of Australia's heritage forests, the woodchip corporations—which never paid a red cent for those forests—will be compensated for the value of the forests were they to be cut down and the product exported to Japan.So the Australian taxpayers are left in the situation where their forests, if they are to be protected in the future, have to be bought from the woodchip corporations. Talk about land rights! It is wholesale ownership of the forests by the woodchip corporations at the behest of weak-kneed politicians, with this insidious money pouring into coffers process going on in the back rooms. It is disgusting and reprehensible.But the outcome here will not matter because I am saying so. Senator Troeth will not get up and countermand me. She simply says, `Go and get confirmation that these mild amendments before us today will threaten jobs.' But who do you go and ask? Do you go to some independent arbiter? What is Senator Troeth's backstop? From her own mouth she tells us. She says, `Go to the woodchip corporations to get justification for what is happening here. Go to the Forest Protection Society'—this front for the woodchip corporations funded by the woodchip corporations which, without any protest of any significance, allows its workers to be dumped in the way I have just described—`or ask NAFI.'Let me tell the committee what NAFI is, seeing that the minister has not. NAFI is the National Association of Forest Industries. What is it made up of? It is made up of the woodchip corporations. So what Senator Troeth, the fount of wisdom in this debate, is saying backs up my argument: she is saying `the woodchip corporations, the woodchip corporations, the woodchip corporations'.How come the Australian people do not count? How come, at a time when we know that the plantations can supply our needs, the public sentiment for protecting forests is being ignored in this matter? This is a prescription for this government, at the behest of the woodchip corporations, to throw away what has been its responsibility for 20 years and to say to any future government that picks up that responsibility, `You intervene, and the woodchip companies get compensated with millions of dollars out of the taxpayers' purse,' for simply not sending the chainsaws into Australia's wild forests which the woodchip corporations never paid a cent for. What an extraordinary situation. It is totally reprehensible, totally irresponsible and totally against the public interest because it is so unnecessary.We could have a win-win situation here. We could be exploiting our plantations and protecting our native forests. But, as the graph I gave to the committee this morning shows, that is not an option. We get the plantations and we export them as whole logs to create jobs and add value; that means profitability elsewhere. So much for regional Australia, which the government says it is defending. It is doing nothing of the sort. This is a fix not for regional Australia; it is a fix for the woodchip corporations located in downtown Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. It is a fix for the big profit getters, the big shareholders involved in those woodchip corporations, including several banks—Westpac being one of them.Regional Australia is being dumped by this legislation and this fix; the workers are being dumped. Since Prime Minister Howard signed that document in Tasmania two years ago assuring jobs, 500 Tasmanians have been shown the door by the woodchip corporations and the logging industry—500. If that figure is wrong, let us hear from Senator Troeth what the right figure is. Instead of stopping the haemorrhage of jobs which has occurred since the woodchippers arrived in Tasmania, this accelerates the process. It is a total fraud against the public interest, and the government stands indicted for this legislation.10:57:0010522Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats remain resolute with our position on this and argue that the Senate must insist on its amendments. I am very conscious of the fact that so many, particularly Western Australians in overwhelming numbers, are not simply asking but pleading with the Western Australian Democrats and other Western Australian senators to do whatever they can if not to reject the RFA in total—which I think would be best in light of the clear wishes of Western Australians—then just to improve on it wherever possible. Of particular interest to Western Australians—and it is something they are passionate about—is the RFA process in Western Australia. It has been a complete debacle from start to finish and it continues to embarrass the state government which, in turn, continues to run and hide from every question put to it on the whole process.Western Australians were particularly delighted that one of the amendments made in this chamber with the critical support of the Democrats was to allow a disallowance of regional forest agreements signed post 1 March. This, of course, would include Western Australia, where so many people are hopeful of going back to square one on that issue and having a serious and legitimate attempt at creating an opportunity to have a logging industry in Western Australia that is both sustainable and ecologically responsible.I really have nothing further to say other than to make it utterly and entirely clear that we will be insisting on the amendments. As I stated in the previous debate, we do not think the amendments go nearly far enough. But it is clear that both the government and the opposition are largely of one mind on this process and that Democrat influence in this instance is limited in terms of making a bad bill better. But, at the very least, we do insist on the amendments that were first proposed to the House of Representatives.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I now propose to put the two questions separately and without further debate. The question is that the committee does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, I just draw the committee's attention to the requirements under standing orders for the declaration of pecuniary interest in any matter.11:04:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)30Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Harris, L.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.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.Boswell, R. L. D. Murphy, S. M.Chapman, H. G. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibson, B. F. Ray, R. F.Macdonald, I. Carr, K.Minchin, N. H. Crowley, R. A.Newman, J. M. Faulkner, J. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the committee agrees to the additional amendment made by the House of Representatives, as amended.11:09:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.30Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Harris, L.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Carr, K. Macdonald, I.Crowley, R. A. Minchin, N. H.Faulkner, J. P. Newman, J. M.Forshaw, M. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Murphy, S. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Ray, R. F. Gibson, B. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills10524r829Billsr828Billsr83010524Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.11:13:0010524O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Senator Evans, having just been called to the division, has now returned to his office to obtain his papers. I am happy to `entertain' the time that is available until he gets here, if that is the right word.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Tell us how many people will be on social security now as a result of your vote in the—8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—That is a very interesting point. If the chair will permit me, I will address aspects of Senator Abetz's point. Of course, the only reason they would be is that the position that the government is taking would be to hold the state of Tasmania to ransom over Western Australia. The RFA legislation, as amended by the Labor Party's position— N26ABETZSenator Abetz—You are holding Tasmania to ransom.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Abetz, if you are going to interject, do so from your own chair, please.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—And then do not interject—if I might say so, Mr Acting Deputy President—because it is disorderly. In terms of the position that Senator Abetz has taken, the fact of the matter is that the Western Australian RFA has in effect been rejected by Premier Court; and now we have a situation where Senator Abetz is voting to hold the state of Tasmania to ransom over the Western Australian RFA—a most curious position. I must say that it was curious that Senator Abetz would invite me to comment on that matter straight after a vote had been taken, and that is the reason that I did so; but perhaps I will return to that matter later.11:15:0010524Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and the associated package of social security bills. In doing so, I commend Senator O'Brien for his worthwhile contribution to the debate. The Labor Party has some concerns about the approach adopted by the government in relation to these bills—they are allegedly all about simplification—and about where that approach will take us; but, on the whole, we have decided to support that approach and support passage of the bills.We do have some serious concerns about some of the more minor measures contained in the bills—measures which, in our view, restrict appeal rights and access to appeal for clients of Centrelink and for people seeking social security benefits in this country. For that reason we will move a series of amendments, consistent with our policy on previous social security bills, to protect those appeal rights.This debate has to be put into the context of the government's and the minister's recent attempt to limit access to welfare in this country. We all know that the minister, in her self-proclaimed seminal address on welfare, set out an agenda for attacking benefits paid to people such as those on disability support payments and sole parenting payments. The minister was pulled into line quite severely by the Prime Minister. Both the speech and the discussion paper—which has now been released—have been severely sanitised in order to reflect a more open approach and one that is less judgmental.It is very clear that the minister's agenda has been seen through. We know that it is about reducing access to social security. It is an agenda of cutting and reducing income support benefits wherever possible, an agenda restricting access to benefits and turning the whole social security system against the very people it is supposed to be supporting. The minister seems to justify her approach in all these areas by claiming that many recipients are frauds and should not be receiving the benefits that they currently access. Her modus operandi is to blame the recipients of income support and then cut their benefits. The agenda is dressed up as mutual obligation but it is generally just about reducing the benefits, and there is nothing `mutual' about the obligations that are imposed. The government has in fact cut the services and benefits that it provides as part of its obligations.The minister seems incapable of thinking about income support without talking about fraud and welfare dependency. According to the briefings given to journalists prior to her seminal address, she is keen to cut the disability support pension and single-parent payments. The minister is actively inciting the politics of envy against these two vulnerable groups in society. I know from talking in recent times with groups representing those people that there is a great deal of concern about the government's agenda.The paper tabled on 9 November on welfare dependency indicates that the government wants to reduce disability support pensions to the level of the Newstart allowance—which represents a reduction of over $1,000 per year to some recipients of the DSP. People receiving the DSP would also be required to meet the more stringent activity tests. The paper indicates that the government wants to significantly lower the children's age at which the parent payment cuts out, potentially lowering it from 16 years to just five years. The paper indicates that the government wants to withhold a proportion of the Newstart allowance, unless the recipient meets certain obligations.The whole intent and direction of the government's policy on welfare is clear. It is very much a narrow exercise in cutting costs. There is no discussion on how we might improve our welfare system and better assist those in need in our community. Labor support an objective analytical review of welfare dependency issues, but we are highly cynical of the government's approach. We are highly concerned that the language, precedents and government track record all lead you to the one outcome from this whole debate: cutting costs by reducing benefits to recipients.In terms of the specific bills, the Social Security (Administration) Bill contains significant changes to the obligations of people receiving payments from Centrelink. I wish to discuss some of those changes and some of Labor's concerns. The current act allows Centrelink to issue notices requiring recipients of payments to notify changes in circumstances and events relevant to their eligibility. The standard time limit for notification is 14 days. The bill proposes a number of changes to the system. Rather than having a simple, easily understood time limit of 14 days, there will now be a range of time limits, depending upon the information required.If a person is providing Centrelink with information about a compensation payment, the time limit will be seven days. If a person is giving information about most other matters, the time limit will be 14 days. If Centrelink thinks there are special circumstances, a delegate of the secretary can specify a time limit of between 15 and 28 days. I remind the Senate once again of the government's claim that these bills are about creating a simpler social security system. It does not seem to me that this will add to a simpler social security system.Currently, we have one standard notification period that is understood by most clients, and it is proposed to replace it with a raft of different requirements, depending on the circumstances of the individual client. Indeed, some clients will have to keep track of a range of different time limits for different types of changes in circumstance. A person receiving compensation payments as well as Centrelink payments will have 14 days to notify a change of address but only seven days to notify even the slightest change in compensation payments. How does the government expect ordinary people, the customers of Centrelink, to keep up with that sort of complicated system?This is particularly an issue with Centrelink's clients from non-English-speaking backgrounds. There would be an understandable source of confusion out there on just when changes should be notified to Centrelink. No doubt the minister will claim credit for cracking down on welfare fraud when Centrelink recovers money overpaid to recipients because they have inadvertently failed to comply with the new, complicated arrangements.Another significant aspect of these bills is the imposition of time limits for the review of decisions. These bills will bar people from appealing against Centrelink decisions outside the limit of 52 weeks for internal review by an authorised review officer and 28 days for a review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The government has proceeded with these changes despite the advice of a number of agencies with expertise in the area. Those agencies rightly point out that many social security recipients have literacy, numeracy and language barriers resulting from having a limited formal education, having a disability or being from a non-English speaking or Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. It takes time to arrange translations into community languages or plain English. Not surprisingly, many low income people face situations of crisis—for example, homelessness, illness or domestic violence. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to provide a short period within which to appeal a decision.There is no clear reason for the changes being proposed yet again by the government in these bills. There are already restrictions on the amount of arrears a person can receive if they do not appeal within the time limit. Currently, if a person appeals later than 13 weeks after the original decision, they can receive arrears only from the date on which they lodged their appeal. In a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into these bills, the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services argued that these changes were necessary because of the requirement of the Archives Act that records be destroyed 12 months after a person stops receiving payments.It is important to note, however, that the Archives Act does not require records to be destroyed once they are 12 months old. They need only be destroyed 12 months after the person last received social security payments. In the overwhelming majority of cases, people who are seeking review of decisions continue receiving social security payments of one kind or another. This means that the department may very well have access to the relevant documentation. In situations where the department is recovering a debt from a person who is no longer receiving payments, the Archives Act allows for records to be retained until the debt is repaid. In most cases, debtors ask for decisions to be reviewed before the old debt has been fully repaid, so once again the Archives Act in no way justifies a reduction in the time limits for review of decisions.The government would have us believe that the time limits of 52 weeks for a review by an authorised review officer and 28 days for a review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are quite reasonable. But this simply shows how out of touch the government and the minister are with the reality of ordinary people's lives. There are many cases where these time limits could cause grave injustice. For example, where a person receives a sizeable lump sum compensation payment, they may be precluded from receiving social security payments for some years. At the time a person receives a lump sum compensation payment, they are less likely to challenge a decision about a preclusion period as they have little need for social security in the short term. Several years down the track, however, their circumstances may be very different and they may need that financial assistance. Even where the preclusion period was incorrectly calculated by the original decision maker and even though the person would have no entitlement to arrears, they would have no right to review of the original decision once the 52-week time limit had expired. Once again, these changes will punish the most disadvantaged—the homeless, those from non-English speaking backgrounds, indigenous people and people who have had limited access to education.The Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services noted that the changes in time limits for review of decisions were in line with the recommendations of the review conducted by Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. This is hardly a persuasive reason for such dramatic change. These changes will mean that people who are entitled to social security payments will not be able to obtain them because of a legal trap established by the government. The opposition cannot in good conscience allow those changes to proceed without challenge. We will be moving amendments to these bills in the Senate to remove the time limits for review of decisions. This is not the first time the government has attempted to impose time limits for review of decisions. The same changes in relation to the Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 have already been rejected by the Senate.The way the Social Security Appeals Tribunal hears appeals will also be affected by this bill. Along with seeking to restrict access to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal by imposing a 28-day time limit, through these bills the government seeks to make significant changes to the way the SSAT deals with appeals. Firstly, the government wants to allow the SSAT to determine appeals without hearing oral evidence from the parties. This will cause significant inequalities, for it favours people who are able to express themselves clearly in writing. Once again, the victims will be the disadvantaged, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and people with limited literacy. While the government admits that a significant proportion of the population do not have adequate literacy skills, they are removing the right of people to present their submissions orally to the SSAT.Allowing the SSAT to determine appeals without hearing oral evidence is an extraordinarily discriminatory provision. Even for those with good literacy skills, the idea of determining appeals on the basis of purely written evidence presumes that Centrelink clearly communicates the reasons for decisions and that people are able to understand the law well enough to respond appropriately in writing. These assumptions once again demonstrate the government's ignorance of the circumstances of many people who require the assistance of Centrelink.The Social Security Appeals Tribunal is designed to operate in an informal manner, with expert members from legal, welfare or administrative backgrounds, so as to draw out the relevant information without expecting the applicant to present cogent, well-argued legal submissions. Applicants are clearly disadvantaged in any dispute with Centrelink officers who apply the Social Security Act on a daily basis. The only way to help alleviate this disadvantage is to allow applicants to appear before the tribunal and present evidence in an informal setting. Any change to the current system of face-to-face hearings will clearly prevent some applicants from gaining their full legal rights. Labor will also be seeking to amend these provisions of the bills to ensure that people retain access to the oral provisions of the SSAT.Another concern that the Labor Party has with these bills is the requirement of the SSAT to refer back to Centrelink any new evidence presented to the tribunal unless it is satisfied that the applicant had reasonable grounds for not providing the information to Centrelink. Currently, the SSAT can receive and take into consideration new evidence and make an informed decision on the spot about the relevance of that evidence. What the government is proposing will complicate that process and require the SSAT to refer any new evidence back to Centrelink if it is judged that it should have been presented earlier. It is difficult to understand the rational for this clause. The then Department of Social Security suggested to the Guilfoyle review:. . . this would encourage applicants to disclose all evidence as early as possible in the process.It is not clear how applicants are expected to know about this rule. Most applicants are new to the tribunal and, therefore, have no understanding of the legislation that determines the tribunal's role. Most people will find out about this rule only when they find their appeal being referred back to Centrelink, which is far too late in the process.The only thing that this change will achieve is more delays in finalising decisions, many of which involve people in dire financial circumstance who are after speedy, efficient and fair decisions. Making the process more complicated, bureaucratic and legalistic will only undermine access to justice and discourage people from exercising their rights to appeal to an independent tribunal. As a result, Labor will be moving amendments to oppose this proposed change.It is important that we look at the context within which the provisions of this bill are being debated. Only two weeks ago we had a Senate inquiry into the minister's refusal to come clean on her welfare agenda. The minister, as I said earlier, has an agenda of cutting benefits, restricting access to income support and turning the system against the very people it is supposed to support. These bills reflect further that negative agenda. As a result, we have restrictions on the time allowed to appeal decisions, the removal of the right to present oral submissions to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and a range of other changes that will adversely affect income support recipients. All of the proposed changes I have noted will act to disadvantage income support recipients, and none of the changes are, in our view, justified.Also, in the context of recent reports about the efficiency of Centrelink, both from the Ombudsman and from the Auditor-General, which highlight inadequacies in Centrelink's capacity to correctly process information to provide accurate assessments, it is important that we are very vigilant about anything that seeks to restrict access to appeal for the clients of Centrelink. Recent evidence points out that all at Centrelink is not as well as the government would have us believe and that the systems and service are not as perfect as the minister would sometimes contend. Clearly, the billion dollars taken out of Centrelink's resources and the staff cut of 5,000 in the last couple of years are having an effect on its ability to service its client base.In the context of the cutbacks to Centrelink and the independent reports about efficiency and administration problems inside Centrelink, we ought to be very wary about restricting the rights of Centrelink clients to appeal decisions. That gives us extra reason to be cautious. Because of those concerns, Labor will be moving amendments to protect those appeal rights in line with the arguments and the suggestions contained in my contribution today. I look forward to the committee stage and to gaining support, once again, for maintaining those appeal rights. The Senate supported similar amendments in the package of family assistance bills earlier this year, and I hope senators will again see fit to protect those appeal rights when we move those amendments.11:32:0010528Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats to the three pieces of social security legislation that are now before the Senate, relating predominantly to administrative matters and consequential follow-on matters. As senators would be aware, these three bills are quite sizeable. Despite the number of pages within them, the eventual effect of their being passed, at least according to the government, is that the Social Security Act will be about 500 pages less than it is now. That outcome, of itself, is something to aim for as long as that reduction in the number of pages is not at the cost of the entitlements or protections for the less well off in the Australian community.The bills, as a whole, are predominantly aimed at simplifying the various technical rules by standardising them and trying to ensure consistency across provisions. That is an aim that the Democrats have long advocated. One has only to look at the Audit Office's report that was released the other day to see the problems that can occur due to excessive complexity in social security legislation. The Audit Office reported a very high mistake rate, over 40 per cent, in the assessments made by Centrelink officers of people's claims for special benefit, and some of that was due to the inadequacies in the process and to the complexities of the particular payment.That would have to be of concern to everyone in the Australian community, certainly to those who try to access the income support system. It is hard to see how the Australian community can fully understand their entitlements under the social security system if Centrelink staff have trouble figuring it out. That is not meant to be a criticism of the staff. As I have indicated a number of times, I believe the cuts to the number of staff at Centrelink have added very much to the strain they are under in terms of the load they have to carry along with the continuous changes to social security legislation throughout the year, which, as senators who have to debate and consider such changes would be aware, are many, frequent and often complex.That number of continual changes obviously makes it difficult for staff to keep up with the current entitlements, and the Audit Office report detailed a number of flaws in the process and in the assistance that is provided to staff to help them with their job of accurately conducting assessments. I am pleased to see that Centrelink has taken on board the recommendations of the Audit Office in relation to the administration of special benefit, and hopefully that will go some way towards addressing that problem.It is also worth emphasising that we do conduct this debate on these bills in the context of the government indicating that they are going to make the welfare system their next major area for so-called reform. I think `reform' is a much abused and misused word these days. It is basically becoming equated with change. Originally, I think, the dictionary meaning of reform suggested that it is meant to be some sort of positive change. Clearly, it would be very hard to see how a lot of the reforms the government have proposed in recent times, particularly in the area of workplace relations, could be a positive change for the majority of the Australian people. It is certainly change, but it is change for the worse rather than for the better in many instances. So I think we need to be careful when using the word `reform' that it is not, again, giving false illusions of positive change when it may potentially mean very negative outcomes for a significant number of people.Nonetheless, the government have clearly indicated that welfare will be the next big area they will look at in terms of policy modification with a general reassessment of the whole outlook and operation of our welfare system. We need to keep that context in mind when we look at any social security legislation that comes before this place.Unfortunately, as I said in this place the other day, I believe the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, has done herself a disservice by not being open about the construction and detail of her original discussion paper she was going to release when she spoke at the National Press Club at the end of September. Her ongoing refusal to release those details makes it difficult to come to any conclusion other than that there is a hidden agenda on the part of the government. There is no other possible reading to make of the minister's action, given that her department officials suggest there is supposedly very little change between the original so-called drafts of the discussion paper and what was finally released. It is obviously hard to see why the original so-called drafts would not be released if there was so little difference between them and the final product. It is difficult to see how there could be any possible confusion by having different documents in the public arena if there is such little difference between them.It is no wonder that that, therefore, leads people to be concerned about the hidden agenda, particularly given the fact that many people in the press gallery have clearly indicated that briefings were provided by the minister's office quite specifically detailing the contents of that proposed discussion paper—that is, it was aimed at reducing entitlements for sole parents and reducing entitlements for people on a disability pension. I think the government are taking the Australian people and the rest of the Senate for mugs if they think we are not going to have pretty clear suspicions, to put it mildly, that that is a desired outcome of the government in terms of proposals they may be putting forward in the future.Nonetheless, it is worth noting comments such as those made by the Prime Minister just yesterday in his statement about raising funds to assist with the cost of our defence forces in East Timor. He specifically stated that further cuts would not be made to welfare spending in Australia. That is a welcome statement and, as a member of the Senate, I will be very keen to ensure that we are able to help him keep to that statement.When we are considering legislative changes, we need to consider the context in which such changes are being made. Obviously, that is the policy context and the agenda of this government in relation to social security legislation. In that context, I think unfortunately we need to be doubly careful that we do not allow changes to be made that will potentially reduce people's entitlements.In that context, there are a few measures within this bill that the Democrats have some concerns with, and we have expressed those in our committee report on this legislation. I will not go into them in detail here because we can address them in the committee stage of this debate. The predominant concern is the government's intention to put a restriction on the time available for people to have a review of or appeal against a decision made by the department regarding their entitlements. That was considered and debated in this place in relation to the family payments legislation at the end of June. At that time, I indicated that I was not convinced by the government's argument as to why we needed to put in place time limits and I was not convinced it would not lead to some people being disadvantaged, some of them—a small number but, nonetheless, still some people—potentially quite significantly. Having had further time to examine that, the Democrats are still far from convinced, particularly in terms of the time limit for review applications by the SSAT.Returning to the example of the Audit Office report—which shows the extent of errors made by Centrelink officers in their assessments, some of which have only come to light as a result of the Audit Office's report—it highlights again why it is important to not put too small a time line on the ability of people to appeal or have reviews made of decisions of the department. Despite the fact that some of those decisions made by departmental officers result in people receiving more than they are entitled to rather than less, that is of no comfort to those people once the mistake is identified because, in many cases, those people will then have an overpayment raised against them and will be required to pay it back, even though the initial error was the department's. For people on small and minimal incomes, it can be quite difficult for them to have a reduction in their income in order to pay back money that was overpaid to them due to a departmental error. Again, that highlights why the time limits that have been put forward by the government are not necessary and are more likely to lead to some people having reduced opportunity to access their proper entitlements under social security legislation.Having said that, it is worth commending the government for their efforts to simplify the legislation by ensuring that there is greater standardisation of some of the technical rules and other administrative provisions and by reducing overall the size of the Social Security Act. Our hope, as part of the ongoing community discussion as well as the reference group the minister has established in relation to welfare policy, is that the issue of further simplification of our Social Security Act is given significant priority because it is something the Democrats strongly believe still needs to occur.Again, simplification should not be used as a smokescreen for reducing people's entitlements or bringing people down to the lowest common denominator. That has been attempted by governments of both persuasions in the past, where so-called simplification proposals have also had the very real and major side effect of reducing some people's entitlements. So it is crucial to ensure that simplification is not used, wittingly or otherwise, as a way of reducing some people's entitlements.It is pleasing to note that this particular legislation does not have that outcome overall in the majority of the changes and that it does lead to a simplification of the legislation without reducing most people's entitlements in any way. Hopefully it will also assist the hardworking Centrelink social security staff in their ongoing important role of assessing and implementing the Social Security Act and ensuring that the Australian community do receive their appropriate and adequate entitlements as part of ensuring that we have a proper, complete and hole-free social security safety net in this country.11:45:0010531Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I have much pleasure in taking this legislation through the house for Senator Newman. This package of bills gives effect to the government's commitment to implement a simpler and more coherent social security system and comprises an element of Family and Community Services portfolio budget for 1999-2000. The package in the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 also gives effect to some recommendations of the Guilfoyle report. I point out two of those: giving the Social Security Appeals Tribunal the ability to consider matters without having to convene an oral hearing if it considers that a review may be conducted adequately without an oral hearing; and establishing a 12-month time limit in which a customer may lodge an application to a Centrelink authorised review officer to appeal a reviewable decision.Senator Evans, when he was speaking, intimated that we were restricting access for social security recipients to welfare. That actually is not correct. What we are doing is looking to introduce reasonable time limits for people to appeal a decision. The merit review system in the Family and Community Services portfolio is the only system without time limits. In other portfolios and in the portfolio I represent with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs there are time limits. It would seem to me that in order to conduct business in an orderly fashion in a way that is predictable, to work out how many backlog years appeal tribunals have, you need some sort of order in the system. To have no time limit is, I think, unreasonable. It would seem from what senators on the other side and the Democrats are saying that they are not going to support this concept, and I fail to see how they can justify that.There was a comment about what happens to people who have problems and cannot appeal in time. Well, there is scope to extend the time limit in special circumstances. Although these are not codified, there will be circumstances in which people will not be able to apply in time and they will be taken into consideration. I think it is unreasonable of the opposition and Democrats not to go along with these amendments that would make the system more orderly.Senator Bartlett mentioned the issue of the Auditor-General's office and special benefits. Yes, the Auditor-General did bring out a report indicating that over a period of six months $1.5 million had been overpaid to people on special benefits. It is an unusual payment. I think there are about 11,000 people on special benefits. I am drawing now on my knowledge as chairman of the committee in the last parliament. Individual information has to be taken into account. It is a payment of last resort. When the Auditor-General looked at that there was no-one who should have received a payment who did not. There were some who received payments when some of their income was not taken into account. Centrelink and the government have realised that things should be done about that and have responded, even prior to the Auditor-General's report being tabled. But that pales into insignificance when you think that in our second year in government Senator Newman came into this chamber quarter after quarter reporting on the savings in overpayment and fraud in social security, savings that were being made in a system which minister after minister in the previous Hawke and Keating governments had said was tight, taut and terrific and in which there were no more savings to be made.In the second year in government we were saving $47 million a week—I just want to say it clearly for those few who might be out there listening in radioland: $47 million a week—in overpayments and fraud. They were not people who should have been receiving money but who were not getting it; they were people who were failing to tell Social Security they had a job, people who were defrauding the system. Quarter after quarter Senator Newman comes into this chamber and adds to that. We do not keep rolling over. Each year it is coming off a lower base of fraud. I think at the moment we are saving something like $19 million a week in fraud and overpayment on the previous year. That came off a lower base because we had actually eliminated a lot of fraud on overpayment.I do not think I ever saw a Democrat in estimates pursuing issues of social security. I do not think I saw a Democrat once while I pursued Labor mercilessly in social security on issues where there was poor administration, poor management. So for Senator Bartlett to come in here and go on about the Auditor-General's report is a bit rich. I know he was not here then, but his colleagues were not assiduous in pursuing the Labor government when it was mismanaging social security.The other thing I have to take issue with is that he continues to peddle the myth about what was in the draft paper that Senator Newman was going to present at the National Press Club. It will get to the point that governments will not be able to have any draft papers because they will be demanded to be looked at. So if you have a draft paper and you want to discuss it with people, you are going to be hindered because of the sort of nonsense that is carried on. You have been told over and over again, you have been told by officers of the department before Senate committees—and they are not given to giving wrong information—that the content is the same but that there were some stylistic changes. So it is just wrong to keep peddling the myth that there is something more in there, some sinister objective.Senator Newman is putting out a paper to ask what we are going to do to ensure that we have a sustainable social security into the future. As the baby boomers age, as the dependency level changes—with the reduced number of young people and the increased number of older people—what are we going to do to ensure that we can maintain a viable social security system? That is what Senator Newman is on about—the future. The Labor Party has no policies; the Democrats are living in the past. Senator Newman is looking to the future to determine how we can have a sustainable and fair social security system.The Democrats come into the chamber and peddle nonsense about what was and was not in the draft paper and nitpick about the Auditor-General's report. The Democrats were never ever in estimates pursuing the Labor Party about the gross mismanagement of social security. It was a mismanagement that, in our second year of government, produced $47 million of savings every week. I say that in public meetings and people cannot believe me. They look at me as though I have lost the plot, thinking that I must really mean $47 million a year. I don't. Every year, on top of that, she has managed to make savings, by taking back from people money that they should not have received, money to which they were not entitled. We were borrowing a billion dollars a year from that generation of young people sitting up there in the gallery, from their future money, to pay for social security fraud. A billion dollars of Beazley's black hole in the budget was being borrowed to pay for social security fraud.The Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 consolidates all the machinery and most of the administrative provisions relating to social security law. The Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 amends and repeals provisions of the Social Security Act 1991, consequential upon the enactment of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999. The Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999 consolidates existing social security international agreements into a separate act. I commend the bills to the chamber. I thank honourable senators for their contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.10533SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999The bill.11:55:0010533Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 30, page 21 (lines 10 to 18), omit the clause, substitute:30 Requirements for claimants for special benefit (1) A claim for special benefit may be made only by a person who satisfies one of the following paragraphs: (a) the person is an Australian resident; (b) the person has a qualifying residence exemption for special benefit; (c) the person is the holder of a subclass 820 visa—Extended eligibility (spouse); (d) the person is the holder of a subclass 826 visa—Interdependency; (e) the person holds a visa determined by the Minister to be a visa to which this paragraph applies. (2) In its application to a claim for special benefit, section 29 has effect as if: (a) paragraph (1)(b) of that section were omitted; and (b) the words "or is not in Australia" were omitted from subsection (2).(2) Clause 52, page 37 (line 5), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (k) special benefit.It is the view of the Democrats that proposed section 30 of the bill may remove the entitlement to special benefit currently held by partners of Australian citizens and permanent residents by deleting any reference to subclass 820 and 826 visas. Democrat amendment (1) would ensure that the bill does not have this effect. Amendment (2) provides that special benefit may continue to be paid to people overseas for up to 13 weeks in exceptional circumstances. Again, whilst these are minor amendments, it goes to what I was saying in my second reading contribution previously about the need to ensure that, in the process of simplification, a reduction of entitlements—unintended or otherwise—does not occur. I think this is one area where that may be the case.It is worth reinforcing another argument which hopefully I will not have to rehash throughout the remainder of this debate; we may then be able to get through the debate before lunchtime comes upon us. The parliamentary secretary suggested that somehow the Democrats and the opposition were simply peddling so-called myths about what was in the draft discussion paper. I think she might need to include the entire press gallery in that allegation that somehow or other they managed to completely imagine what the minister was considering or proposing to announce in her discussion paper. I think that sort of suggestion—that they have just dreamed it up themselves, as opposed to being specifically briefed by the minister's office about what was in the discussion paper—is an extraordinary allegation. I will not keep revisiting that unless the minister wants to keep defending what seems to be quite an extraordinarily indefensible position—that somehow or other the whole thing was dreamt up by the media. It is worth again highlighting that for the sake of those who are listening.Similarly, in the parliamentary secretary's claims about savings made by the government, she made the statement a number of times that the government have made a billion dollars worth of savings through preventing social security fraud. She quite specifically used that term a couple of times, which I think is quite disgraceful. The government have had this pointed out to them any number of times. They might accidentally make a slip of the tongue once or twice, but this has been a deliberate attempt to suggest that every single overpayment that is identified is somehow or other fraud. Under that context, under that definition, the $1.4 million identified by the Audit Office in their report on special benefits will also now be contained in the next government report and trumpeted as a government saving preventing fraud.I am quite happy to accept the fact that there are overpayments made, but the government know that, out of all those that are identified, a very small percentage are actual fraud. It is most misleading and another indication of the demonisation of welfare recipients that the government insist on. From the Democrats' point of view, it simply makes it impossible to believe that they have anything other than an agenda of trying to demonise social security recipients to soften up the public for further welfare cuts. I would suggest to the government that, if they are looking for a more trusting approach from the Democrats in relation to social security legislation—whether now or in the future—they should cease that sort of misleading and divisive rhetoric and stick to the facts.11:59:0010534Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I am interested to hear the government's arguments in relation to these amendments, so I will shortly defer to the parliamentary secretary. I endorse Senator Bartlett's remarks. I think it was again quite unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary sought to represent every overpayment as fraud. It is part of the language problem that this government uses against recipients of welfare in this country. I find it quite despicable. While everyone supports appropriate measures to target and deprive of benefits those who are deliberately defrauding the system, to represent a whole range of changed circumstances and overpayments and misunderstandings that occur in the system as fraud is quite malicious, in my view.I think Senator Bartlett said it very well. His points about the Audit Office report are most appropriate. It does indicate that there are difficulties in terms of Centrelink's operation, no doubt impacted on quite significantly by both the funding cuts and the staff cuts that have restricted their capacity to serve. I want to provide one quote from that report. It deals quite nicely with the parliamentary secretary's attempt to wash over the findings of the audit report. While the report deals only with special benefits, the Audit Office notes:The high levels of assessment errors in Special Benefit new claim decisions across a wide range of issues strongly suggests that the causes of error are related to broad systematic factors and not just factors specific to particular assessments.That is a very important point to make when the parliamentary secretary seeks to brush off the concerns raised by that report. It is a very important issue when dealing with the government's attempts to restrict the time limits for access to review decisions. That is one of the reasons the opposition continues to have concerns about those approaches, and that is why we are opposing them again on this bill, as we did in previous bills. I am interested to know what the government's answer to the Democrats' suggested amendments is. I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary explaining the government's position.12:02:0010534Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—It is very unhygienic to put words in other people's mouths, and both honourable senators on the other side have done that. Senator Bartlett indicated that I talked only about fraud. Every time I mention it, I talk about fraud and overpayment. To say that everyone who is in receipt of an overpayment is fraudulent is totally offensive. Some people make errors in applying for social security or unintentionally fail to indicate all their circumstances and the fact that they are in receipt of an overpayment, and some people attempt to fraud social security. Whatever the case is, Senator Newman has made an outstanding contribution by reducing the amount of fraud and overpayment.For Senator Evans to indicate that I have brushed off the concerns raised in the Auditor-General's report is absolutely wrong. I said that the Auditor-General had outlined some concerns that the department and the government had acknowledged needed to be addressed, and they were addressing them. That is not brushing them off; it is saying that they were there, acknowledging it and doing something about it. I was saying that in the order of things it was much less: $1.5 million over six months compared with $47 million, in our second year, per week in fraud and overpayment. I emphasise that in case Senator Bartlett cannot hear me: overpayment.I will go back to these amendments that the Democrats have put forward. Currently claims for special benefits can be made only in Australia. They are portable, as the person can travel outside Australia for a limited period, but the benefit can be paid only into an Australian bank account. The Democrats amendment allows for a claim to be made outside Australia and for the payment to be made into an overseas bank account. I stand to be corrected, but I think one of the problems that occurs with this is that the special benefit can be paid only for a limited period, which is 13 weeks. It is paid monthly in arrears. It seems difficult to explain why one would need to have it paid into a bank account four weeks afterwards when it is a payment of last resort. It is deemed that it is not appropriate for it to be paid overseas and it ought to be paid into an Australian bank account.The second amendment has, in effect, been dealt with in a regulation that Senator Newman signed on 21 October: the social security declaration of approved visas, determination No. 1 1999. I have been advised that that pre-empts or has the same effect as the amendment that Senator Bartlett is putting forward, and that is why we are not supporting it. I have just been advised that the amendment that Senator Bartlett has moved does not actually cover what is currently the law as it now stands because of the regulation.12:05:0010535Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I might seek a little bit of further clarification from the parliamentary secretary. I think it is important to have on the record, in terms of the interpretation of this provision in the legislation, whether the government is able to clearly indicate that it is the intent and the administrative outcome of the regulation that holders of subclass visas 820 and 826 will retain the entitlement which I am advised that they currently have. If they do, then that is obviously fine.The concern the Democrats have is that a small number of people may have their entitlement to special benefit removed. It would be an extremely small number, but I think, as the government's own speech and explanatory memorandum indicate, the simplification provisions of this legislation are not intended to remove anyone's entitlements to a benefit. It is important to have on the record precisely that either this bill or the regulation that the parliamentary secretary is now referring to will still ensure that all holders of various classes of visas who currently have an entitlement will still have that entitlement.I think the parliamentary secretary was responding to my amendments in reverse order. The second amendment relates to clause 52 of the legislation, which lists a range of social security payments that apply in the payment of certain amounts outside Australia. This seeks to add special benefit to all the other payments on the list: age pension, bereavement allowance, carer payment, disability support pension, et cetera.The section also states that if the person who is receiving a social security payment to which this section applies is outside Australia, instalments of the payment are to be paid to the person at such time as the secretary determines for the purposes of this section. So it retains the secretary's discretion in relation to that and, as I understand it, simply enables special benefit to be added to those payments. They can be paid to people who are overseas for up to 13 weeks, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, in exceptional circumstances—that is, at the determination of the secretary to the department that such exceptional circumstances exist as would make that appropriate.It would not be a blanket provision. I expect it would be, as the provision says, in exceptional circumstances—as the secretary determines—rather than an automatic entitlement. This is simply ensuring that special benefit is part of the list of payments that are subject to the secretary determining that people may receive payments outside Australia. It may be the case that that is not currently an entitlement for special benefit recipients. It is my understanding that it is, but it may not be, in which case it is a good reason for it to be there. In terms of this bill simply clarifying things administratively rather than changing the current operation of the act, that would be something to back up the government's argument in relation to the second amendment.12:09:0010535Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The Democrat amendments were circulated only either late last night or this morning, and the advisers have indicated to me that Senator Newman would be very happy to give the Democrats a briefing on this issue. One of the reasons Senator Newman uses the determination to change the requirements for claimants for special benefit and particular visa holders is that the visa situation changes, as we have seen just recently when we have provided special classes of visas to particular people. To be able to respond quickly to those situations and to enable people who have entitlements to receive them, those changes can be made by determination, whereas, for example, this change will not take effect until 20 March. It is locked into the legislation; it makes it much more difficult to change. If Senator Bartlett believes a particular visa group has been left out, my advice is that the minister would look at that. She has, in this determination of 21 October, addressed some additional visa classes. So that is the reason, I am advised, why it is better to do it by determination: you can respond much more quickly to visa changes.With regard to the first point, I reiterate that I have been advised that it works well now. It makes it more difficult to deal with the issue if the benefit is paid overseas, and there is also a delay. It is paid in monthly lots overseas. People are away for only 13 weeks; they are almost halfway into the time they are away before they receive a payment.12:11:0010536Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will respond to that to ensure that the full detail of the intention of the way the act is meant to be utilised is on the record. I will start with the first Democrat amendment, relating to particular visa subclasses. The amendments were circulated yesterday afternoon, although the Democrats raised the issue in our component of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. So it is not as though it is an issue that has appeared out of nowhere.Nonetheless, as a demonstration that utilisation of reasoned and rational arguments can have a positive impact, having listened to the parliamentary secretary's arguments carefully, as well as her assurances about the detail of the regulation the minister has tabled and the issue of ministers meeting to make future determinations about classes of visas, as long as there is a clear assurance from the government that holders of these particular visas are not going to lose what entitlements they currently have, I am quite happy to withdraw Democrat amendment No. 1 on the basis of those assurances.In relation to Democrat amendment No. 2, as I believe the provision operates—and the amendment adds special benefit to that list of other payments—it applies only when the secretary determines that circumstances justify it. Therefore, it is appropriate to list special benefit alongside those other payments as one where, when the secretary determines it is appropriate, people can receive that payment while they are outside Australia.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Is leave granted for the withdrawal of Democrat amendment No. 1 on sheet 1624? There being no objection, leave is granted. The question before the chair now is that Democrat amendment No. 2 on sheet 1624 be agreed to.12:14:0010536Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of the Labor opposition, we appreciate Senator Bartlett's reasonableness, and we appreciate the parliamentary secretary's explanation. We got there in the end. I was not sure the first time, but the second time I think I understood it. That is a reasonable result. In terms of Democrat amendment No. 2, given the power of the secretary to have influence over that decision, I do not think it is an unreasonable proposition from the Democrats. Subject to the government making some convincing argument, we are inclined to vote with them. If the parliamentary secretary has anything further to say that will convince us otherwise, we are happy to listen. Otherwise, we are inclined to support that amendment.12:15:0010536Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators, and I thank Senator Bartlett for his withdrawal of that amendment. I have again been advised that Senator Newman will brief you and look at this issue to ensure that people are not penalised in any way in terms of visa classes. As I said, I think that will be much easier and much better for them and they will not have a delay if it is covered in a determination. Given the time that we take to do things here, they could wait a year for it to go into the legislation—so thank you, Senator Bartlett.Regarding the other point, I would clarify that it is a payment of last resort. It seems odd to me that, when they have a bank account here in Australia and the process is working—I do not think we have had any people asking for it to be changed so that they can be paid overseas—the process should be changed. When they are able to be overseas for only 13 weeks and it is a payment of last resort, it ought not to be paid into an overseas bank account when, as I said, they most probably would not receive the money until at least well into a third of the time that they are allowed to be overseas. Many of them do not even stay overseas for the 13 weeks. It just seems to me to be an odd request. I do not know whether Senator Bartlett has had people beating on his door who are receiving payments of last resort and need to go overseas—and I can understand that they may be going overseas because of family illness or a death in the family—but it would seem to me that, to be able to get their money as quickly as possible, and given the way that banking works now in accessing money overseas from an Australian bank account, it would be fairly reasonable to put it into an Australian bank account. If Senator Bartlett has had hordes of people on special benefit knocking on his door wanting this, then let him convince me. He has not convinced me and I think my argument is more convincing.12:17:0010537Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I could not resist the challenge of convincing the parliamentary secretary that the amendment the Democrats are putting forward is worth supporting. I am not sure that I will have much luck, but I will give it a go. To clarify again, the operation of section 52 in the bill already applies to a range of social security payments for people who are overseas. For people who are receiving social security payments outside Australia, instal ments can be paid to the person at such times as the secretary determines. So it is only for secretarial determination. I have not had hordes of people on special benefit knocking on my door about this, but I have had advice that it is an entitlement—or a provision or a discretion—that is currently available.As I said when I moved this amendment initially, I expect that it would apply to a very small number of people. Nonetheless, for people on special benefit who need to go overseas—probably for reasons such as those that Senator Patterson outlined—there may be exceptional circumstances, which are within the discretion of the secretary, where it would be of assistance to the person if they were able to be paid. Given that people on special benefit are more likely to be people on very low incomes, I realise that that reduces the number of people who are likely to go overseas as well—but such things are possible. However, while that may disadvantage an extremely small number of people, I do not see any reason why it creates a problem for the government—to turn it around that way—to enable the secretary to have this discretion for people on special benefit. It will be the same discretion that the secretary will have with a range of other payments listed in the bill, such as, for example, the disability support pension, carer payment, widows pension and wife pension.12:19:0010537Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I would add that Senator Bartlett apparently put out a press release yesterday saying that he thought the social security system should be simplified. This amendment is actually making it more complex. The social security department can put money into an Australian cheque account and, if the person on special benefit is going overseas, the cheque has to be transferred into the currency of the country of the bank they have nominated. That is more expensive, there is more administration involved and a payment is made every four weeks rather than every two weeks. If the person were using their ordinary bank account, there would be no delay, no extra cost and they could withdraw the money from an Australian bank account.It therefore seems odd to me that the Australian Democrats want to complicate this and add another expense. Anybody who has transferred money overseas will know that there is a significant cost in doing that. In supporting this amendment, the Labor Party is saying, `Yes, we are prepared to have extra cost and an extra administrative load,' when the money could still just be automatically going into an Australian bank account on a fortnightly basis. This amendment will create delays, extra costs and another layer of activity and administration.12:20:0010538Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I am loath to spend so much time on what is a very minor amendment. Nevertheless, I think it is important to again clarify what it will actually do. It does not require that a person be paid through an overseas bank account; it does not force the department to do that. The argument that Senator Patterson put forward is, in effect, arguing against the whole section that this amendment relates to. You could put forward the same arguments in relation to the other 10 payments this section applies to that are already in the bill. She is saying that it is adding complications to provide for this discretion for the secretary for these other 10 payments, but all this amendment does is add special benefit to that list of 10 payments that is already there for which the secretary has that discretion. I do not see why that suddenly generates a complexity. It does not force anything on the department or the person; it simply provides that discretion where exceptional circumstances mean that it is appropriate in the secretary's opinion.12:21:0010538Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do not think this is a major matter. The Labor opposition will still be voting for the amendment. I do not think a great deal hinges on it, given the role of the secretary. But, if Senator Bartlett speaks one more time on this issue, I will not vote for it. I think we ought to move on to the other amendments in order to get the government's legislative program through.12:22:0010538Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—That allows me to speak just one more time and say that the others in the list are portable benefits that are paid over a longer period of time and are able to be paid for much longer than 13 weeks. So it is not an administrative—Senator Chris Evans interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I thought I might convince you, Senator Evans, but obviously the party has made a decision and you do not have the authority to change it on such a minor issue. I thought I might have convinced you. But I will remind you constantly of how you added one more level of difficulty and one more administrative cost to social security—as small as they are. Look after the p's and the pounds will look after themselves, and that is what Labor never did. Here we have another example of just letting it slide along because Senator Bartlett has convinced you somehow—I do not know how—that this is a good idea. I will have to live with the decision. I am sure that Senator Newman will know that I tried hard to change your mind, Senator Evans.Amendment agreed to.12:23:0010538Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I wish to formally move amendments Nos 1 and 2. Do I need permission to move them together?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—No. I understand that one is opposing a clause and the question for that is that clause 130 stand as printed. So, on that basis, we will have to deal with them separately.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I might speak to both amendments Nos 1 and 2 as they are part of a package. We will be opposing clause 130 and moving our amendment No. 1. I do not want to take a great deal of time in debating these issues.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—It has been a stimulating debate.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I am not sure whether the parliamentary secretary was party to the debate we had last time on a similar bill, but we debated all the principal issues that the opposition is moving today under, I think, the family assistance package of bills. So we have had the in-principal debate, and today I do not intend to delay the committee long by rehashing that debate.As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, these amendments effectively are to oppose the government imposing this 52-week limit for internal review; we intend to remove that proposed limit. As I say, this is a debate we had over the A New Tax System (Family Assistance)(Administration) Act 1999. We think that the imposition by the government of this time limit will work against those least able to protect themselves in our community. I do not necessarily say that this is the sort of issue that will affect large numbers of people. But, for those people who it will affect, it may affect them quite adversely.We think the arguments for administrative simplicity or whatever inside the department are not convincing when held against the rights of people who might well have language barriers, intellectual disability—which is an issue that has been raised quite a lot recently in connection with correspondence from Centrelink—or other social disadvantages which might make their dealing with an organisation like Centrelink quite difficult. We think we ought to, as much as possible, protect their rights and their ability to seek review. On balance, we just do not accept that the administrative need for a time limit is warranted, given that you are balancing it against those rights. As I said, we think the reports of the Audit Office and the Ombudsman's office support that position. The Senate adopted this view when we last dealt with it, and I hope we will adopt that view again.12:26:0010539Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The government will not be supporting this, obviously. Senator Evans spoke of the Ombudsman. I have been advised that the Ombudsman has never commented on this issue, but I cannot say that categorically because I have not been following this issue very closely.Senator Chris Evans interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—That was not the implication. Anyway, as I said when speaking in the second reading debate, we believe that 52 weeks, a year, is a reasonable compromise between allowing a lengthy time and not allowing open-ended time for an appeal—time which is currently unlimited. As I said, in almost every other situation where there is an appeals mechanism there is a time limit; and also built in there are special circumstances for cases with reasonable grounds. Such grounds would be, I presume, somebody who had an intellectual disability who could not understand the instruction or somebody who, as they were in hospital or for some other reason, would not be able to appeal within the 52 weeks provided in the bill. I regret that the Labor Party will not be supporting this measure. I presume that the Democrats also will not be supporting it. But I think that is a reasonable length of time in which to make an appeal, especially with the special circumstances clause.12:28:0010539Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I wish to speak to this particular proposal in relation to clause 130 and perhaps one other matter also. The parliamentary secretary has assumed correctly that the Democrats are not convinced, as was our position back in relation to the family payments legislation, that it is appropriate for this length of time limit to be put on internal review applications. Again it would be a fairly small number of people, but I think the arbitrariness of the exceptional circumstances escape clause is still not sufficient to convince us that it is appropriate to put this type of time frame on it.Perhaps if we are looking at time limits or statutes of limitations provisions that operate in other areas of law, there are a number of views that may be more appropriate. But at this stage we still do not believe that it is sufficiently beneficial to warrant the potential loss of entitlement that may occur for a small number of people.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that clause 130 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.Amendment (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:(1) Clause 129, page 107 (line 5), omit "and section 130".12:29:0010540Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I formally oppose clause 144 and, in doing so, I will just briefly speak to amendments 3, 4 and 5 that stand in my name and were distributed on behalf of the opposition. The opposition to that clause and the amendments relates to the government's proposed time limits for Social Security Appeals Tribunal review applications. As I say, we have canvassed this ground both in previous debates and in the second reading debate. We seek to oppose the attempt to impose a 28-day time limit on SSAT review applications on the grounds that they might unfairly impinge upon people's rights to seek review. This is a measure that the government tried to introduce as part of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999. It was rejected by the Senate then, and I urge the committee to again reject it.12:30:0010540Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats will also be opposing clause 144 and supporting the consequential amendments the opposition has foreshadowed on the running sheet. It is worth putting on the record in a little more detail why we have come to this decision. This section seeks to put a time limit of 28 days on appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. I know that the government has been willing to at least consider lengthening that period, but it is worth outlining some of the aspects in relation to what would occur if a time limit—even a longer one of, say, three months—was applied in relation to appeals tribunal reviews.It is also worth emphasising that there is currently an incentive for early application for SSAT review, in that an applicant is only entitled to back payment to the date of the original decision if that application for review is made within three months of receiving the written determination of the department. The overwhelming majority of applications are made within this three-month time frame with, as I understand it, only about 10 per cent of applications to the appeals tribunal taking place outside this period.I am not aware of any government study of the reasons why this 10 per cent of people do not apply within the three-month period, but certainly those with experience of working within the appeals process and with the people from within the Australian community that utilise it have strongly suggested to me that these 10 per cent of people are amongst the most disadvantaged clients, with significant barriers to accessing legal services. Those barriers include literacy and numeracy problems, mental health problems, intellectual disabilities and crisis situations, such as illness or domestic violence.As such, it appears from the evidence from those who work in this area that that small number of people—that 10 per cent of people—seek review of the decision only when the consequences of it become untenable, where they can no longer afford repayments of an overpayment or perhaps when fraud prosecution proceedings are initiated against them. These are the people, in many circumstances, who are most in need of the protection of the appeals process, and we believe it is dangerous to deny them recourse to it.The special circumstances provision in the legislation may well operate to exempt many of these clients from the time limit. However, we are not convinced that that will be a sufficient safeguard to ensure that injustice does not occur in some circumstances. If the end result is that most of the 10 per cent late applicants that occur now are likely to be exempt from the time limit in practice, then it is difficult to see the need for the provision at all. Indeed, it may add in a small way—but, nonetheless, add—to the complexity of the operation of the legislation and to the administrative operations and the burden placed on the tribunal if, rather than what applies at the moment, an imprecise exemption or special circumstances discretion applies.12:34:0010540Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Currently there is no time limit at all. This amendment would bring the Social Security Appeals Tribunal into line with the other appeals systems. There is a 28-day period for appeals based on AAT legislation. The government was hoping—I think there was some discussion beforehand with both the Democrats and the Labor Party to maybe look at this being a three-month period; that was not acceptable—to give a message to people that there was a time limit for appeals.I have been advised that with the AAT appeals system the majority of people—in fact, almost everyone—who apply under special circumstances on reasonable grounds that they had not been able to appeal within the time frame are allowed to extend it for up to six months. So it is not to exclude people from appealing, but to send a signal to people that there is a time limit, that it cannot go on in perpetuity. That was what was meant to happen. The government was prepared to compromise to take it out to three months, just to give people that message.As I said, very few people are excluded from the AAT appeals system. Usually, their special circumstances are taken into account. As I said, it is not about precluding people; it is about just giving people a signal. Again, I will not convince the Democrats or the opposition, so I rest my case.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that clause 144 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.Amendments (by Senator Chris Evans)—by leave—agreed to:(3) Clause 143, page 118 (line 10), omit "sections 144 and 146", substitute "section 146".(4) Clause 143, page 118 (line 17), omit "sections 144 and 146". substitute "section 144".12:37:0010541Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:(6) Clause 164, page 135 (lines 4 to 7), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1A) The Executive Director may direct that a hearing be conducted without oral submissions from the parties if: (a) the Executive Director considers that the review hearing could be determined fairly on the basis of written submissions by the parties; and (b) all parties to the review consent to the hearing being conducted without oral submissions.This deals with access to oral hearings at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Labor's amendment allows people to present the submissions to the SSAT by oral submission, rather than purely by written submission. It provides: (1A) The Executive Director may direct that a hearing be conducted without oral submissions from the parties if: (a) the Executive Director considers that the review hearing could be determined fairly on the basis of written submissions by the parties; and (b) all parties to the review consent to the hearing being conducted without oral submissions.So it does allow for purely written submissions to be considered if the parties consent. But we have expressed before the concern that we think the informal nature of the SSAT and the ability of the tribunal to elicit information from people who may not necessarily be good at presenting their arguments in written form is a great advantage of the current process. We are not convinced that moving to a process of purely written submissions is a good one. People who have difficulty with English because of their background or their literacy or other reasons would be disadvantaged by a move to purely written submissions. We try to meet the government's intentions by allowing for that practice to occur with the consent of the parties, but we do not accept the government's approach to the issue. These amendments, again, are similar to those that were debated in the family assistance bill and supported by the Senate. I hope they are supported again.12:38:0010541Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats will be supporting this amendment. While the clause allows for proceedings to be conducted in potentially a more expeditious manner, this must be with the consent of all parties. I think it is important that all parties consent to hearings being conducted in a particular way, whether it is by oral submission or otherwise. We believe that nobody should feel further alienated from a process which is, for some people, already somewhat unfamiliar and confusing, and potentially intimidating. It is important that the applicant has the protection of having a say in this matter.12:39:0010542Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—This is a procedural simplification without prejudice to people's rights. It would permit decision by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in very straightforward cases where it is clear and uncontestable. For example, the requirement is that a person is a resident and, if it is absolutely obvious that they are not a resident, the SSAT has use of the Centrelink customer file. It would be used in cases where it is absolutely evident that the person is not entitled to a benefit. Otherwise, the person presents to the appeals tribunal and there is a day's hearing, which adds to the cost of the procedures. This is to try to simplify the matter when it is an absolutely straightforward case that the person is not eligible.Amendment agreed to.12:40:0010542Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The opposition opposes clause 171. I understand the Democrats have indicated that they are seeking to do a similar thing. Again, I will be brief. The government has sought to place a limit on an applicant's ability to introduce fresh evidence before the SSAT without providing what is, I think, described as an `acceptable explanation' as to why that evidence was not produced earlier. I think it tries to get some sort of procedural control in respect of applicants' use of evidence. I think that runs contrary to the government's claims to be simplifying the system. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal is supposed to be providing `fair, quick and equitable outcomes'. We do not agree with the arguments for a move that would prevent evidence being presented which would allow the tribunal to make a decision, having accessed all the facts available.I can understand there might be concern within the department about people bringing up new evidence after decisions have been made and while the review process is on. But, surely, at the end of the day our aim is to get the fairest and quickest result. It seems to us that this provision works against that and that, if there is other evidence available, the SSAT can then make a judgment about its applicability, its value and its weight, make a decision, issue that decision and resolve the matter. The government system seems to require the applicant and the department to go back to scratch and start again, which seems to add to the complexity of the system. We are not convinced that that is a desirable addition to the process. We think that allowing the SSAT to make a decision on the spot on the basis of the evidence before them is a preferable outcome, and that is the reason we are opposing this clause.12:42:0010542Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats also are opposed to clause 171. We believe that new evidence must be taken into account in merits review proceedings if natural justice is to be served. The requirement not to apply natural justice in another area that I spent a lot of time in, immigration law, has, I think, proven to be very dangerous in some circumstances. So we believe that new evidence must be taken into account.It is also worth emphasising the findings of the Australian Administrative Review Council on this issue that were presented to the committee's inquiry into this bill. These findings maintain that review tribunals should be obliged to take into account all relevant information that is available to them at the time of the review; that to do otherwise potentially would turn the merits review process into a judicial review process and at least imperil the operation of natural justice. That is something that I believe the Senate needs to guard against.12:43:0010542Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The current arrangements require the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to make a judgment during a hearing whether to proceed when new information is presented, and it has got to second-guess what the original decision makers may have done. The bill as it stands removes that ambiguity and clarifies action that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal should take without changing access by customers to the appeals system or preventing new information being considered. The government will be supporting the clause.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that clause 171 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.12:43:0010543Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 4:(4) Schedule 3, clause 11, page 211 (line 20), omit "3", substitute "4".This clause seeks to maintain the maximum number of members to constitute a SSAT hearing at four people. Our amendment does not require four people to be part of a SSAT hearing but it does maintain the opportunity for that to occur in the minority of cases which are sufficiently complex and would benefit from such an arrangement. We do not believe that the potential for a four-member hearing undermines the cost-effectiveness of the SSAT.12:44:0010543Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The opposition will be supporting the amendment.12:44:0010543Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The government will be opposing the amendment.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Progress reported.Matters of Public Interest1054310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Pursuant to order, I call on matters of public interest.1054312:45:0010543Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—Today I conclude a series of speeches relating to the future of regional Australia. I will start by stressing what I said earlier this year on Wednesday, 25 August, which was that the big challenge for rural and regional Australia, particularly given the opening up of the economy and the move towards deregulation and globalisation, is to come up with effective strategies to assist the bush to survive in the new global environment.I would also like to re-endorse the findings of the McKinsey report of 1994, which outlined the direction that should be taken in rural and regional Australia. The principles of that report were basically that leadership was vital at the business and regional level and that the role of government had to shift from being a doer and director to being a change leader in a region's economic development. The essence of these processes is to engender and maintain in regional leaders a self-help attitude. The vital question that remains, therefore, is this: how to empower our rural and regional communities to leverage their own future development.I am proud to say that the Howard government is in fact the first government in the history of this country to call a regional summit to discuss the implications of this very basic question, particularly for government policy. That summit occurred from 27 to 29 October in Parliament House in Canberra this year. There were 282 delegates from the community and from government and business. They met over a three-day period to discuss problems and opportunities for regional Australia.The Prime Minister gave the keynote address and expressed his commitment to a whole of government approach for `a better understanding of areas where we can make a difference and where we can make a contribution'. He emphasised the notion of a social coalition at the heart of the regional summit. This is about encouraging coalitions or partnerships between government, business and communities to find realistic solutions to the challenges faced by rural, regional and remote Australia.The Deputy Prime Minister illustrated how the partnership could work in practice by using the example of call centres and going through the process of how they can be established in regional centres rather than in capital cities. Firstly, governments at both the federal and state levels need to provide the necessary infrastructure and services so that modern telecommunications services can be put in place. Secondly, there has to be a commercial commitment from business by promoting the placement of call centres in country communities of an adequate size. Thirdly, the local community—starting with the local councils—has to ensure that the required skills are, and continue to be, available within the local work force. This cameo is a very good illustration of how the recommendations of the McKinsey report would work in a practical way through partnership between the community, business and government.At the regional summit there were over 30 key speakers from communities, business and industry. There was a reference group of six, which was chaired by the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, and there were 12 expert facilitators assisting working groups that were structured around the 12 key themes of the summit. These themes were communications; infrastructure; health; community wellbeing and lifestyle; government—local, state and federal roles—financing and facilitating entrepreneurship; value adding to regional communities and farming industries; new industries and new opportunities; community and industry leadership; education and training; philanthropy and partnerships; and sustainable resource management. Some inescapable facts came through the summit process. Bringing together the findings of those 12 groups, the overwhelming conclusion was, of course, that we live in times of very rapid globalisation, that technology is going through an almost daily revolution and that, therefore, the future certainly is not what it used to be—as was stated by one of the participants.Significant demographic trends have emerged in rural and regional Australia over recent years, and many of these are disturbing in nature. One is the coastal drift, where a very large proportion of faster growing municipalities and smaller towns are located on the eastern seaboard and south-west coastal areas of Australia. The second is the rise of `sponge cities'. In increasing parts of Australia, there are regional sponge cities like Toowoomba in Queensland, Wagga in New South Wales—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—What is a sponge city? O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator, I will tell you in a minute. The third one I was going to quote is Horsham in Victoria—which I am sure you are well familiar with, Senator Patterson. A sponge city occurs where the regional centre grows and the towns and villages in the surrounding districts decline. It is a phenomenon that is typical right across Australia and is perhaps our greatest challenge in rural and regional policy. To take a New South Wales example, Dubbo's population has risen by 53 per cent from 1976 to 1997—up by half in just over 20 years—but this has been at the expense of the surrounding municipalities: in Warren, the population is down by 15.8 per cent over a similar period; in Coolah, down by 13.5 per cent; in Coonabarabran, down by 6.9 per cent; and in Wellington, down by seven per cent.We have a picture in rural and regional Australia where the small centres are becoming smaller but the bigger regional centres are becoming larger. The total drift is not all into the big cities, such as Sydney, completely: it is also into these bigger towns which, particularly in New South Wales, are doing quite well. It is the ones at the next level down, such as Coonabarabran, that are not doing well; and that is where our challenge is.The next rather disturbing trend is the age profile. The summit showed three essential things happening here. Young adults in the 15 to 34 age group are still moving to the city for work, education and training opportunities. Older and retired adults over 65 keep moving out of regional rural areas and into the bigger towns or to the city for better access to health care as well as leisure facilities. The third trend—and this is perhaps a hopeful trend in many regional areas—is that the adults in the 35 to 64 age group are gradually being drawn back into the country areas to raise their families and take advantage of a perceived better rural lifestyle. KPMG Consulting's Population growth report for 1999 estimates that in the last 22 years some 200 rural shires in Australia have lost population. At a state level, Victoria, for example, has lost about one-third of its rural residents since 1982, with knock-on effects for services like banks and schools and a lingering sense of alienation in the regions.The core message that came out of the summit, and formally endorsed in its communique, was that there are no magic bullets or quick fixes, particularly given the constant changes in the global economy and technology. Communities that have committed themselves to identifying and capitalising on their natural strengths, resources and assets have been the ones to successfully reinvent themselves. Regional communities that are very keen to include and invest in their youth are the ones that are often committed to working in partnerships with government and business at all levels; they want to resource the necessary skills, learning, education and training to develop their younger adults.The communique statement said that governments must accept responsibility for facilitating adequate provision and maintenance of basic infrastructure and that regional Australians ought to have more equitable access to essential services, including telecommunications, power, energy, water, transport, health and education. Above all, regional, rural and remote Australians want to shape their own futures on a journey in partnership with business and government at their own local level. They are unanimous in not wanting a top down or a one size fits all approach from the big smoke.John Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister, summed up the mood of the summit for a bottom-up approach, as well as the practical realities facing Australia in the new millennium, when he said in his closing speech on Friday, 29 October 1999, that:. . . the political mantra of the new Century will be, "It's local stupid" rather than "It's the economy stupid'.1054512:55:0010545O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Yesterday, the government tabled the final Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, now the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, report on its inquiry into the G class airspace demonstration. This is the second damning report on the administration of aviation safety in this country in as many days, and it is the second damning report on the management of aviation safety by Mr Vaile and now Mr Anderson. Both have been shown to have been, at best, negligent in their duties to ensure that our skies are safe.I would like to remind the Senate of the statement Mr Anderson made in the other place almost 12 months ago to the day. He said:The reality is that I have kept very close to CASA because I am concerned about aviation safety in this country. I want to be satisfied that we have an excellent board, that the director of aviation safety really knows what he is talking about.If Mr Anderson had been keeping a close eye on the CASA board, he would have noticed that that board had not lodged a corporate plan. Given this statement, how did the Deputy Prime Minister not notice that the CASA board had put itself in breach of its own act, the Civil Aviation Act? After all, CASA's failure to provide such a plan meant that he too was effectively in breach of the Civil Aviation Act because he failed to table the CASA corporate plan in both houses of parliament.I want to go to the findings of what was the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation and is now the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The report is described as a `Systemic report into Class G airspace demonstration'. A series of summary conclusions is set out on pages 106 and 107. I want to detail those for the Senate, in particular, findings 6 to 10. Finding 6 is:CASA's overall project management of the Class G airspace demonstration was deficient because:. the purpose of the demonstration was not clearly defined;. the selection of the timing and location of the demonstration placed significant pressure on CASA to ensure that consultation, safety analysis and education issues were comprehensively addressed;. safety analysis activities contained several significant deficiencies;. there was a lack of appropriate consultation in the early phases of the project;. the design and management of the education program contained several significant deficiencies; and. late changes made to the airspace design and procedures significantly compromised the effec tiveness of CASA's safety analysis and education activities.I remind the Senate that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is charged with administering aviation safety. Here we had a body which was seeking to be a reformer in terms of the regime that it was to administer. In doing that, the very reputable organisation now known as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that they could not establish, under the control of the board as they were then, the proper purpose of the demonstration or properly define it so that those people operating within it could properly understand it; they could not appropriately select timing and location of the demonstration; and that they were guilty of establishing safety analysis activities which contained several significant deficiencies.Given the Auditor-General's report into CASA that was tabled on Monday of this week, one can see that CASA had difficulties in performing its duties in terms of the regulation of aviation safety and in terms of not carrying out the detail of the safety inspections that they were required to carry out under their act and the regulations which apply to CASA. In that climate, for CASA to have become effectively the proposed agent of change was for CASA to take a step too far. Can I go on and say that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found a number of other things, for example, point 7 states:A number of guiding principles associated with the project were based on flawed assumptions.No. 8 reads:Adequate justification for the air space changes associated with the Class G demonstration was not provided.In other words, the changes which CASA was implementing could not be justified. That is, CASA did not have information on which it could justify the activities it was undertaking. Point 9 says:A significant proportion of the aviation industry did not conduct an appropriate level of education and training to prepare for the demonstration.That is a very significant point because, of course, the nature of the regime was one which relied upon significant understanding of the trial, given that it relied upon signifi cant alertness by pilots operating in the system and it being a trial which did not rely on the same level of oversight and control by, for example, the normal regulatory bodies such as air traffic control. To find that organisations had not attended to training the operators in the area is to find that the trial was taking place in an atmosphere quite inappropriate for such a trial and in an atmosphere where people did not actually understand what they were supposed to be doing. Point 10 goes on:The following organisational factors adversely influenced the ability of CASA to effectively manage the class G demonstration project.In other words, these are the issues which were relevant within the organisation of CASA which adversely affected the trial.There are six points here. I think these add to the findings of the Auditor-General tabled in this place on Monday and the dot points are:. There was a lack of established processes within CASA for conducting safety case and consultation activities for large change-management projects.. CASA's management profile and staffing prior to July 1998 reduced the ability of the organisation to effectively monitor and control its activities.A very significant factor I must say about that is that the management profile of CASA and the staffing of CASA made it, I would suggest, impossible for CASA to have properly operated the trial that they embarked upon. The dot points continue:. There was a lack of appropriate internal and external review mechanisms for ensuring the objectivity of the project.. The division of roles and responsibilities between CASA and Airservices Australia regarding the design and regulation of airspace was not clearly defined.. The division of roles and responsibilities between the CASA Chairman and the Director and other management was not clearly defined.I want to come back to that. The final dot point is:. The influence of the CASA Chairman's involvement in airspace reform and management style contributed to the project management's deficiencies associated with the demonstration.That, of course, is a reference to the role of the then chairman, Mr Dick Smith.If you look at page 104 of the report, you will see that this very damning passage is contained in it. It is damning of the organisation and it is certainly damning of the role of the then chairman, Mr Dick Smith, and I want to put this matter on the record as well. It reads:The chairman's close involvement in project management became associated with a number of undesirable—I stress that word—consequences including the removal of previous internal review processes including important review mechanisms at higher levels than the decision maker; a decrease in the ability of CASA managers and the organisation as a whole to coordinate their decision making processes; an increase in confusion among staff and external parties regarding who in CASA was making decisions and what decisions were valid; and uncertainty among CASA staff regarding their ability to query the chairman's decisions or instructions due to his senior position.It was subsequently reported by CASA staff that the chairman's management style was characterised by micromanagement, an unwillingness to consider other views and rigid adherence to a predetermined path. The chairman also appeared to show a level of interest in activities that could lead to delays in the implementation process. Many of the problems associated with planning and implementation of the demonstration were related to inadequate safety analysis, consultation and education activities. Although there were many reasons for the problems encountered, there is considerable evidence to indicate that the influence of the Chairman's active involvement and management style contributed to those problems.Let me say that the then chairman, Mr Smith, attended a hearing of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs References Committee and was asked questions by Senator Woodley. Senator Woodley has subsequently come into this place and has indicated that he was, in effect, asked by Mr Smith to ask him those questions. In my view, the chairman used parliamentary privilege to make outrageous allegations about other participants in the aviation industry to protect his own position. It is significant that the finding of this inquiry is quite forthright about the role of Mr Smith and particularly that his desire to manage the process, his desire to initiate this change, played a significant part in the failure of the trial and the need for the trial, in effect, to be ended prematurely because it obviously was not working.But the fact of the matter is that Mr Smith's chairing of this organisation, which was the organisation charged with administering aviation safety, seems to have become a crusade to achieve what he thought should be achieved rather than the management of an organisation charged with ensuring that the existing regime was safe and that any changes which were being put in place were safe. So, in effect, it was a crusade for a change in which Mr Smith, as chairman of CASA, was substantially responsible for the failure of CASA in its involvement in this project and for effectively making parts of the organisation ineffective.The findings are particularly clear about these matters. For example, `the management style was characterised by micromanagement'—in other words, Mr Smith wanted to do other people's jobs rather than leave them to do theirs. The report also refers to `an unwillingness to consider other views'—and I must say that anyone who has sat down with Mr Smith will hear a lot from Mr Smith and not have many opportunities to say anything in response. It also refers to `rigid adherence to a predetermined path'. I think those are signs of a person who wishes to lead but who is unable to take into account the views of others. Quite frankly, this report demonstrates that the role of the chairman in this trial was actually quite detrimental to the possibility of the trial being successful.Of course, the report finds that there were valid reasons to examine options for change, but those reasons were, in effect, undermined by the way the change was pursued and perhaps even by the means by which CASA was used as an agent for change rather than as an organisation whose basis for existence was the administration of aviation safety and not as a change agent. I think those lessons will be carried forward and in the future, hopefully, the CASA board, when it gets its act together, will learn great lessons from the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The Senate committee is inquiring into this matter. Perhaps many of the matters that the Senate committee needs to inquire into have been dealt with adequately by this report.1054813:10:0010548Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Today I would like to speak about unemployment in regional areas. Unemployment in regional areas is one of the most serious problems we face as a nation. The statistics on regional unemployment levels are disturbing, especially for young people and indigenous people, and must be of concern to all Australians. According to the Small Area Labour Market report in June 1999, some rural and regional areas have reported significantly higher unemployment rates than the rest of the country. For example, Broome recorded a 9.8 per cent unemployment rate, Halls Creek 8.8 per cent, Carnarvon 9.9 per cent, Wyndham-East Kimberley eight per cent and the Murchison and Murray Shires both 9.2 per cent for the June quarter. These figures are for the north-west of Western Australia, an area in which I have a particular interest. Although these figures are not seasonally adjusted, they indicate that there are far too many people unemployed in our country areas and it is a problem that should concern all Australians.The Howard government is helping to reduce unemployment in rural and regional areas in Western Australia through such initiatives as the Jobs Pathway Program and the New Apprenticeships program. During the last month's break I was in Derby to launch a Jobs Pathway Program, which will be delivered by the Derby-West Kimberley SkillShare to the benefit of the entire West Kimberley region.Youth unemployment tends to be a problem in the less populated areas of Australia where training and educational facilities are not as readily available as they are in metropolitan or larger regional areas, so that job creation becomes more about equipping young people in the country with the necessary skills and knowledge to be employed.The Jobs Pathway Program is specially targeted to help young people make a smooth transition from school to work and thereby hopefully avoid long periods of unemploy ment by getting them into the work force sooner than they other otherwise would be. The program works through the assistance of schools, industry and the local community all joining together to encourage young people to create better pathways for themselves in gaining employment, returning to further education or training or commencing in a school-based vocational program or school-based New Apprenticeships—all in the interest of the individual student so that a person can determine what area of work they would like to be involved in. These programs are there to help them achieve their goal in terms of the kind of work they would like to do.Many young people, especially in regional areas, are leaving country towns because of the lack of employment opportunities, and many parents in regional Australia are concerned about the potential consequences of long-term unemployment for their children. Therefore, they do not discourage them from leaving the rural areas to go to the larger regional centres and to the capital cities.One of the sad problems we face in Australia is the high incidence of youth suicide, particularly in country areas. One of the causes of the high incidence of youth suicide without any doubt is the fact that young people feel they have no future in regional areas and become depressed about the lack of opportunities for them and the fact that they do not see their lives going anywhere. That leads to depression, low self-esteem and drug and alcohol abuse, and these things invariably heighten the risk of suicide. The statistics are startling when we see that in 1995, 434 young people aged between 14 and 24 took their lives. Fifty of those were from Western Australia. Regional Western Australia has a much higher percentage rate of youth suicide than other areas of the state, and it amounts to something like 20 per cent of the total incidence in the whole state. It is also concerning that in the Kimberley in 1998, 12 indigenous young Australians took their lives. The increasing prevalence of youth suicide in Western Australia, and the north-west in particular, is a matter of great concern to me. It is because of these background issues that the government is working towards assisting young people, especially indigenous people, to find employment by providing them with job skill education.The Kimberley youth project team identified six main issues which need to be addressed. These six issues involve the need to control and manage the distribution of drugs and alcohol; provide sufficient constructive and appropriate activities for young people; provide support to Aboriginal parents; reduce fighting and conflict between families and different groups; address and solve the prevalence of criminal activity and anti-social behaviour in these small Aboriginal communities; and replace boredom, lack of purpose and lack of education with positive opportunities for the future. There is no doubt that education does provide young people with a sense of purpose and accomplishment in gaining skills and self-dignity. It also teaches them about communication and helps them to interact with the rest of the community.There are many schools served by the Jobs Pathway Program in Western Australia and across Australia. In fact, 153 high schools in Western Australia are currently involved in the program, of which at least 70 are in regional areas. That represents a significant commitment to our youth in preparing them for our work force. The continuing success of the government's Work for the Dole Program is also testament to the Howard government's persistence in addressing such social issues, which invariably determine how successful young people will be in addressing the problems which will prevent them from fitting into society in a broad way. Work for the Dole not only ensures personal development but also is of great benefit to the local communities where these programs exist and where local programs are facilitated.I have been very pleased to hear about and see the success of a number of local Work for the Dole projects in the north of Western Australia. In particular, I have to congratulate the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley for the great support they have given to the Work for the Dole program because in the west Kimberley the level of unemployment, particularly among indigenous people, is very, very high. The Work for the Dole program, promoted through the local government authorities in the Kimberley, has done a lot to provide young indigenous people with work opportunities and give them a sense of achievement and dignity by being involved in these programs.Another positive measure which has been promoted by the Howard government is the New Apprenticeships initiative, which boosts local training and job opportunities. New Apprenticeships are a combination of paid work and training recognised by various industries as being appropriate for those industries. The New Apprenticeships initiative provides a financial incentive to employers in regional areas who are prepared to provide these new apprenticeships to young people. The government has set up New Apprenticeships centres to facilitate this initiative. It is expected that 200 of these centres will be located in regional and rural areas from December of this year. Thirty-three of these will be located in Western Australia, made up of 19 in Perth, nine in the south-west, three in the central and south-eastern areas of WA and two in the north of Western Australia.To add to the existing centres, new apprenticeship facilities will be located in Albany, Bunbury, Busselton, Mandurah, Manjimup, Narrogin, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Northam, Broome and Karratha. The New Apprenticeships centres will work closely with local area consultative committees which bring together key industry, employer and community representatives to identify priorities and opportunities for employment and economic development in the areas concerned. This synergy between the New Apprenticeships and the area consultative committees means that there will be a much greater focus on the job opportunities available in these areas.I recently visited Broome and was given the opportunity to take part in an Aboriginal youth forum, representing the Minister for Immigration Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, in promoting the highly successful Living in Harmony program, which was originally an initiative of the Western Australian state government and which has been taken up by the federal government. This forum was held at the Kimberley Camp School, which is adjacent to the Cable Beach Resort in Broome, and has a tropical ambience and is a very nice place indeed.During the forum, which brought together young Aboriginal people—teenagers and people in their early 20s from all over the Kimberley—a whole range of issues were discussed concerning the opportunities for young people in the Kimberley area and the problems that they faced. One of the major topics of discussion was employment opportunities for young people in the Kimberley. I was very pleased to hear of the positive work being done by youth advisory committees, in particular the one located in Halls Creek, which submitted their report, called Kick Back to Reality, at this event. The youth advisory councils have the potential to play a positive role in mobilising young people through ownership and management of their own ideas within local communities.The government has taken positive steps to recognise the invaluable contribution young people have made to their own future through the establishment of the national youth round table. Young people play a role in deciding how projects are developed and delivered in terms of community involvement, employment and education. I think the lack of education, including simple literacy and job skills, makes it very difficult for young indigenous people to obtain jobs. A new action plan to help these young people in regional areas is currently being developed by the government to improve educational outcomes in terms of literacy, numeracy and school attendance. This is called the indigenous employment policy. It will generally improve outcomes for indigenous job seekers through the job network by helping them acquire the skills to obtain work.While I was in Darwin recently I also attended a joint area consultative committee meeting of all the northern area consultative committees. I was very pleased with the success of this meeting since I had originally suggested that such a meeting be held at a meeting of the North-West Area Consultative Committee a couple of years ago, because I felt there were common issues to be faced in terms of providing employment opportunities for young people across the north of Australia and because I thought the solutions might also have much in common for the area across the north of Australia. I was very pleased with the success of that forum, which developed many ideas which will be useful in providing employment to indigenous people in the north of Australia.1055013:25:0010550Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise today to speak briefly on the history of the Australian Protective Services dispute regarding the terms and conditions of their employment. The current Australian Protective Services dispute has its origins in the commencement of the APS workplace certified agreement negotiations in 1997. The 1997 negotiations did not begin well and APS officers were advised that, due to pressures from cabinet, they would have to prepare themselves for significant change to the terms and conditions of their employment.The key elements of this change would include the following:. A 20 per cent reduction in salary costs for operational staff;. An absenteeism reduction scheme;. A reduction in overtime as well as overtime payments;. The use of casual labour; and. A reduction in leave credits.As you may well imagine, the APS officers were utterly astounded when they were confronted with this agenda. What was even more astounding was that they were offered no pay rise in conjunction with these demands. The Transport Workers Union began meeting with the APS management to attempt to establish a conciliatory approach to this certified agreement.These negotiations followed the 1996 federal budget which allocated the APS $11.5 million for restructuring purposes. The union attempted to utilise these additional funds in negotiations to alleviate the pressure on the 20 per cent wage reduction. The position which the TWU took in these negotiations was that APS officers should not be forced to accept such drastic change, especially the 20 per cent reduction in wages, but that other changes were acceptable on the proviso that officers were not disadvantaged.The reply by the APS managers was that these funds had already been used to close regional offices and to fund staff redundancies. At this time I questioned Senator Vanstone regarding the 20 per cent reduction in wages which APS staff were subjected to. It is interesting to note that not long after this the 20 per cent reduction in wages was reduced to `some' reduction in wages.Negotiations continued, with some key elements shaping up into an agreement draft. These elements were: some level of salary increase; changes to the type of agreement rather than the individual agreements, which was the option management preferred; a reduction in overtime payment levels; an increase in working hours from a 38-hour week to 40 hours; loss of emergency duty payments; and the loss of rostered days off.Contrary to recommendations by the union, the APS put this agreement to the vote and the document was rejected at a national level by a record 96.8 per cent of the staff. Following this mass rejection of the certified agreement, the APS, under a new director, decided to push an individual or station specific agreement with the hope that a divide and conquer approach to negotiations would be successful. The new director has frustrated the union's negotiations by changing the initial negotiating position at each meeting with workplace delegates and the union, and has effectively destroyed the good faith of APS employees in the negotiating process.The current situation, coupled with industrial action by APS employees, has eventuated due to the inability of the director to negotiate honestly and fairly. In fact, requests by the Transport Workers Union for a meeting with management have most recently elicited no response at all.At the APS rally on 29 October at West Block, the national headquarters of the APS, the director made public statements to appease the employees with respect to the status of the certified agreement negotiations. Not surprisingly, these statements were later reversed as part of an official statement in a bulletin to staff. At this point in the negotiation, the director agreed to meet with negotiators from the TWU on the proviso that action be postponed. When this did not occur, staff were refused permission to return to their work following the industrial action.A new twist to the tale was the introduction last week of a physical and mental fitness test. All officers attempting promotion, all those going from casual to permanent positions, will now have to undergo a rigorous test similar to that used by SAS army officers. The test, which was introduced without consultation, calls for applicants to become fit within four weeks and to pass a urine drug analysis test as well. As you can imagine, to force the introduction of such a radical change to workplace conditions can only inflame the current industrial situation. The position that the union and staff are currently seeking entails a global certified agreement with a four per cent pay rise each year and little change to conditions. They also demand that the agreement must pass the no disadvantage clause. APS officers have not had a pay rise since 1996. A four per cent across-the-board pay rise made available each year for the life of the agreement would equate to a two per cent rise per annum over the years 1996-2002. This is not a big ask in anyone's book. I believe this situation deserves the urgent attention of the government and warrants, in particular, the active interest of this parliament, especially given the critical services which the APS provides. Decent pay and working conditions are a fundamental right for all employees and the Director of the APS should take the negotiating process seriously.In closing, I would just like to acknowledge that this situation, unfortunately, is so typical of the appalling industrial relations practices that have occurred since the coalition government came to power. Time and time again I see stories of workers stripped of their dignity in their attempt not just to fight for better wages and conditions but indeed to sustain those that have been won over the years and allocated through the industrial relations process on the basis of what is being fair and reasonable to many Australian workers.I think this case exemplifies the great difficulty that both trade unions and their members, so many employees, have in establishing a fair and reasonable negotiating environment so they can work constructively to a positive outcome for all parties. I certainly urge the government's most immediate consideration of this matter.1055213:32:0010552Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—This afternoon I would like to speak about Western Sahara. As most honourable senators would know, Western Sahara is in north-west Africa and for the 100 years prior to 1975 it was a Spanish colony. At that time Spain announced, after several years of resisting UN demands to decolonise, that it would hold a referendum to determine whether the Saharawi people wanted to be independent. Morocco rejected this, as they claimed that Western Sahara was unequivocally part of Morocco. In fact, Morocco was so convinced of the legitimacy of their claim that in 1974 they took it to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ decided that Morocco did not have a legitimate claim to Western Sahara.The decision by the International Court of Justice had an interesting dimension for Australia many years later. This was highlighted recently by the Indigenous Law Centre which ran an article featuring the situation in Western Sahara in its journal. The decision of the ICJ that Morocco could not claim sovereignty over Western Sahara was pivotal in the High Court of Australia's decision in Mabo (No. 2). As the ICJ found that terra nullius did not exist in Western Sahara, it set a precedent for Australian law. It demonstrated, in the words of the ILC, that:. . . institutional bonds are formed between diverse peoples as a direct result of the use of international norms and structures.It is even more amazing that this decision came down in favour of the Saharawis, given that they were just about the only group not able to present a case to the ICJ, as that body only hears from legitimate states.A month after the International Court of Justice ruled against Morocco, Spain handed over Western Sahara, in a secret agreement, to Morocco and Mauritania. There was clearly no legal basis for this secret agreement, but the situation still stands 25 years later. The occupation of Western Sahara was in violation of international law as well as resolutions of the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and the International Court of Justice. But despite the question of the decolonisation of Western Sahara being on the agenda of the UN for more than 25 years, the Saharawi people have yet to be given the opportunity to exercise their rights.In addition, despite King Hassan organising a `green march' of 350,000 Moroccans to walk into the Western Sahara and reclaim their territory, there is evidence that in fact Morocco used particularly brutal tactics, including the use of cluster and napalm bombs. For those who remained in the territory there is documented evidence of imprisonment, intimidation and disappearance. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both have documented evidence of human rights abuses.It strikes me that there are remarkable similarities between the situation in East Timor and that of Western Sahara. Apart from the obvious similarities in the method of annexation—or, more particularly, invasion—and subsequent brutalities, there are also similarities in the UN's attempt to establish a referendum and its push to give the Saharawis a say in their own future although, unlike East Timor, no country in the world, apart from Morocco itself, has formally recognised Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. In fact, the Saharawi republic has been recognised by 76 countries and is a fully fledged member of the Organisation of African Unity.Over the years the pro-independence movement called Polisario fought against the new colonisers and struggled for the independence and freedom of Western Sahara. Mauritania succumbed and signed a peace treaty in 1976. In 1988, Morocco and Polisario agreed to a United Nations and Organisation of African Unity peace plan. This plan included a ceasefire, identification of eligible voters, repatriation of refugees and the organisation of a fair and transparent referendum. The ceasefire was declared in September 1991 with the intention of holding a referendum in January 1992. Evidence from several sources indicates that Morocco has not participated in the plan as honestly or as sincerely as one would hope. In fact, there is clear evidence of intimidation and thuggery on the part of Morocco and clear indications it has tried to influence the ballot, particularly through trying to register thousands of Moroccans now resident in Western Sahara.In 1997, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed James Baker as special representative for Western Sahara. His role was to move the issue on from the impasse it had reached. He enabled direct negotiations to take place between Polisario and Morocco. The result of those was the Houston Agreement, signed in September of 1997. As a result of this agreement the UN redeployed its mission, the identification commission resumed its work and a new ballot date was set for 7 December 1998. However, Morocco still stalled. The date has now been set for July of next year. But even this is not certain. Even in September of this year, demonstrations were forcibly broken up, people were injured and even killed. The Polisario representative in Australia, Kamal Fadel, also has information, confirmed by various media sources, that Morocco has been encouraging its settlers in the territory to kill Saharawis and loot and burn their houses and shops. This too has overtones of tactics recently used in East Timor.There is also a massive refugee problem. There are hundreds and thousands of people living in refugee camps in Tindouf in Algeria. They live in almost uninhabitable terrain in searing heat, with virtually no shelter and totally reliant on aid waiting to return home. There are also 1,900 imprisoned Moroccans who were captured during the war and are now POWs in the camps. Like their exiled captors, some of these men have been there for 25 years. Polisario has recently released 200 of them who are old and sick, but Morocco refuses to take them back, reputedly in case they contradict its propaganda about Polisario. So they will remain there until Morocco frees Western Sahara.Ironically, despite the awful and harsh conditions, these refugee camps are reported to be very well run. They are primarily run by the most liberated women of the Muslim world. As their men have had to go and fight in the resistance army, the women have stayed in the camps and run them. They have taken on leadership roles, they have set up an electoral system and there is a 95 per cent literacy rate. As well, thousands of children every year are sent overseas to Western countries at the expense of host families. They are sent to learn other languages, to be educated about other countries and to gain first-hand experience of Western countries so that they are able to decide for themselves whether the West is really the demon that Islamic extremists often say it is. These are truly remarkable achievements for a people cast out into the sand, terrorised and all but forgotten by the West. It is hoped that with the advent of a new king in Morocco following the death of King Hassan there will be a change in attitude.Unfortunately, despite the UN efforts to date there are still no certainties that the ballot will go ahead. Despite UN involvement, far too many countries are unaware of the plight of the Saharawis. This is particularly unfortunate, because there are only a few months until the ballot and there is still much ground to be covered. It is only through the awareness of the international community and the pressure they might bring to bear on the Moroccan government that there is any hope that the ballot will go ahead.Here in Australia, Polisario is ably represented and I hope that the Australian government will formally meet with Polisario representatives and take note of their concerns. I am also hopeful that the Australian government will bring influence to bear internationally to keep the UN focused on this task and to let the people of Western Sahara have their say in a free, fair and transparent election.1055313:39:0010553Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Today in the Northern Territory parliament the Northern Territory education minister, the Hon. Peter Adamson MLA, will give a ministerial statement regarding indigenous education in the territory. This statement follows the recent release of an important report entitled Learning Lessons: An Independent Review of Indigenous Education in the Northern Territory by our colleague the former senator for the Northern Territory, Bob Collins. Mr Adamson will demonstrate that the Northern Territory government is taking extremely seriously the problems in Aboriginal education and is looking at many ways to find solutions to this long-term difficult problem.I will comment on the Collins review later, but firstly I would like to address remarks made by Senator Crossin in the Senate on Monday. Senator Crossin has once again harped negatively about an issue and shown surprising ignorance. She has failed to present one solution or make one constructive comment, apart from a throwaway line at the end of her diatribe that may deprive Aboriginal people of assistance. The comparison in approach and attitude between Senator Crossin and her predecessor, Bob Collins, is a wide and obvious gap. Her speech was made in the second reading debate on the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 and consisted solely of an attack on the Northern Territory government. The administration of the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program—which I will refer to as IESIP—by the Northern Territory government was the issue on which Senator Crossin vented her spleen, and I would like to address some of her more outlandish comments.In July this year an internal review of IESIP commenced in the Territory. The terms of this review were to reorganise and rationalise the current collection of 32 initiatives to ensure maximum opportunity to enhance outcomes for indigenous students. By undertaking this series of reviews, the Northern Territory government is clearly demonstrating its commitment to addressing the educational concerns for all students, including Aboriginal students. The Collins and IESIP reviews have been undertaken with the support, knowledge and active involvement of the Commonwealth government. Senator Crossin would do well to be part of a bipartisan approach rather than be out of step, as appears to be her current direction.Senator Crossin makes the statement that the current operational plan as negotiated with the Commonwealth from 1997 to 1999 will simply be extended to the year 2000. This is incorrect. As a result of the IESIP review and collaboration with officers from DETYA and the federal minister, Dr Kemp, the operational plan has substantially changed and there has been a revision of the performance indicators and targets. The Northern Territory Aboriginal Education Branch is currently restructuring. At the time of the IESIP review the newly formed Aboriginal Education Branch was made up of two-thirds IESIP funding because it simply pulled together all existing disparate and uncoordinated programs. As the branch establishes its business, increasing numbers of core-funded positions are being advertised and filled. Some of these positions are associated with the implementation of the Collins review and the new structure will reflect the key outcome areas as required to improve indigenous education in the Northern Territory.As Senator Crossin is aware, a fully written response to issues raised by the Senate inquiry into Aboriginal education regarding the state of facilities at Papunya CEC has been provided by the Northern Territory Department of Education. While school principals, in association with school councils, are normally responsible for identifying needs and preparing submissions for minor or capital works, the acting director of schools in Alice Springs is actively assisting in this case. Senator Crossin says:. . . 46.1 per cent of the total money coming from the Commonwealth is taken off under the guise of on-costs by the Northern Territory government.This is untrue. As Senator Crossin herself admits, the on-costs are in relation to the employment of staff, and this amounts to approximately 15 per cent of the total funding. The Northern Territory Department of Education, with the knowledge, participation and support of the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, is currently reviewing the on-costs with the aim of reducing current levels. An external consultant has been engaged to assist in this process.The IESIP review at no time suggested `a breach of contract', as Senator Crossin implies; nor did the Commonwealth. The monitoring of the IESIP program has been conducted jointly between the Northern Territory Department of Education and DETYA since the program commenced in 1990. The IESIP review team's interpretation of `supplementary' and `core' reflects stakeholder understandings of these terms and is based on a literal rather than a formal or legal definition of these terms.The major purpose of the IESIP review was to realign resources to better support schools to deliver strong and effective programs and to enhance and accelerate improved educational outcomes for indigenous students. Providing funds directly to Aboriginal schools in the territory would mean that Aboriginal students in other than remote localities may receive no additional support. From 2000, the Aboriginal Education Branch will be the central coordinating body for all IESIP and core-funded programs for indigenous students. This will allow for more efficient, effective and appropriate support to enable accelerated achievement for indigenous students.Senator Crossin also made mention of the Collins review of Aboriginal education in the Northern Territory. This independent investigation of Aboriginal education, which was commissioned by the Northern Territory government, was intended to provide a catalyst for a major refocus on Aboriginal education in the Territory. It has generated much debate and there is no doubt that the Collins recommendations will be turned into action. The Northern Territory Chief Minister, the Hon. Denis Burke MLA, met with the federal education minister, Dr David Kemp, last week in an indication of the seriousness with which the Northern Territory government takes this issue. A joint Commonwealth-state working party will be convened as a result of that meeting.The Commonwealth has recognised the importance of finding a solution to many of the problems presented in the area of Aboriginal education. Bob Collins in his review discusses the importance to indigenous students in the Northern Territory of the English as a Second Language for Indigenous Language Speaking Students Program. It should be noted that this program is part of the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program that Senator Crossin so vigorously attacked in the Senate on Monday. Bob Collins recommends that the program be extended across all of the primary years of schools and states:The review strongly supports the ESLILSS program and the outstandingly successful work that it is doing across schools in the Northern Territory for those students regularly attending classes.Bob Collins also makes mention of the fact that the Commonwealth is working on a national indigenous literacy, numeracy and attendance strategy. The strategy is part of the plan the Commonwealth recently announced, which has five points, to improve educational outcomes for indigenous students and build on the strong foundations laid through the strategic results projects.These Commonwealth initiatives, along with the review itself, will ensure that the problems outlined by Bob Collins will be addressed. The problems in Aboriginal education will not be solved overnight; it is important to remember that it is an issue that affects and involves many people, not just students.The major problem in indigenous education described in the Collins review is poor attendance rates. It is described in the review as follows:Complex as the task of education is, as a first requirement children must attend school consistently to progress. In relation to indigenous education, poor attendance is without doubt the primary cause of poor educational outcomes.This is a fundamental commonsense statement. I am sure anyone who has had the benefit of gaining a good education would agree and see its obvious logic. Unfortunately, a generation of Aboriginal children, particularly in remote areas in the Northern Territory, are not realising their true potential. This unfortunate reality is mainly due to the simple fact that they are not attending school regularly enough to learn. This is a major problem for the whole community and will have devastating effects in years to come, not only on this generation, but also on future generations of Aboriginal people.It is vitally important that standards be established in Aboriginal communities by parents, community leaders and elders reinforcing the necessity of students attending school and being on time for school. The goal of increasing student attendance level to satisfactory standards is a difficult one that cannot be achieved by the Department of Education, the Commonwealth government, individual teachers or principals alone, and whilst there are several outstanding success stories in the Northern Territory at various schools, it is paramount that these successes be achieved territory-wide and for the long term.Parents must take responsibility for the education of their children and ensure that they attend school and attend on time. They must get involved in their children's education, take an interest in and participate at their school. Parental involvement and participation in schooling is important in any family, but I feel it is particularly so in Aboriginal families. It is only the parents who can bridge the gap between the two cultures—Aboriginal heritage on one side and a relevant 21st century education system on the other.There are many other issues that impact on attendance, in addition to the current lack of parental and community priorities emphasising the importance of attendance at school in order to gain a good education. These include health issues, such as poor nutrition; cultural issues of important ceremonial and historical significance; and housing problems. These issues are significant and must be addressed if Aboriginal education, particularly in remote communities, is ever to reach meaningful standards.Again, I stress that the fundamental problem that must be addressed is attendance. This challenge faces us all but, in particular, the parents and relatives of Aboriginal children in remote communities. Governments must put in place the necessary facilities, tools and encouragement but it is paramount that Aboriginal parents recognise their responsi bilities to the younger generation and rise to the challenge.On a more positive note, Bob Collins cites several examples of schools that have developed innovative schemes to encourage community participation and enhance attendance. A simple but highly effective scheme is that being used by the Alekerange School north-east of Alice Springs. The Alekerange School has developed a carrot and stick approach to encouraging attendance, with very good results. The initiative that has been developed has the support of the community, which is vital, and involves the senior primary school students' attendance figures being prominently displayed in the classroom. Attendance is linked to the end of semester excursion and those who have perfect attendance records get to go on the excursion for free. Those that do not have a perfect record pay a fine of $1 for every day of school missed that cannot be explained. This simple but effective approach has raised attendance levels to approximately 90 per cent, an outcome that must be congratulated. Similarly, on a visit to Warburton in remote Western Australia earlier this year, I was informed that swimming pool access was given only to students attending school. Harsh maybe, but certainly effective.In conclusion, I would like to remind senators that the Northern Territory government instituted this review out of a desire to refocus the Northern Territory Department of Education's activities in Aboriginal education. It is worth noting that Bob Collins's recommendations relating to the need to form partnerships between Aboriginal people and government agencies is consistent with a vision for the Northern Territory outlined by the Chief Minister, the Hon. Denis Burke, in his recently released policy document Foundations for our Future. Sitting suspended from 1.53 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice105561055610556Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer to the minister's statement in the Senate yesterday when he said: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.Is it not true that APEC's Industry, Science and Technology Working Group, of which Australia was at the time `lead shepherd' or chair, gave approval to Australia's proposal for APEC endorsement of the event? Did this not enable the government and in fact the minister's own department to strongly influence the working group's work program, including the decision to grant APEC approval to the government's own proposal for official endorsement?10557Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I am not sure that I can add much to what I said yesterday. The facts are all on the table and were all on the public record at the time the matter was being handled by Minister Moore. In August 1998, the then Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, having been approached by the private sector managers, initiators and overseers of the proposed Technomart seeking its support—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It wasn't Technomart then.JX4Senator MINCHIN—It was a Technomart; it was not badged. They sought APEC badging and the department's sponsorship of that matter at that time back in August 1998. The department invited other APEC economies to cosponsor that event. That went through the normal APEC channels and APEC badging was secured. That was welcomed by the then minister, by the Queensland government and, of course, by the sponsors themselves.It was all above board, as I said yesterday. It was always presented to the APEC working group on the basis that it was an initiative of the private sector to have a Technomart and that it would help and be good if the thing had APEC badging. That was done through the normal channels and was all above board. It was always on the basis that it was private sector managed but that the governments, both the Queensland and the federal governments, would hopefully provide financial sponsorship to what was a private sector initiative.10557Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I do not know why the minister could not answer my previous question when his own department's annual report for 1998-99, released just last week, states:. . . through the year . . . Australia took the role of Lead Shepherd for the Industry, Science and Technology Working Group, which enabled the Government to strongly influence the Working Group's direction and program.I have a supplementary question: Is the minister simply incompetent or is he trying to hide the fact that his own department strongly influenced APEC's decision to give APEC approval to a conference which disastrously failed and which was run by a company that is now in liquidation?10557Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I have no idea where this is really going. We have never hidden the fact that the department, through the officials who attended these APEC working group meetings, did strongly urge and support the proposition that APEC badging be given to this event. There is nothing hidden about that whatsoever. It is a perfectly proper thing for the department to have done.This event did offer the opportunity for very significant promotion and showcasing of Australian technology. My department and the Queensland government did place considerable store in the professionalism and experience of the people in PacRim. They had good reason to do that and had every reason to believe there was every prospect this would be a successful conference. It is regrettable that it was not, but there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the departmental officials strongly supporting APEC endorsement of the event.Distinguished Visitors1055710557The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a delegation from the Papua New Guinea Constitutional Development Commission, led by the Hon. Yauwe Riyong. On behalf of honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate and trust that your visit will be informative and enjoyable. UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice105581055810558Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate of evidence of the continuing strength of the Australian economy? How will tax reform further help Australian families?10558Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Gibson for that important question. Senator Gibson is well known for his particular concern and interest in the economy and for the important role he played in the tax reform program. There are a number of factors which underlie the current strength of the Australian economy. Unemployment has fallen by 0.3 per cent to 7.1 per cent. Since coming to government, we have created just under 600,000 jobs. We have continuing low inflation. We have interest rates at dramatically lower levels than the record highs under Labor, and we are seeing continuing strong growth.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Would Labor senators who are consistently shouting please cease doing so.WW4Senator KEMP—Last night I went to the ACCI dinner with a number of colleagues, including Senator Conroy and Senator Collins. Senator Conroy, I might say, was in his black tie clobber, looking very bourgeois indeed—not the typical clobber you would wear to a TWU function!Yesterday saw the release of the ACCI's survey of small business which showed that general business conditions in the small business sector improved over the most recent quarter. The survey also showed that the small business sector is optimistic, with the index for the next period at almost 66 indicating that business conditions should continue to improve.However, while the economy is in good shape, it is important that we now put in place the measures which will ensure that the Australian economy is on a sound footing for the next century. We need to ensure that the benefits of reforms flow through to Australian families and Australian workers. That is why on 1 July next year the government will deliver the largest tax cut in Australian history. Many families will benefit in the order of $40 to $50 per week. I think I am right in saying that Labor opposed tax reform; Labor opposed the tax cuts. Our business tax reforms are also an absolutely essential element of the reform process, and we are going to give Australia an internationally competitive company tax rate and also an internationally competitive capital gains tax regime.The Labor Party is all over the place on this reform, as on others. Mark Latham was opposed to the very important capital gains tax changes that were debated in the caucus yesterday. Frankly, Madam President, if you had heard some of the debates in the other place this morning, you would know that the Labor Party on this issue, as on so many other issues, is all over the place. Where does Labor stand on any major issue? That is the hardest question anyone can ask in this parliament, because we do not know and the Labor Party does not know either. This government is presiding over clear policies for Australia which are helping to create a very sound economy which is delivering real benefits to Australian families and Australian workers.1055810558Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer to the minister's statement in the Senate yesterday:. . . 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.Once APEC had approved Australia's proposal to host APEC Technomart III as a commercially managed and administered event, did the government put out a tender for companies interested in commercially managing and administering the event? What investigations did the minister's department carry out into PacRim Technomart, including as to their experience and financial situation, before promoting them as the commercial managers and administrators of Australia's APEC Technomart? What investigations did the minister's department carry out into Judith Maestracci before advising APEC she would be the project manager and Australian contact for APEC Technomart III?10559Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—These rather tedious questions, which I would have thought were more appropriate for some estimates monologue, really are based on a false premise. One should understand that departments like mine get approached for sponsorships on a regular basis, and the department itself, not me, makes decisions in relation to sponsorships on a regular basis, as I guess do other departments.The organisers of this Technomart approached the department before my time—this was during 1998—and sought the department's support for their proposal for a Technomart to be held in Australia and run by the private sector, by them. That proposal came along with lots of other proposals that are put to my department by various private sector organisations seeking sponsorship of that kind from my department.My department, through the course of 1998, examined their request for the sponsorship of this as a private sector initiative—it was not initiated by my department but came from the private sector—and, as history records, and as I have been saying today and yesterday, my department agreed that it would support this private sector initiative before this APEC working group on the basis that it was worthy of receiving APEC badging. It is not unusual, as I understand it, for APEC badging to be given to private sector initiatives in this or any other field and to involve private sector people.So you have the whole thing upside down. This was not a case of the Australian government deciding it was going to hold an APEC Technomart and then putting some tender out. This was a private sector initiative—and good on them—to hold this Technomart. They approached the Queensland government and the Commonwealth government seeking support for it. My department would have gone through all the normal checks in relation to the principles behind it, as did the Queensland government. Premier Beattie said to me personally when I was on the Gold Coast for this thing that Judith Maestracci was incredibly well qualified and a very high profile person in Queensland. I have her CV here and I am happy to table it. She is highly regarded in Queensland. She has had a number of appointments on government boards in Queensland and is a very significant professional organiser of major events. This was all available to my department in 1998, as it was to the Queensland government.As I said, it was not a matter of this being put out to tender. These people approached the government, as do many others, seeking support for their event. The department, having gone through all its checks, as did the Queensland government, decided that it would provide support to these private sector organisers and initiators of this event. The Queensland government was as convinced as my department was that this was a professionally organised and approached event and it was worthy of the sponsorship which my department gave to it.10559Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. If, as the minister repeatedly says, APEC Technomart III was a private sector initiative and that, `At no time was it ever presented as anything other than a private sector initiative,' can he explain why, when in 1998 the government announced APEC's endorsement of Australia's proposal to host APEC Technomart III, it was portrayed as an Australian initiative with no mention of it being a private sector initiative? Can he explain why there was no mention of PacRim Technomart and no mention of Judith Maestracci in that announcement?10559Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Senator Conroy is asking me about a press statement made by the then Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism in the previous government before the last election in October 1998. I have not got that press release before me but the whole way through this it was always on the basis, as was the proposal put to APEC, that this was a private sector initiative. Obviously it is Australian because PacRim and Judith Maestracci and her colleagues are Australian, as it happens, and this event was going to be held in Australia. So of course it was Australian, and I cannot see anything wrong with that.1056010560Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. The coalition government has pursued an active social agenda which has, contrary to opposition claims, increased payments to families and older Australians in particular whilst maintaining the integrity of the social security system. Minister, could you please explain to the Senate current developments in social security reform?10560Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Knowles, who is the Chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, for her question on this important public policy issue. As the Senate would know, I released recently a discussion paper on long-term welfare dependency and the future of welfare into the 21st century. Yesterday I announced the release of a further discussion paper outlining the government's proposals to change how trusts and companies are treated under the social security means test. The Labor Party in government had failed to deal with this clear abuse of the social security system. I am alarmed at the equivocal Labor Party response to the announcement yesterday. The Labor Party family and community services spokesman, Wayne Swan, responds by questioning the estimated level of savings and responds with a partisan banter about trusts. The Labor Party should give unequivocal support to such a measure. Mr Swan comes across as a typical naysayer—knee-jerk and partisan opposition to everything, opportunism incarnate.The discussion paper proposes that, where a person controls or has contributed to a private company or private trust, the income and assets of that company or trust may be taken into account when assessing that person's entitlement to income support. It is estimated that less than 40,000 Centrelink and Veterans' Affairs customers will be affected by this measure, but savings to taxpayers are expected to be over $100 million a year. The measure could take effect from 1 July 2001. There is a growing body of evidence that some financial planners are using this currently legal loophole to undermine the integrity of our taxpayer funded social security system. Between 1993 and 1994 and 1996 and 1997 the number of trusts lodging tax returns increased by nearly 30 per cent. Seminars openly advocating the use of trusts and other vehicles to avoid social security means tests are increasingly prevalent. Clearly a network of information is growing. The government has a responsibility to all Australians to shut the barn door before the horse bolts.A key objective of the Howard government is to ensure that only those Australians who need financial support receive social security payments, thus maintaining the integrity of the social security system. I am concerned that a number of well-off and even wealthy people are using private trusts and private companies to get payments when they are clearly able to support themselves. This equity measure will address this situation. We need to ensure that all people are treated fairly and that taxpayers' money is being paid only to those Australians who genuinely need help. Most of the savings are expected to occur through the application of the assets test, and it does not come into play until significant assets are available. For example, a home owner couple can currently have more than $387,000 in assets, excluding their home, before losing all entitlement. Non-home owners have even more generous allowable levels of assets.It is expected that many of the people who are affected by this measure will have assets and income significantly greater than the maximum limits allowed. Of course there will be exceptions to the rules where the application of a means test would be unreasonable. Centrelink and the Department of Veterans' Affairs assessors would have the capacity to remedy any unreasonable application of the means test. There will be a further discretion available to the secretary to disregard attribution under the means test in certain circumstances. There is an opportunity for individu als and organisations to comment on the proposals before the details are finalised. Written submissions are welcome, and I encourage anyone with comments on the proposal to provide a written submission to my department by 31 December this year.1056110561Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Minister, was it the case that in the lead-up to APEC Technomart III a number of APEC countries suggested to the federal government that they would have preferred Australia to fully fund participation by them? If so, will the minister advise the Senate which APEC countries made this suggestion, and will the minister advise the Senate which countries did not participate in APEC Technomart III but which had participated in Technomarts I and II?10561Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I will have to take most of that question on notice. I do not know which particular countries. The APEC Technomart working group that had responsibility for this matter, which is a group of officials, agreed to the badging of it as an APEC event. It went ahead as APEC Technomart III. People from all over the APEC group were invited to participate. There were delegations from a variety of countries that came in their private capacities—private sector, public sector, et cetera—and various companies exhibited at the Technomart. As you know, unfortunately it was not a commercial success, but I am happy to take your question on notice and get you the detail.10561Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. While I appreciate the minister has taken the question on notice, I am disappointed he does not know the answer, given this has been subject to considerable parliamentary questioning in this sitting week of the Senate. Given that the minister said in a statement yesterday that the previous APEC Technomarts had been very successful, will the minister confirm that those two Technomarts were initiated, organised and administered by the respective industry departments of each host country, not by the private sector? Does that explain why APEC countries were complaining about not being funded to participate in Technomart III? Does this explain why the first two Technomarts were a success and Technomart III was a humiliation for Australia and a humiliation for Senator Minchin?VW4HERRONSenator Herron—It was humiliating for Peter Beattie, the Queensland Labor Premier.10561Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Exactly. That is a really quite silly proposition. If it is so humiliating for me, as my colleague Senator Herron says, it is just as humiliating for your colleague the Labor Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie. They were just as much supportive of this event as we were.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise is unacceptable. People are shouting across the chamber and ought not to be.JX4Senator MINCHIN—I am frankly very disappointed that the opposition is being so critical of their colleagues in Queensland, who sponsored this event to the same tune as we did, who supported the event on exactly the same basis as we did. They were partners with us in sponsoring this private sector event, and it does you no good to be criticising your Premier in Queensland, Premier Beattie. He will be very interested to read the Hansard of today's events.1056110561Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Could the minister please outline the procedure followed by the government to determine appointments to the board of the Australian Tourist Commission and what degree of consultation with the tourism industry is involved? Could the minister also explain why the government again did not use the recent opportunity to appoint a respected representative of the Australian hotels industry to the ATC board, when the industry has been providing the minister with nominees who enjoy the support of the industry since 1996? 10562Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Senator Ridgeway's question seems to be prompted by complaints from the Australian Hotels Association about the recent appointment of former Tasmanian tourism minister, Mr Nicholas Evers, as the new Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission, an appointment which was welcomed by the Tourism Council of Australia in a press release of Tuesday, 19 October 1999, which stated:Managing Director of the leading industry body, the Tourism Council of Australia, Phil Young, today welcomed the appointment of Nicholas Evers as Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission.The minister responsible for sport and tourism, Jackie Kelly, wrote to Mr Richard Mulcahy, the National Executive Director of the Australian Hotels Association, on 23 November in response to the sorts of questions which I guess prompt Senator Ridgeway's question. In her letter, she states:I fully agree the most qualified person should be appointed to the ATC board and that this person should have expertise relevant to the tourism industry. In making recent appointments to the ATC board, the government considered several potential candidates, including representatives from the Australian hotels industry. The recent appointees best met the criteria as prescribed in the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987. You indicate in your letter that the ATC would benefit from industry input into their plans at the highest level. I am happy to raise this matter with the ATC board.Inevitably, when you are making appointments of these kinds, various sectors will be unhappy with the appointments that are made. That is inevitable with every board to which the government appointments members. Obviously, we regret that the Hotels Association is not happy with the current situation. But we do go through a careful process of consultation in making these appointments. As I said, Jackie Kelly has written to the Hotels Association explaining the procedures and how the appointments were made.10562Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the appointment does not enjoy the full support of the industry, will the government develop guidelines or a code of practice for public appointments similar to those established by the Nolan committee in the United Kingdom, and will they appoint a commissioner for public appointments to ensure that the compositions of boards like the ATC are above reproach and are able to gain full industry support and cooperation?10562Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The government has well-established and very good procedures for appointing members to boards and those will continue to be followed. We do make very good appointments. As I said, the recent appointment of the chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission has been welcomed by the premier body—the Tourism Council of Australia.1056210562Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Is the minister aware that the partnering of an established Australian company, Wizard Computer Training, in the Group 5 bid counted towards the `Australian component' and therefore assisted the Telstra-IBM-LendLease consortium Advantra to win the Group 5 tender? Can the minister confirm that a letter from his department to Wizard Computer Training dated September 1999 said:The provision of services by Wizard Computer Training was documented in quantitative form under the Industry Development Schedule of the Group 5 contract.Is it not the case that Advantra waited until after their successful bid was announced before delivering an ultimatum to Wizard to accept a lower price or they would lose the contract? Given the appalling conduct of Advantra, what action has the minister taken to ensure that this or any other Australian IT company has a fair go?10562Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not know the circumstances surrounding that particular matter. I am happy to make some inquiries about it. All I can say is that it is only the industry development plans that are part of my responsibility. I can understand Senator Lundy's obsession with this issue. As was pointed out in the Canberra Times recently, she is basically here as the mouthpiece of the CPSU on this subject. And, as she told the Senate herself, IT outsourcing has occupied a significant proportion of her time throughout her period here in the Senate. Then what did she say in April this year? She said, `I don't have the answer. I am gravely worried.' So, in other words, she has no idea what the proper approach is to IT outsourcing. She is basically waging an ideological war against the government. She says, from Labor's point of view, they are not opposed to outsourcing. But any objective critic would conclude that Senator Lundy is certainly passionately opposed in every aspect. So I will see what additional information I can obtain in relation to the specific matter raised by Senator Lundy. Beyond that, I have nothing further to add.10563Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not true that the minister's department `saw no reason for opposing the variation'—that is, ditching Wizard—`as an equivalent industry development outcome is expected'? Given that Advantra subsequently replaced Wizard Computer Training with their own contractors, how does this qualify as an equivalent industry development outcome? Why doesn't this government admit that the IT outsourcing program is allowing Aussie companies like Wizard to get nailed to the wall as a result of the appalling conduct of Advantra? Minister, will you go into bat for this Aussie IT company, or are you just going to sit back and watch them go to the wall?10563Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The last thing we want is to see Australian companies go to the wall. The tragedy is that Senator Lundy really does not know what side of the fence to come down on in this area. Clearly, IT outsourcing has a significant capacity to substantially reduce the cost to government of providing these services. As long as there are reasonable opportunities for Australian companies to be involved and to tender and as long as the process is aboveboard, I would have thought that you get a satisfactory outcome all round. Unfortunately, Senator Lundy is simply passionately opposed to all forms of outsourcing, despite the fact that her party does not have the same view, and that really colours her thinking on the issue. I have every interest in ensuring that Wizard got a fair go and that the assessment made by my department was completely aboveboard. Beyond that, I certainly do not share the obsessions that Senator Lundy has with denigrating this process. (Time expired)1056310563Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is directed to Minister Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. In June this year, Medibank Private changed its rules by amending its tables and introducing various waiting periods on ancillary health benefits. Did Medibank Private notify affected contributors as required by the ministerial directions issued in September 1996? Will Medibank Private waive these waiting periods for any affected contributors who were not notified? If so, will Medibank Private notify affected contributors to this effect and reimburse those whose claims were rejected on the basis of the unnotified waiting periods?10563Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Harradine for the question. Yes, it is correct that in June this year a new range of extra products was introduced to more specifically target members' life stages and budgets. These product changes were made as a result of feedback from members which highlighted the need for Medibank Private to simplify its product range, introduce a national product range and make its products more competitive in the marketplace. It is important to note that, while Medibank Private has developed new products, it recognises that many existing members will choose to remain on the old products. Medibank Private has not forcibly transferred members to new products, as we believe it is a decision that each member needs to make in light of their personal circumstances. An information campaign has been developed by Medibank Private Ltd to encourage take-up of the new products.The official launch of the new products—involving a new advertising campaign, which included a new television commercial, newspaper advertising and supporting merchandise material—commenced in July. At the same time, an extensive mailing campaign for Medibank Private Ltd members was undertak en. This campaign took the form of a four-page special edition of its Enjoy magazine. Even though this publicity occurred, there seem to have been some Medibank Private members who do not know how these new products operate. Ministers Wooldridge and Fahey expect Medibank Private to deliver a high standard of service to their members.In the case that Senator Harradine referred to, Medibank Private appears to have dropped the ball with some of its members. Minister Wooldridge's office has had discussions with Medibank Private with regard to this issue. Medibank Private has indicated that a personalised letter to select Medibank Private members who have super extras and special extras will be distributed in December, inviting members to change to one of the new extra products.In addition, Medibank Private Ltd members who are scheduled to receive a renewal notice during the next 13 weeks will also be advised of the new products. Discussions will continue to ensure that Medibank Private members are not disadvantaged by not being aware of these new products. The government and the Senate encourage private health insurance funds to develop a simpler and better range of private health insurance products, some of which include no-gaps cover. In relation to the specific question regarding that particular instance, I have not been briefed, Senator Harradine, and I will have to get back to you after a further approach to the minister.10564Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I have a brief supplementary question. Could the minister please assess what other funds have done in this particular regard as well?10564Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am happy to take that question up with the minister.1056410564Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that Tasmanian Centrelink offices are currently holding crisis meetings to address the fact that every office is anywhere up to $300,000 over budget and that strategies put to these meetings to deal with this budget shortfall include further staff cuts, the clustering of welfare services to different offices and the closure of several regional branches? Can the minister confirm that up to 30 positions will be lost as a result of this overspend? When will the government move to address this situation and provide Centrelink with sufficient resources to actually do its job?10564Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Centrelink has been doing its job very effectively and with increased productivity, improved morale for staff and improved answer times for call centre assistance. In recent weeks, the response times for call centres and the productivity benchmarks have in fact excelled those of the private sector. I know that the representatives of the CPSU would like to portray Centrelink as having been cut about, brutalised and unkind to its staff. I can say that that is just not true. I know that some members of the federal Labor Party have been putting about claims in Tasmania that Tasmanian contracts with Service Tasmania are in jeopardy and that the regional centres that we have opened up over the last couple of years will be closed. That is utterly untrue.If Senator Mackay is simply peddling that tired old misinformation, I suggest she goes back to the CPSU and asks them not to embarrass her with the information that they are providing to her. It is just not true that these regional centres are closing. In fact, it is a very interesting example of the government's determination to improve services to people who do not live in big cities. When we came into government, there was only one country area in Tasmania with a Centrelink office, and it was a one-man office on the west coast of Tasmania.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You've lost the plot. No-one is listening.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, cease shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I know Senator Bolkus claims he is not listening to me, but that is just an example of why the Labor Party will not be supported by people in country Australia. They do not care.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam President, on a point of order: I claim to be totally misrepresented. It is not that I am not listening to it; none of her colleagues is listening to it, and with good reason.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, and you will cease shouting during question time.BE4Senator NEWMAN—After we came into government, we established Centrelink. We not only maintained the office on the west coast of Tasmania, where the miners who used to vote Labor tend to live—AW5CARRSenator Carr—How many House of Representatives seats do you have in Tasmania?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour on my left is disorderly.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Centrelink opened four more offices in small communities in Tasmania—interestingly, in partnership and with a contract with the state government service provider, which is Service Tasmania. That contract has been in the process of being reviewed, and that might have set the hares running on this issue. But I can say that the people in rural Tasmania believe they have had excellent service.It is taking services to country people, not taking services away from country people as happened under the previous government. This is an excellent system. It is cost-effective for taxpayers, but people in rural areas are getting services from the state government and from the federal government that they never got before in their home towns. If anything, this is a model which needs to be replicated in other states of Australia. It was piloted in Tasmania, and we are very pleased with the outcomes. I deny that those offices are going to be closed down.10565Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Firstly, can the minister please answer the first two questions I asked, which were: (1) is there a $300,000 overspend in each of the offices, and (2) is it true that 30 positions may be in jeopardy as a result of this? Secondly, can the minister advise whether 17 staff have been approached in the Launceston office concerning redundancy offers? Isn't it the case that the Centrelink national office was initially unaware of the proposed actions of Centrelink in Tasmania and that the responsibility for dealing with these resource shortages has been pushed down to the states and the regions?AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about an answer?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, that is disorderly.10565Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have not heard that allegation before. I have become very wary of listening to the allegations that come from the ALP in relation to Centrelink. I would not accept those claims on face value. I will be very interested to speak to the minister responsible for Centrelink to see whether there is any information I can add to my answer. But I do know, and perhaps Senator Mackay does not know, that Centrelink is funded on the number of people it services. When unemployment drops—as, thank God, at last it is starting to in Tasmania—there are fewer people being serviced for unemployment payments, and that may well be the basis for what you are claiming. But I have no knowledge of it, and I will get an answer if there is anything to add.Distinguished Visitors1056510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a delegation from the Republic of Czechoslovakia led by Senator Karel Burda. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and trust that your visit here will be both informative and enjoyable.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice105651056510565Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. Will the minister please inform the Senate of the government's ongoing efforts to tackle the tragedy of indigenous family violence in our communities?10565Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question, for her continued interest in this problem and for the initiatives she has taken in her own state. Indigenous family violence is an issue of enormous concern to the Commonwealth government. The distress, the heartache and the despair of family violence touches the lives of so many people in the wider community. It should be of grave concern to the nation that some women and children continue to experience appalling levels of physical and psychological abuse.The incidence of violence in indigenous communities is disproportionately high and must be given priority and attention by indigenous communities themselves and by all levels of government. The most recent reported incident occurred only last weekend, where media reports indicate alcohol related violence forced 12 medical staff to evacuate a community. It is absolutely unacceptable for women and children, in particular, to live their lives in such threatening and dangerous circumstances.That is why, in collaboration with ATSIC, I proposed at the Ministerial Council on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs meeting in September that governments around Australia commit themselves to a national coordinated strategy to address the problem. I got that commitment from the states and territories, and I congratulate them for their support. As a follow-up to that agreement, on Friday I will convene a working group with representatives from each state and territory, ATSIC, the Torres Strait Regional Authority and communities themselves. This meeting is the first step in progressing and implementing a national strategy aimed at putting a stop to the abuses suffered by indigenous women and children.The states and territories are primarily responsible for addressing family violence. However, the federal government is so concerned about the problem that I am pleased to announce today that the Commonwealth will devote $6 million from the $25 million Partnership Against Domestic Violence program to target family violence in indigenous communities. I would like to acknowledge the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Jocelyn Newman, for her support in making this initiative possible and for her own interest in this particular aspect of her portfolio.Since 1990, indigenous deaths from family violence have been almost 30 per cent higher nationally than indigenous deaths in custody for the same period. Almost half—46 per cent—of all hospital separations among females for intentional injury are indigenous women. Among indigenous women, intentional injury accounts for more hospital separations than does diabetes or cancer and almost as many for infections and parasitic diseases. A recent Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study highlighted that, in 1998, indigenous children constituted 17.4 per cent of the total national number of children on care and protection orders. In other words, depending on which state or territory they lived in, indigenous children were five to eight times more likely than other children to be subject to abuse and neglect. It is a very shameful story.In order to get a firmer understanding of the many factors involved from a community perspective, I held a roundtable in July this year, bringing people who live and work with this problem on a daily basis—all indigenous people who are concerned about this problem—together. This discussion highlighted the need for community ownership of the problem and community involvement in solutions. The Commonwealth has taken a leading role in this issue and has demonstrated its commitment to addressing this serious problem. It is important that this issue be not politicised. It is a very important action that we have taken, and I believe it will lead to a solution, or at least an attempt at a solution, based on community involvement.1056610566Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Has the minister seen the comments of her colleague Petro Georgiou in his speech last Thursday entitled `Menzies, liberalism and social justice'? Can she confirm that Mr Georgiou stated:There are currently more individuals in Australia who win first and second division Tattslotto each year than there are individuals engaged in welfare fraud.Is Mr Georgiou correct?10567Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have a problem with answering the question because I do not know how many people win Tattslotto. So the basis of the comparison in the question makes it a bit difficult.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Crowley has asked a question and you should listen to the answer. Senator Crowley certainly wants to hear it.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am very happy to try and inform Senator Crowley that, as happened under previous governments, the number of cases which are taken by the former Department of Social Security and now by Centrelink to the DPP for possible prosecution is always a very restricted number based on criteria which have been laid down for some years as to the amount of money owing and similar matters. Over the years, between 2,500 and 3,000 people, from memory, have been prosecuted for fraud under the social security legislation. The usual success rate, because the cases that are taken to court are carefully selected by the DPP, is something in the order of 98 per cent. That means there is a very good chance that, if you are setting out to defraud your fellow Australians by fraud under the Social Security Act, you will be caught and sent to jail.But a large number of people who have also been defrauding their fellow taxpayers are not taken to court because they do not fit the criterion of fraud involving many thousands of dollars, et cetera. However, they may have been doing it consistently—sometimes for a number of years—and they may have been claiming more than one pension by using a false identity or by using their maiden name as well as their married name. Those kinds of things happened under Labor and not a great deal was done about them. Since we have come into government, there has been a very serious effort to try to clean up the social security system. It is a misunderstanding—and I have seen Labor fall into the same misunderstanding—to talk about the number of people who are successfully prosecuted as being the only indicator of fraud against social security. This certainly has been the case, and those are documented figures by the department.The work continues, and Mr Anthony was talking only this week about video surveillance of people who, in Centrelink's view, were persistently defrauding the system but for whom it was very difficult to get evidence. We had a pilot program, as some senators will recall, using a video surveillance system and it has been considered to be so useful that it has now been expanded into a major program.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Labor senators will stop shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—We will have a better idea of the number of people who can be successfully prosecuted after the new program of video surveillance has been up and running for some time. The bellowing coming from the other side by way of interjections indicates that those opposite are obviously not aware of the fact that successive estimates committees have been advised by my officials that, of all the hundreds of thousands of people who have had to pay back money to Centrelink and who may in fact be taken off payments as well or have them reduced, less than four per cent is due in any way to administrative error.10567Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I am not sure whether you said you would try to find out—but I think it would be useful if you could try to confirm—whether Mr Georgiou is correct. Certainly, on the figures that you have given us, 2,500 to 3,000 people successfully prosecuted are very modest figures. If Mr Georgiou is correct that there are more people winning Tattslotto than engaging in welfare fraud, why did the minister spend almost $2 million in a massive full-page tabloid newspaper advertising campaign immediately before the last election to highlight the government's fraud recovery? Wouldn't the money have been better spent on effective social justice programs rather than demonising the poor?10568Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not believe in demonising the battling taxpayers who have been paying for that system under Labor's mismanagement. If that is the answer you want, that is the answer you are going to get—because that is what happened under Labor. The system has certainly had a turn for the better and is in a better state of health under this government. You obviously did not listen to the answer that I gave you, Senator, and I think, if you carefully go and look at Hansard afterwards, you will get the answer to your question, except that I cannot compare the numbers I am discussing with the number of people who win Tattslotto—but I can certainly tell you that it is a good deal more than 3,000 people; it is in some many thousands.1056810568Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, representing the Minister for Trade. What is Australia's position on the establishment of a working party on biotechnology under the WTO in the upcoming meeting in Seattle? What would the impact of that working party be on the international biosafety protocol currently under negotiation, which is aimed at preventing indiscriminate exporting of genetically modified organisms? Will the working party undermine responsible regulation of genetically modified organisms under the guise of free trade?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Have you got notice of this question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is not your turn to ask a question, Senator Carr.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You've been given a copy of this.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!10568Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—But the trouble is that she changed it during question time. I am sure that it was not a deliberate plot, although I have to say the question on WTO and biodiversity is easier than the question on WTO and biosafety. Nevertheless, we will give it a go.As the honourable senator will know, negotiations are continuing towards development of a protocol on biosafety that will allow the transmission of LMOs, living modified organisms, across state borders in a way that is designed to be beneficial whilst at the same time providing proper notice to recipient states so that they can make their own responsible decisions in relation to importation. Negotiations have been protracted but are ongoing and we hope will be concluded in the not too distant future. Certainly, as I said, implicit within that is a belief that, at least in some circumstances, this transmission can be beneficial to recipient states—it might be in terms of improving agricultural production or in a number of other ways—and, therefore, there should not be unnecessary inhibitions in the trade.Is that consistent with WTO? As far as I am concerned, it is because the recipient state is entitled to make its own laws and set its own standards in relation to importation, provided that those rules are for purposes that are not simply trade related. They may be, for example, the rules that AQIS applies in this country in relation to quarantine; they might be other legitimate environmental considerations or health considerations. If they are a disguised trade barrier, they would, of course, fall foul of the WTO rules. But the purpose in concluding the biosafety protocol is not to provide for an opportunity to avoid WTO obligations but for the purposes that I have just stated.In relation to the question as to whether a biotechnology working group within the WTO would assist any of these or other related questions, I am not sure what position the Minister for Trade has taken in that regard but I will find out and let the honourable senator know. I hope that answers all of her question. I was rudely interrupted by the opposition during the asking of it so I might have missed something, but no doubt that will be picked up in the supplementary.10568Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I recognise that the minister is representing the Minister for Trade and the Democrats were anxious to have an answer, and that is why we advised him. I thank the minister for his response and I look forward to the response from the Minister for Trade as to whether or not this country supports a working party on biotechnology. But I ask the minister: can he guarantee, and can he get a guarantee from the Minister for Trade, that such a working party, if we support it, will not constrain national labelling schemes for products that contain genetically modified organisms?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Stott Despoja is asking a question, and there are senators conducting a conversation across the chamber in front of her. It makes it hard, I imagine, for her and it certainly makes it hard for me to hear.3I6Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you, Madam President. I also ask the minister whether the government will consider supporting an eco-labelling scheme under the WTO which would encompass gene modified products.10569Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The suggestion for an eco-labelling scheme is one that has been advanced by a number of countries, particularly within the European community. The attitude that our government has taken internally in relation to labelling is that it is for individual states to decide. I will have this checked to verify it, but I do not think that a genuine eco-labelling system that is designed to inform consumers and that is not simply a trade barrier in disguise would be in contravention of WTO rules. But, as I have said, I will have that checked and, if I am wrong, I will come back and advise the honourable senator. Beyond that, I have to say that I find it difficult to see how the WTO negotiations would further address the issue of eco-labelling. But if a good case is put up by other states, we will listen to it. (Time expired)1056910569Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Newman in her capacity as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is the minister aware of a recent study entitled `The future is bleak: Enterprise bargaining and gender wage equity' by Associate Profes sor Crockett and Dr Preston? Is the minister aware of the study's findings that since 1991 the gender wage gap in Western Australia has increased 5.5 per cent from 17½ per cent at August 1991 to 23 per cent at August 1998? Does the minister agree with the study's conclusion that this widening gender gap, to the disadvantage of female workers in Western Australia, is a direct result of the industrial relations reforms introduced by the Court government? Minister, aren't these the same types of policy measures that have already been implemented by the Howard government or are planned in Mr Reith's second wave?10569Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not have Western Australia's figures here, but I can give the Senate information about the gap between male and female wages, which I think is probably the appropriate way to answer this question. The ratio of female to male average weekly full-time earnings, not including overtime, is 85 per cent as at August 1999. That is the highest rate on record.Women's earnings are growing at a faster rate than men's. In the 12 months to August 1999 average weekly ordinary time earnings grew by 3.5 per cent for females, compared with 1.5 per cent for males. Over the same period, all female total earnings, which includes part-time workers, grew by 1.2 per cent, compared with 0.7 per cent for males. Between February 1996 and August 1999 average weekly full-time earnings, not including overtime, have grown faster for women than for men. Women's earnings grew by 15.2 per cent and men's by 12.8 per cent. As women continue to achieve record rates of tertiary qualifications and increasingly break down the traditional occupation barriers, the pay gap is likely to continue to diminish. I will have a look at that report, Senator Bishop, and see if there is anything that I can add to my answer that directly relates to the Western Australian situation.10569Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The issue behind the question, Minister, was the growing wage gap on a gender basis in Western Australia deriving from the longstanding reforms introduced by the Court government early this decade. Minister, in that context could you explain why is the study wrong in stating that the experience and results of the second wave agenda in Western Australia provides `an excellent indication of what to expect in a more decentralised federal environment'?10570Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I know the senator is really wanting a home state headline, and I hate to disappoint him in that. I had thought that Western Australia was still part of the nation.Honourable senators interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Sit down!BE4Senator NEWMAN—We have got the bully going again. Would you mind just taking your sledging with you and going home?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much noise in the chamber. There is interjecting going on that ought not to be happening. Senator Faulkner, that includes your interjections.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I have already given the Senate considerable information—up-to-date information—about the relationship of male and female earnings and how the gap has been closing. That is for Australia. Senator Bishop, I have undertaken to have a look at the Western Australia situation and come back to you. I think your supplementary was redundant.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous105701057015:02:0010570Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Evans asked a question of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, through me, on notice on 29 September; question No. 1641. I have received an answer from the minister, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard . The question is in relation to the North Shore Diagnostic Centre.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—SENATOR EVANS asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) (a) Has North Shore Diagnostic Centre applied for Medicare rebates for a new magnetic resonance imaging unit at St. Leonards since May 1998; if so, on what date did it commence operation: and (b) has the centre applied for any other new units: if so, when, and where are these units located.(2) In the application to the Health Insurance Commission (HIC), on what date is it claimed that the contract for the purchase of each unit was signed.(3) Have these new units been approved by the HIC to receive Medicare benefits on the basis that each contract was signed prior to 12 May 1998.(4) Has each of these new units commenced making claims on Medicare; if so on what date was the first claim made for each unit.SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) No. Under the scheme of the Health Insurance Act and the regulations made thereunder, applications for recognition of eligible equipment are lodged by individual providers not by practices.(2) Not applicable.(3) Medicare benefits are payable to patients for eligible services not units.(4) Not applicable.Questions Without Notice105701057015:03:0010570Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Senator Conroy and Senator Faulkner asked me some questions yesterday regarding APEC Technomart III, which I took on notice. I now seek leave to table and incorporate the responses to the honourable senators' questions.Leave granted.The responses read as follows—Senator Faulkner and Senator Conroy asked me some questions yesterday regarding APEC Technomart III which I took on notice.I now seek leave to table the response to the Honourable senators questions 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?What other support, financial or in-kind, did the Federal Government give to Ms Maestracci or PacRim Technomart in organising APEC Technomart III?ResponseFor more than a year, beginning at least with my predecessor's media statement of 9 October 1998 welcoming APEC badging, the Federal Government has been completely open about its sponsorship of APEC Technomart III. The Government supported APEC endorsement and continued to support the event within APEC economies. This was an important part of sponsorship of the event and this has never been denied.Following the Commonwealth securing APEC badging, the Queensland Government also welcomed APEC endorsement.The former Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism and the Current Minister for Industry, Science and Resources filmed promotional videos for the event, the Prime Minister wrote a letter of support for Technomart, and the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources wrote a letter of support for the Venture Capital Forum.As part of its sponsorship of Technomart to APEC economies, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources assisted PacRim in three ways;. helping to arrange information briefings through Australian posts, both before and after the contract was signed;. raising Technomart, through Australia's Senior Official, at APEC's second Senior Officials' Meeting held in New Zealand in May 1999; and. facilitating the promotion of APEC Technomart at other expositions, for example Oztech 99 held in Chinese Taipei in April 1999.Question1. 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?2. Did she not represent Australia and the Federal Government in that capacity?3. 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?Response1. Ms Maestracci was nominated Project Overseer of the APEC Technomart III project because she was the Project Manager for the organisers for the event.Each APEC project has a Project Overseer. The Project Overseer is defined within APEC as a "person, institution, corporation or executing agent who is responsible for supervising the project and reporting on its progress to the relevant APEC fora" It is by no means unusual in the APEC Industrial Science and Technology Working Group for a Project Overseer to be from the non-government sector.Each APEC economy has nominated contact points within the working group. This contact point is the general point of contact for all projects within that economy and for other matters relating to working group activities. Contact Points from all economies are government officials.2 Ms Maestracci represented PacRim, not Australia and not the Federal Government.3. The Australian contact point for the relevant working group was and still is, an official from my Department.Each APEC project has a Project Overseer. The Project Overseer is defined within APEC as a "person, institution, corporation or executing agent who is responsible for supervising the project and reporting on its progress to the relevant APEC fora". It is by no means unusual in the APEC Industrial Science and Technology Working Group for a Project Overseer to be from the private sector.Ms Judith Maestracci was the private sector Project Overseer for the private sector APEC Technomart III project. The role of Project Overseer includes acting as the contact for technical aspects of the particular project and Ms Judith Maestracci was the technical contact for this project.In her capacity as Project Overseer, Ms Maestracci was a member of the Australian delegation to the March and August 1999 Working Group meetings, where she promoted Technomart to APEC officials, and she presented a progress report at the August 1999 meeting.At all times Ms Maestracci represented PacRim and not the Federal Government.It is common in APEC for a Project Overseer to be from the non-government sector. For instance:. the Project Overseer for Thailand's "Gender Stocktaking of IST WG Projects" Project is from the Women's Action and Research Institute, and. the Project overseer for Australia's "Gonococcal Antibiotic Susceptibility" project is from the WHO Collaborative Centre for STD and HIV, which is based at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney.QuestionRegarding the 16th APEC Industrial Science and Technology Working Group meeting in Hong Kong in 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?ResponseThe Australian delegate list to the 16th Industrial Science and Technology Working Group meeting comprised four officials from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, including one senior official acting as "Lead Shepherd". It also included an official from the Department of Health and Aged Care.In addition to government officials, delegations to the Working Group include individuals from academia and the private sector. These delegates do not represent the government of their economies.The Australian delegation to the 16th Industrial Science and Technology Working Group meeting included two such non-government delegates—Ms Maestracci of PacRim Technomart and the Chairman of the International Relations Committee of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.1057215:04:0010572Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Industry Science and Resources (Senator Minchin), to questions without notice asked by Senators Cook and Conroy and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) today, relating to government sponsorship of the industry and technology exhibition, APEC Technomart III.The answers given by Senator Minchin in question time today and earlier this week show a pattern of failure at the very worst or an abdication of responsibility at the very best by this government in its obligations to the information technology industry in this nation. The biggest industry in the world these days is information technology and telecommunications. It now outranks the automotive industry as the biggest single industry, well ahead of the next placed industries—Hollywood and the music industry—taken together. It is growing faster than any other industry in the history of the industrialised world, and in the next five years is going to triple in size from what we know now.One of the reasons why the trade deficit in Australia is blowing out to a record level is because we are a massive importer of information technology. Look at the labels on every PC in this country, and you will see they are made somewhere else. We import that technology. Therefore, when this country decides to try to promote information and telecommunications technology manufactured in Australia in order to promote an Australian presence in this multi-trillion dollar industry, it is to try to get the Australian label up there, to create jobs in this nation and to put us in the forefront of brain based industry for the next millennium.The focus on doing that was Technomart III, an APEC initiative—successful in Technomart I, very successful in Technomart II, supported by the host governments in those countries, asked for by Australia within APEC and granted. Australia was in fact made the chair of Technomart III, to guide the development of this promotion on the Gold Coast in Australia earlier this month. With that background, you would have expected this to be an outstanding success, that the government would have encouraged Australian producers to make sure that they used this international APEC forum to showcase their wares and pick up markets in the high growth industries of Asia.This was on our doorstep. This was a chance for Australian information technology and telecommunications industries to pick up a slice of the biggest and fastest growing market in the world in the biggest and fastest growing market area in the world—information technology. But it failed. The whole thing collapsed. And that is why it is an absolute failure at the door of this government. The best you can say is they abdicated their responsibility. None of the answers given by this minister can persuade anyone that anything else is the truth. They have let down this nation, the youth of this nation who aspire to jobs in this industry sector in the future and Australian participants in the information technology industry.Technomart III collapsed, and the government's excuse is, `We farmed it out to the private sector and the private sector failed.' That says three things about this government: they do not care about the information technology industry, they have never made an effort to ensure that it succeeds and, when they did farm it out, they did not do the necessary checks to see that they gave it to someone who would look after this industry and protect our growth in this area. To now blame them for the failure is to overlook their own abdication of responsibility. This industry is so important to the jobs future of this nation that they should have got it right. They did not.The Australian government chaired the APEC committee. The Prime Minister wrote the foreword to the publication inviting companies to participate. The government then outsourced it and the private company collapsed. The government has now distanced itself from Judith Maestracci who was the Australian delegate to APEC at the Hong Kong meeting that made these decisions. That is what the APEC web site says. This minister, in the face of that abject failure, should now, under the Westminster parliamentary system, take the responsibility, not blame his public servants. Certainly he should not blame the private sector. He should resign. (Time expired)15:09:0010573Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—What a lot of nonsense. Senator Richard Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, is a minister who is on top of his portfolio. He has an absolutely committed approach to developing information technology and is leading Australia and this government into the future with his support of information technology. I remind the Senate that recently a world e-commerce conference was held in Perth at the Burswood Island Resort Casino. Why was that held in Australia?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Eggleston, you are speaking in response to the answers given by Senator Minchin.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—That is all very well—I will be addressing that. Why was this e-commerce conference held in Australia? It was held here because Australia is regarded as a leader in information technology development, and the Australian and West Australian governments are recognised as being governments which are very committed to supporting information technology and the development of e-commerce and all that goes with it.Let us now look at this Technomart conference. First of all, the point has been made that the Technomart conference was a private sector run conference; that it was not a government conference. It was supported and endorsed by the government but it was not run by the government. The opposition are saying the event's financial difficulties are somehow the fault of the federal government. That is, I must say, an absurd accusation. Even Senator Cook knows that that is absolute and utter nonsense.Let us go to the history of this, shall we? Back in 1997 a private association—the Licensing Executive Society of Australia and New Zealand—developed the concept of having a major technology conference on the Gold Coast this year. In March 1998 they approached the then Department of Industry, Science and Tourism to explore the possibility of the Australian government providing some financial support for this conference. A departmental officer at that meeting noted the similarity between their concept and technomarts sponsored by APEC that had been held in Korea in 1995 and in Taiwan in 1998. The department agreed that, as part of its possible support, the department would consider obtaining APEC badging so that the event would become an APEC Technomart. The organisers sought some $236,000 in funding through the technology diffusion program. The department rejected that application at that time as it did not fit within the guidelines for that program. But the department recognised that the Technomart would be useful in promoting Australian innovation, so an in principle decision was made that some support would be provided without any dollar figure being agreed upon. In August 1998 the department sought APEC's approval for the conference to be called a Technomart, and that approval was given.As with previous Technomart conferences, it was agreed that the conference would largely be funded by the private sector. Major sponsors had been found and the exhibitors at the conference were required to pay for space. Both the Australian and the Queensland governments offered some financial support, but they did not put together the finance to hold this conference. I emphasise that it was a private conference. The Australian government held the view that sponsorship of this event was appropriate and entirely consistent with APEC values and that it would, being privately funded, provide an opportunity for the organisers to maximise commercial participation. So there we are. This was a privately supported conference.I come back to the point I made at the beginning: Senator Cook's accusation that the Australian government is in some way responsible for this privately funded conference collapsing, as it did after a couple of days, is absurd. It reflects not on the government but on the organisers of the conference. (Time expired)15:14:0010574Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Senator Minchin has characteristically spent the past month curling himself up into the smallest possible target over the failure of APEC Technomart III. He wanted to avoid being a target for this Commonwealth government sponsored, APEC badged, international technology expo. No wonder he did not want to be in the firing line. This is the same Senator Minchin who spent the Republic campaign saying, `You can't trust politicians.' Well, he is right on one count: you cannot trust Senator Minchin. He has shown his form on this particular issue. He has failed to accept his responsibility for this international humiliation. His answers to questions surrounding the relationship of the private sector organisers of the technology expo on the Gold Coast have been as vague and as disingenuous as you could possibly get. Senator Minchin repeats the mantra that the Commonwealth was merely a sponsor—like Boeing or the Gold Coast City Council or the Queensland government. What is becoming more and more obvious is that Senator Minchin and his department had a huge part in setting the scene for this disaster and then did absolutely nothing about it when APEC Technomart III fell in a heap.Let us not ignore the implications of this. Two other APEC countries—Korea and Taiwan—ran technology expos for APEC member countries. They were run by the respective industry departments of those countries. They attracted 30,000 delegates each, through governments, universities and private sector companies. Australia's attempt to host a technomart just fell apart. It folded on day two of an eight-day expo. It left delegates stranded and bills unpaid, and it delivered an international humiliation to Australia and Senator Minchin. That is what we are facing here. Of course, in the eyes of the Pacific Rim countries, no doubt we must have appeared as second rate and incompetent, as does Senator Minchin.It is not really until the failure of APEC Technomart that Senator Minchin starts the distancing exercise that he has been involved in. It was a very different matter last year—very different. What about 9 October last year, when the then industry minister, Mr Moore, issued a press release trumpeting the APEC badging of Technomart, under the heading `APEC endorses major Australian technology expo' and saying in the first paragraph:APEC has endorsed Australia's proposal—let me say that again: `Australia's proposal'—to host a major technology exposition on the Gold Coast in October 1999.The second paragraph says:Mr Moore said gaining APEC endorsement for the event Technomart III was a great achievement for Australia.I repeat: `Australia'.What Senator Minchin is trying to do is to say that the Australian government was not really involved at all: we are going to duck-shove it to poor old Ms Judith Maestracci and poor old PacRim Technomart Inc. There is no mention of PacRim Technomart Inc. in this press release—none. There is no mention of Judith Maestracci in this particular press release. In fact, in this press release there is no mention of private sector involvement at all. It is an `Australian' exercise—implying an Australian government exercise—in this press release.So that is the problem for Senator Minchin and this government. This has been a humiliation for Senator Minchin, for Australia, and Senator Minchin should front up to his responsibility and admit in large part the responsibility he has for the failure of Technomart III. He ought to do something about repairing the extraordinary damage that is being done to Australia's and his own department's reputation in this fiasco and debacle that he was responsible for. (Time expired)15:19:0010575Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—We have the opposition getting up here today, trying to make something out of something that has happened that is unfortunate, and trying to blame the federal government and, in particular, Senator Minchin for it. There are a lot of issues around. We have our troops in East Timor trying to do the right thing and control the peace there and doing a great job; we have an economy that is bubbling along very well; and we have unemployment coming down in this country. But what of the so-called constructive opposition, as Mr Beazley would like to paint them as being? What have they got to say? What have they got to do? All they can do is come in here and try to pick out a conference that had part-sponsorship from the Commonwealth government and part-sponsorship from Boeing.We have a press release from Mr Jim Elder, who is the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development of the Queensland Labor government, and they were part-sponsors of this event on the Gold Coast. Prior to the Technomart III, there were two very successful Technomart conferences held in Korea and another place that I have forgotten. The group here tried to organise a conference, a showcase of technology. And why wouldn't they want do something like this in Australia?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How many people went to the Taiwan one? Thirty thousand.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I can do without the interjections, Senator Conroy.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How many came to Australia? Two hundred.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—Okay. There might have been 30,000 go to the Taiwan conference but, unfortunately, for one reason or another this particular conference failed. As the minister pointed out, it was a private sector run conference on the Gold Coast. It closed after two days, due to financial problems. We get the opposition coming in here and trying to make a big deal out of it and trying to pin it on the Commonwealth government and, in particular, on the minister, when in fact it was a joint concept put together by a private company and sponsored by a lot of people. Why shouldn't the Commonwealth want to put money into something like this to promote information technology when, as has been pointed out by Senator Eggleston, we have a very strong background in IT and are one of the leading IT countries in the world?The Commonwealth government is not responsible for this falling apart. They provided finance towards it. There have been other well-known failures over the years at all sorts of conferences held around Australia. I do not recall in the 12 years that I have been in this place coming in here and attacking the then Labor government over massive failures of things that they sponsored. I do recall when I was in charge of Waste Watch drawing attention to some of the huge amounts of largess that the previous government indulged in. I recall that they spent money on heated dog kennels for the Prime Minister's dog and on sponsoring programs for left-footed lesbian surfboard riders and things like that. They were wastes of money, but in this particular case in good faith the department partly sponsored what was mooted to be a very successful technology expo. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, it did not work.I do not believe anything will be gained from the point of view of Australia by coming in here and publicly bagging people for trying to organise something that would benefit private enterprise and our IT producers in this country. I cannot see any reason why any constructive opposition would do this; an opposition which supposedly has all these great policies which we have not seen yet. Where are their policies on unemployment? People are asking where their policies are on unemployment. Where are their policies on jobs? All we can get out of Mr Beazley is that they will put it off until next year.I do not know how much it is costing to run the Senate today, but I believe it would be quite a substantial amount. Yet here we are spending half an hour talking about a conference that went wrong; a conference that the Commonwealth partly sponsored in good faith. We have the opposition coming in here trying to denigrate what seemed at the time to be a very good idea. (Time expired)15:24:0010576Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—What we have seen here today is more and more dissembling by the minister. Senator Hill is now walking away. It is nice of you to leap to Senator Minchin's defence so readily. It is now 45 minutes, and I am glad you have decided to leap to the minister's defence. He certainly sticks it in your back whenever he gets a chance, so I am glad you have taken the chance.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address the chair please, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Today we have the press release from John Moore dated Friday, 9 October 1998:APEC endorses major Australian technology expo. The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, John Moore, today confirmed that the APEC group had endorsed Australia's proposal to host a major technology exposition on the Gold Coast in October 1999. Mr Moore said, `Gaining APEC endorsement for the event Technomart III was a great achievement for Australia.' The APEC Technomart III will be the centrepiece of technology 1999, a comprehensive program of seminars, workshops, business matching programs and new technology demonstra tions. At least 30,000 Australian and international visitors are expected to participate.What happened? As we have already heard, it collapsed on day two of an eight-day seminar. Delegates were left stranded in their hotels. Hotels were told that bills could not be paid, and delegates were turfed out. The minister for industry, Senator Minchin, turned around and made the following statements: `The Commonwealth was neither the instigator nor organiser of the event. The only role that the Commonwealth played in the event was providing $200,000 of sponsorship'.This is where we see the minister taking a little walk away from the involvement of his own department. In the answers to questions on notice which we were given not 20 minutes ago by the minister it begins to become clear why he wants to walk away. We asked questions like, `Did the government put out a tender for companies for this?' The answer was, `No, they came to us.'The next question was, `If a company walks up to you with a proposal and says "Hey, we have this great idea," what does the department do to investigate the bona fides?' What investigations did the minister of the department carry out into this PacRim Technomart, including their experience and financial situation, before promoting them? What investigations did the minister of the department carry out into Judith Maestracci? What was the government doing?The government want to say that they had no involvement, but even these answers which we have received verbally and on notice today lead to more questions. They do not provide us with answers. The answers given lead to more questions. It begins to become clear that the minister's own department helped to arrange information briefings through Australia Post, to raise Technomart through Australia's senior official at APEC's second senior officials meeting held in New Zealand and to facilitate its promotion of APEC at other expositions.Ms Maestracci attended a number of APEC forums to deal with this. She attended the delegation. The question is: who paid for Ms Maestracci to attend the delegation? Who paid her air fares and her accommodation? Was it paid for by Technomart? Was it paid for under the sponsorship agreement? We want to know what is in the sponsorship agreement. Why will the minister not table the sponsorship agreement in the chamber so we can see where Australian taxpayers' dollars went to? We will then see where the management and misuse of funds has gone to, because proper controls have not been put on its supervision. We have seen the minister try to run away. We know that Technomart, as a concept, is a winner. Some 30,000 went to Korea and some 30,000 went to Taiwan, yet 200 came to Australia. (Time expired)15:29:0010577Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—What a waste of time we have had here in the Senate both yesterday and today on this issue. It really shows the paucity of this opposition in terms of bringing up issues that take the fight right up to the government. Let us look at the issues they have brought up here in the last two days. This opposition is all over the place. There is no strategy. There is no consistency in its attack.Senator Calvert interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—And there is no leadership. The basic reason underlying all of that is that they do not have a vision or a policy direction for Australia. I am almost lost for words on what they are doing, but it isn't very much, and it isn't very much in terms of being an effective opposition.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If you're lost for words, sit down and stop talking.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner!O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—You are not an effective opposition. You keep coming in here with totally trivial issues, issues of no great import to the direction of this country. That is compared to this government and its success after success with the economy, foreign policy and a whole range of issues that are setting the right direction for this country as we head into the new millennium.Let us have a look at this issue of Technomart, which we are talking about today. We are talking about a loss of federal funding of $200,000. I would have thought this was a much more appropriate subject for the estimates, not for this chamber. You wasted a quarter of an hour yesterday, a quarter of an hour today in question time and another half an hour now—we are up to an hour. If you apportion that as a cost to the Senate, we are probably over $200,000 already. It would be more appropriate perhaps as a question on notice to the Senate through the estimates process.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You're a complete failure. The party you're a member of hates your guts. You'll never amount to anything in politics. Get out!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner!O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Of course Senator Faulkner is in here sledging again. That is his claim to fame. All he can do is sit there and sledge. He would not have a policy idea in his head, and his line of questioning over the last two days certainly shows that.As I have listened to the questions and answers and to the debate on the motion to take note of answers, I have been waiting for the real in-depth issue to come out. The answer is: there is no in-depth issue at all. This is a conference that has been held three times now internationally. It did not succeed as a conference in Australia. It was backed by broad sponsorship—by the federal government, the state Labor government, the Gold Coast City Council, Qantas and Boeing, Griffith and Bond universities and the Royal Pines Resort. They were all sponsors for this event. This was done by the government because APEC required this sort of backing.We did that, and we as a government were approached by Judith Maestracci and her organisation to actually set this up and run it. Having looked at it, this government, the state government and all those sponsors agreed that that was a very good thing to run. We cannot guarantee commercial success in these sorts of things, just as the Labor government before this government could not guarantee these things.I recall very clearly an estimates when we were in opposition. There was a conference in Wollongong towards which DEETYA had put $1 million. The conference failed and the money was wasted. There was no accountability in that process. These sorts of things have tended to happen through government over time, and it is total humbug for this opposition to come in here on this issue. I cannot recall in the case of the Wollongong conference that we ever brought it up in this chamber. We did it in the right place. We did it in estimates.I would invite the opposition to go back to the estimates process, raise the questions with the appropriate officers and get the detailed answers they are after, and then light will be shed on this thing. The opposition should not come in and waste the time of the Senate, as they have done now for one hour, and cost the Senate far more than the amount lost through the failure of this conference.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations1057815:34:0010578Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the grounds that I have been misrepresented.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I wish to make a personal explanation on the outrageous page 1 article in today's Sydney Morning Herald by Margo Kingston entitled `Labor sells out minorities', and it is that particular part of the article which describes Labor's efforts to revise the Senate standing orders on the pecuniary interests of gay and lesbian partners as `pathetic'.Late yesterday afternoon, I was told by a third party in Parliament House that Ms Kingston was preparing a `bucket job' on the way that Labor had approached changes to the Senate standing orders surrounding the pecuniary interests register. I found it extraordinary that Ms Kingston did not contact me prior to writing the `bucket job' to assess the facts of the situation, given that Senator Greig and I were the only senators to make substantive speeches on this issue in the chamber. In fact, having heard from this third party, I had to phone Ms Kingston late in the day to explain to her what prompted Labor to assist Senator Greig in getting these rules changed. It was painfully obvious to me, I might say, that Ms Kingston had already written what was an entirely misleading newspaper article.I made the following points to Ms Kingston but, as they went unreported, I will make them here. Democrat Senator Greig correctly identified the deficiency in the Senate standing orders in relation to couples in a same sex relationship but put forward an amendment which was legally flawed. I want to say, and I mentioned this in the chamber, that I encouraged Senator Greig to take his proposed standing order and his concerns to the Senate Procedure Committee, where changes to the Senate standing and sessional orders are sorted out in the presence of all parties.The committee's recommendation on the rule change for the declaration of pecuniary interests of same sex partners was supported by all parties at that Procedure Committee meeting, including the representative of the Australian Democrats on the Procedure Committee. However, as it turned out, Senator Greig was not satisfied with the wording and he proposed another form of words in a letter that he circulated to all senators.Having received that, I sought legal advice on behalf of the opposition to see if Senator Greig's proposal was watertight and worthy of support. The advice that I received was that it was not watertight. My motivation in proposing an amendment to the Procedure Committee report to significantly improve the proposal—and it certainly embraced much of what Senator Greig had argued for—was to try to make sure that same sex couples were covered by our Senate standing orders in an inclusive gender and sexuality neutral form of words, and that was eventually adopted by the Senate unanimously. There was no voice against that. There was no division called. The only speakers in a substantive sense were Senator Greig and myself. I think a government minister made a one-sentence contribution only. This was explained, as I indicated, to the journalist concerned.For some reason, the journalist, Ms Kingston, is unhappy with clear, unambiguous and non-discriminatory legal language. I think most people in the community, whether they are heterosexual or gay, would prefer their laws to be clear rather than symbolic if we face a risk of symbolic language weakening the rules. That was the legal advice on which I operated, and I did explain this to Ms Kingston.I want to make it absolutely clear that the opposition was not running an appeasement case, as Ms Kingston indicates on page 1 of the Sydney Morning Herald. I was endeavouring on behalf of the opposition as a member of the Procedure Committee to make the standing orders of this chamber legally watertight and to ensure that it recognised properly all forms of relationships. I happen to think this is not only a victory for people in same sex relationships, but it is a victory for fairness and it is a victory for proper accountability in this place and within the Senate's pecuniary interests register. For the journalist concerned, Ms Kingston, to write this article and state baldly that Labor has sold out the gay community when Labor worked very hard to sort out this discrimination in the Senate standing orders and when my colleague the member for Grayndler, Mr Anthony Albanese, is attempting to fix the problem of superannuation arrangements for same sex couples, I think, is absolutely outrageous. The Labor Party has been at the forefront of progressive legal reform for gays and lesbians, and I think we are still there.I do not say these things lightly. Madam Deputy President, you and other senators in the chamber would know that I rarely make a personal explanation and almost never, in the more than 10 years I have been in this place, have I complained either in the chamber or outside about things written in the press about me or about my party. I tend to have a pretty good record of copping it sweet, but I am not going to cop sweet this outrageous slur on myself and my colleagues under any circumstances.Let me also make a point about Mr Albanese's bill—the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill 1999—which has been linked into the same article and which was reintroduced into the House of Representatives by Mr Albanese on Monday, 22 November this year. This is the third time the bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives. It has lapsed twice due to the government not listing it for debate.The Federal Parliamentary Labor Party remains unanimous in its support for Mr Albanese's private member's bill. This bill was not on the agenda for debate at yesterday's caucus meeting, if that is an implication anyone might draw. As it turns out—and this is a political point—it is the Howard government that do not support this bill. That is their right. This is not the time to debate that issue.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Neither did the Hawke or Keating governments, to be fair about it.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Although several members of the coalition, Senator Campbell, have stated publicly that they do. So let us be fair about it. The personal explanation I am making is not about the role of the government in relation to this.The amendments to the Senate standing orders have no relation to this bill. I think the confusion caused by this article by Ms Kingston that I have been speaking about in relation to the bill should forthwith be rectified by the Sydney Morning Herald, and I hope they do that. In relation to the other matters that are contained within my personal explanation, I have written to the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. I hope the Editor publishes my letter. As I said to you and the chamber, Madam Deputy President, I do not do this lightly. You know I do not do it often. But I am not going to cop what is an outrageous and unfair slur on not only myself but on all my colleagues in the Labor Party.15:45:0010579Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation on the same matter.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The first sentence of Ms Margo Kingston's article in today's Sydney Morning Herald reads:Labor has virtually abandoned its minority rights agenda, leaving refugees, gays, children of migrants and just about any other minority with only Australian Democrats support. That is patently untrue. The Leader of the Opposition has just given a very cogent defence of Labor's position in this matter. Let me put the Greens' position. I have throughout my four years in this place assiduously defended the rights of refugees, gays, children of migrants and just about any other minority that is defenceless. I am sure the house will recognise that has been the case. At no time did Margo Kingston approach me about this matter at all. At no time in this period of parliament has she approached me on any matter at all. I have rung the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald today and failed to get through, but I am awaiting a return call.Like Senator Faulkner, I cop it sweet in most matters which you read in the newspapers—you have to. You are in public life; you expect that. But when on the front page of what is recognised as one of the leading newspapers in this country, if not in the world, a story begins with a patently false statement—and it is a news story, not an opinion piece—then there is something very, very wrong about that reportage.In effect, it traduces the Greens' long and honourable role in this place defending minorities that sometimes even the Democrats have not stood up to defend. We will find in the debate later this afternoon that the Greens' position in defending refugees, for example, and children of migrants is second to none. I am not going to get into an exposition on the policies of the Greens. What is at stake here is the veracity of a very prominent political commentator: she is dead wrong. She is factually wrong, and she has failed her profession by not checking with me or, as far as I know, any other Green in this country before she made this bald assertion and went on to compound it with further statements.On the issue of ending discrimination against the gay and lesbian community let me say this: the aim must be to get gender neutral language because that is non-discriminatory. Senator Faulkner, I believe, is right when he says that she is using a terminological device to give a totally false impression to the community about Labor's position in ensuring there was a change to the rules earlier this week, and that change to the rules does benefit a minority group in the community by getting rid of a patently discriminatory clause in the rules.What are parliamentarians to do if when you act in that fashion you get clobbered and misrepresented on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald? As Senator Faulkner has cogently said, there does need to be a rectification. My door is open to Margo Kingston. My door is open to the Sydney Morning Herald and, as does the Labor Party, I would expect a statement of correction to be given by the Sydney Morning Herald.15:50:0010580Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I seek leave to make a very brief statement on this matter.Leave granted.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I am very happy with the explanation given by Senator Faulkner, but I would need to draw it to the attention of Senator Greig in case he wants to say anything on the matter. I think perhaps the two statements went a little bit beyond personal explanations but because of the gravity of the matter I think it was a good thing that the Senate gave indulgence in that way. Certainly in the future we would seek that this matter be taken up in the way which has been suggested.Condolences105801058010000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on Sunday, 20 November 1999, of Henry Arthur Hewson, OAM, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of McMillan from 1972 to 1975.1058010001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:10580727Y6Crossin Sen TrishPetition re Reopening of the Cox Peninsula Broadcasting Transmitters and Increased broadcasting of Bahasa Indonesian and English News and Current AffairsYour Petitioners ask that the Senate call on the Australian Government to: (1) Immediately re-open the Cox Peninsula broadcasting transmitters(2) Immediately commence broadcasts in Bahasa Indonesian and English news and current affairs(3) Allocate sufficient resources to Radio Australia to allow Radio Australia to dramatically increase the hours of news and current affairs broadcast to the Indonesian Archipelago in Bahasa Indonesian and English languages.Senator Crossin7Y6Senator Crossin(from 72 citizens)Petition received.Notices105811058115:51:0010581Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Pursuant to notices of motion given on the last day of sitting, on behalf of Senator Coonan and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I now withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2 and 3 standing in her name for today.10581Senator Crane to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the management of airspace and the decision to terminate the Class G airspace trial be extended to 16 March 2000.Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 29 November 1999, from 8 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the proposed sale of Australian Defence Industries Ltd to Transfield Thomson-CSF.Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on the operation of the Australian Taxation Office be extended to 13 April 2000.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) expresses its concern that: (i) according to UNICEF and the International Labour Organization, there are as many as 250 million working children around the globe, (ii) many of these children are less than 5 years old, (iii) nearly half of them work full time, although more than 80 per cent of children's work is unpaid, and (iv) more than 150 million are in Asia, 80 million in Africa and 17.5 million in Latin America; and(b) urges the Government to support moves by the governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom to place the issue of exploitative child labour on the agenda of the World Trade Organization talks in Seattle in the week commencing 28 November 1999.Committees10581105811058115:52:0010581Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the 19th report of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I also seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 19 OF 19991. The Committee met on 23 November 1999.2. The committee resolved to recommend-That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 [No. 2]. Crimes at Sea Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999 [No. 2]. Electoral Amendment (Optional Preferential Voting) Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition (Excise) Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999. Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 [No. 2].The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 12 October 1999). A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 19 October 1999). Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 10) 1999(deferred from meeting of 23 November 1999). A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999. Customs Amendment (Anti-Radioactive Waste Storage Dump) Bill 1999. New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances) Bill 1999. New Business Tax System (Former Subsidiary Tax Imposition) Bill 1999. New Business Tax System (Income Tax Rates) Bill (No. 1) 1999. New Business Tax System (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair24 November 1999Business1058210582Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—proposed:(1) That on Thursday, 25 November 1999— (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm, and 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm; (b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm to 10.30 pm shall be government business only; (c) divisions may take place after 6 pm; and (d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.(2) That the Senate shall sit on Friday, 26 November 1999 and that— (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 4.25 pm; (b) the routine of business shall be government business only; (c) the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended for 45 minutes from approximately 12.30 pm; and (d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.(3) That on Tuesday, 30 November 1999— (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 8.00 pm.; and (b) the routine of business from 9.30 am to 2.00 pm shall be government business only.15:55:0010582Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I indicate that the opposition supports the government's proposed alterations to the routine of business and the days and hours of meeting. We do so with a number of assumptions built in, based on a number of assurances that have been given to the opposition with regard to the proceedings of the Senate. Our intention is to try to avoid the situation where an extra week of sitting time would be required. We are doing what we can to facilitate the proper consideration of government business and allow for proper debate of government business.A list of bills has been prepared by the government indicating their priorities. We understand that there will be no additional bills—without extraordinary circumstances arising—to those in the list provided and that every effort will be made to facilitate the business of the Senate by the reconsideration of some of the ambit in the government's claim that has been put to us.We indicate to the chamber that our interest is to ensure that the Senate operates effectively and that we are able to conclude the business of the chamber within a reasonable period of time, with due regard to the government's program and with due regard to the consideration of the importance of the issues that are presented to us. We understand that those commitments have been given and we agree to this motion on that basis.15:56:0010582Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have indicated to the opposition that I may have difficulty being here throughout Friday due to a prior commitment. I am in the unusual position where pairing arrangements do not exist. I know the opposition has taken this matter up with the government. I would hope that some remediation of that position can be found. It may well be important when Friday comes that some remediation has been found.15:57:0010582Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—So far as I am concerned, it is desirable not to be sitting up until 23 December. If we sat for another week, that would put us into the week before Christmas. I have been here for too long to suffer any more of those times we have had sitting right up to the death knock. I think this change is desirable all round. I commend all parties, particularly the government, for attempting to smooth the way so that the essential pieces of legislation that are required by 31 December go through. There is one there that is not required, and six hours has been set down for it. I would have thought perhaps 20 hours might have been a better guess. I understand that, in any event, from the government's point of view, it is not necessary for that legislation to go through by 31 December.I congratulate the government, the opposition, the Democrats and the Independents for what has been achieved. As Senator Brown said, there are problems because of this change, just one being that it is very difficult to get home on Friday night, as the airlines seem to be pretty packed. Nevertheless, we will overcome that problem somehow.15:59:0010583Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank all senators for their support. I know it is less than desirable to be adding another day with less than 36 hours notice. We recognise the problems of senators. The Democrats have some people missing. We understand Senator Brown's problems, and we genuinely appreciate his accommodation on this occasion. We will seek to work with the opposition and the other parties to ensure that Senator Brown's views are reflected in the votes of the chamber. I think, based on his voting record, it will not be too hard to make an assessment of where that vote will be cast.Opposition senators interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—As was suggested by the interjection, perhaps he could give his proxy to Senator Harradine, and Senator Harradine could promise him to ensure that the proxy is cast in the right manner. It seems to work quite well in the WA Liberal Party from time to time, and I am sure it will work here.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Who do you give yours to—Crichton-Browne? H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, I have lost his address! More seriously, Senator Carr did raise an important matter and that is we do seek these extra hours for the reasons that Senator Harradine has put forward. We want to avoid the oft repeated spectacle of the Senate sitting up until Christmas Eve, almost competing with Santa Claus and the reindeers in the skies over Australia to get home on the night. We think we have an achievable program. It has been pared down significantly. Even since our meeting yesterday, another significant bill will be taken off that list. I do not think it is the one that Senator Harradine is referring to. Senator Harradine, we have to be very ambitious in everything we do in Australia. We need to aim high. When we are managing government business, we aim very high and I thank all senators for allowing us to achieve so much in the legislation that has been passed for the good of all Australians.I just say, in response to Senator Carr's point about the list that was provided to leaders and whips, that I did make the point in private discussions yesterday that it may be necessary to add some bills. They will not be major packages. I am not sure whether I exactly agree with Senator Carr's grasping at the words `extraordinary circumstances'. There have been extraordinary circumstances on previous occasions. I cite, for example, the Kosovo refugee bill—that was an extraordinary circumstance. There were some announcements made yesterday about Timor by the Prime Minister. I am not sure if any legislation will flow from those announcements, but it would not be unusual, and there may be other circumstances.We will give the opposition and all the other parties as much notice as possible if anything comes up. I do not have anything particular in mind, other than those. But if anything does come up, I just want to make it quite clear that we are not going to try to pull any swifties or add any big packages to the list. There are always, over a period of two or three weeks in the governance of a country like Australia, contingencies that apply, and I want to make it clear that we have those in mind. I thank all of our colleagues for their support on this issue.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees1058410584Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—agreed to:That the following committees be authorised to hold public hearings during the sitting of the Senate on Friday, 26 November 1999:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, from 9.30 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, from 10.00 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the suitability of the Australian army for peacetime, peacekeeping and war.Notices1058410584Items of business were postponed as follows:General 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 25 November 1999.Miscellaneous1058410584Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1058416:05:0010584Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Child care in Australia is in desperate need of stability. More than 280 child-care centres have closed over the last couple of years disrupting children, families, businesses and staff.The Commonwealth's needs based planning controls have made a contribution to stabilising a sector undergoing enormous dislocation and change.The announcement by Minister Newman in July this year that she was to abandon needs based planning control left the whole sector shocked and dumbfounded.Child care in Australia has suffered grievously under the policies of the Howard Government.The child-care sector cares for and nurtures the youngest and most vulnerable members of our community.We as a community must ensure that the care of our children occurs in a secure, stable and professional environment.Planning for the development of the child-care sector can contribute to promoting that stable, professional and caring environment.Abandonment of any planning controls will expose child care and the children it serves to further dislocation and turmoil, to the detriment of all.The Childcare Legislation Amendment (High Need Regions) Bill 1999 is an attempt to force the Government to accept its responsibilities to Australian children and families and continue a national planning regime.We would not accept the Commonwealth abandoning their responsibilities in education, health or aged care, so why should we accept such irresponsibility in childcare ?When the Coalition won office March 1996, they inherited a child care system that was acknowledged to be one of the best in the world. Unfortunately for the families who rely on this service, or would like to if they could afford it, child care has been disrupted and damaged by the government's determination to cut back heavily on public support for family's child care needs. The sector is now in a state of turmoil.Since 1996 the Howard government has cut $850 million out of the child care systems with disastrous results for families. About $100 million was taken out of the system by the abolition of the operational subsidy to community-based child care. For the most part, however, the spending cuts have been to Child Care Assistance, and as such have impacted equally on families who use private child care centres and community centres.The Government froze the indexation of Child Care Assistance and Rebate for two years (1997-98), restricted the number of hours that can be funded, and reduced income test concessions for larger families. Not surprisingly, average parents' out of pocket costs have risen by more than twenty dollars per week as a result.Substantial evidence is coming to light that these cost pressures are forcing parents to pull children out of regulated child care and that lower income families are having to withdraw from the regulated child care system altogether. Child care professionals report that children are being `churned' through care, as parents reduce their hours of care (many centres are now catering for twice as many children, each of whom are staying for shorter periods of care) and that families are resorting to stressful `patchwork' care arrangements, where children are cared for by several different people in one week.The Minister has insisted that parents have other resources to fall back on. Earlier this year she was interviewed for an ABC television report on childcare. Her comments are revealing of the attitudes underlying the Government's child care policies and are worth repeating here. Senator Newman explained: `If the parents decide this is too expensive and we are not going to do it, they will find other alternatives. It may be family day care, it may be sharing the care between family members.' Asked by the reporter, `They may not have other alternatives?', the Minister insisted, `Well they do. They do. They do.' The Labor party has news for the Minister: many parents don't have families who can fill the gap or enough money to pay a nanny, and these are the people who are being forced out of high quality regulated care altogether. The government's clampdown on child care fee relief makes a mockery of its supposed interest in reducing welfare dependency and promoting women's participation in the paid work force.As child care has become harder for low and middle income families to afford, centres have struggled to stay in business, except in more well to do areas. There have been at least 282 closures since 1996, with centres closing in areas where average family income is $32 per week lower than the average in those areas where new centres have opened. Between June and December 1998 the total number of centres fell from 4,170 to 4,120: with the community sector falling from 1,118 to 1,098; and the private sector declining from 3,052 to 3,022. Labor is greatly concerned that child care centres are disappearing from the communities which need them most.Since 1996 there have been over 282 closures provoked by the Government's reckless indifference to child care. Too many centres have closed and too many are in danger of closing. In typical style the Minister does not seem to care about the social impact. Her comments suggest that she regards these shut-downs as nothing more than the normal hazards of the market. Labor believes that this attitude to child care is unacceptable. These centres care for our youngest and most vulnerable. Child care is a valuable community service, which helps children to develop in a safe and happy environment and assists parents to balance their work and family responsibilities. We all have an interest in the success of child care. Labor believes that there is a public interest in promoting stability and certainty in child care, and that needs-based planning remains an effective way of achieving this goal.We should remember the human cost of closures. When centres shut down, children who have grown to be comfortable and happy with trusted carers and in familiar surroundings are forced to make that difficult adjustment again. Parents are compelled to find a new centre, which may be too far away from home, and less suitable than the first. Workers lose their jobs, and all too often their accrued entitlements such as superannuation and long service leave. Owner-operators of private centres lose the businesses they have worked very hard to establish, and sometimes lose their homes as well. Parents on the management committees of community based centres may be sued for the centre's debts, and years of hard work by volunteers goes down the drain. For all these reasons there is strong public interest in promoting the stability of existing neighbourhood centres. That is not to say that no newcomers should be allowed into the market, or that there will never be closures. It is a question of balance. Labor believes that there has been enough rapid turnover in the sector and that more stability is needed.It is now widely admitted that needs-based planning can help to stabilise the sector. Since the early 1970s there has always been some degree of planning in child care. Labor in government had needs-based planning for community Long Day Care, and when we lost office in 1996 we were considering proposals to extend planning controls to private child care. Labor acknowledges that the present government introduced a new system of needs-based planning for private and community Long Day Care. Between April 1998 and December 1999 new places were restricted to a maximum of 7,000 each year, to be created in areas of high need for work-related care. In July the Minister announced that she would not extend needs-based planning controls after the current allocation period finishes on 31 December this year. Characteristically, the announcement that needs-based planning would be scrapped was made in a media release entitled `Government strengthens national planning system for child care' (7 July 1999). Having strengthened government support for child care by taking $850 million dollars out of its budget, the Minister is now proposing to strengthen child care planning by abolishing it. It is the Opposition's view that of all the substantial changes made by the Government since 1996, the introduction of the planning system has been the only beneficial initiative. The Minister own report, Child Care in Australia (July 1999) insisted that ". . . the planning system has ensured that growth is matched to areas of high needs for child care." Labor believes that we need to do more, not less, to target spending to areas of greatest need, and to counteract the trend for overdevelopment in some areas. We consider that needs based planning has a positive role to play for at least the next two years, and want the system to be maintained and refined.The Minister, however, claims that the sector has settled down and there is no further need for planning. The market, and information campaigns, will take care of the problem of oversupply in local areas. Her claims are not backed up by the facts. Despite the overall depression of the child care sector there are still many areas where over-development is a serious problem. The Minister has recognised that there is a tendency for property developers to build new centres in over-supplied areas and then sell them to investors such as retirees, who may not necessarily have much experience of the industry, yet she insists that the problem is very limited. The Opposition and the childcare sector know that over-development is a more common and serious problem than the Minister admits.The planning system is strongly supported by both the private and community-based sectors of the industry who are totally mystified by the Minister's decision to abolish planning controls. Private and community-based child care groups have tried without success to convince the Minister that the Commonwealth's proposed remedies are unlikely to be effective, and that needs-based planning can and should continue to play a useful role in minimising closures. In particular, the Minister has been warned by the sector that even if regulations are re-imposed after July 2000 when the Child Care Benefit legislation is introduced it, will be too late, as centres will have already been established in over-supplied areas; and that the decision is likely to lead to a new round of closures. The Queensland Government has also strongly supported the retention of needs-based planning and has warned Senator Newman that her decision is likely to contribute to destabilisation and closures in that state. The Opposition agrees that needs-based allocation of new Child Care Assistance places a useful tool in minimising the closures caused by oversupply, and directing public funds to areas of most need.The Bill would require the Minister to continue to make determinations and guidelines to implement needs-based planning of new Child Care Assistance places in the calendar years 2000 and 2001. I acknowledge that the Bill may not be technically perfect and is not the best way of achieving our objective. The Opposition is proposing this Bill because we have no alternative and we want to send a strong message to the government that it should use its powers to continue needs-based planning. Specialist advice from the state-based Planning Advisory Committees is needed to ascertain high needs areas, and only the Commonwealth can draw on this advice. Likewise, only the Government can appropriate the funds to provide new places in such areas. My objective in introducing this Bill is to remind the Minister of her responsibilities and pressure her to meet them.So far the Minister has refused to listen to the warnings from people who know the child care sector that her decision to abolish planning controls is likely to push more centres over the edge. The child care sector's need for stability will not disappear on 1 January next year, when the current allocation period finishes. Nor will needs-based planning cease to be an effective means of countering the problem of local over-development. Senator Newman has failed to justify her decision to terminate the planning system.Australian families need more support for their childcare needs than the current government has provided. We have a responsibility to provide a stable, caring and professional environment for our children. The passage of this Bill would provide one measure to promote first class childcare in Australia.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.Committees105861058610586Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy)—by leave—agreed to: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 2000.1058610586Motion (by Senator Woodley)—by leave—agreed to: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.Miscellaneous10587Motion (by Senator Bartlett, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja)—by leave—agreed to: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.Miscellaneous1058716:06:0010587Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 291, standing in my name and relating to compensation for the stolen generations, be taken as formal.Leave not granted.10587Contingent motion (by Senator Bolkus, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Faulkner moving a motion relating to the conduct of business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 291.10587Motion (by Senator Bolkus, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 291 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business this day until determined.1058716:07:0010587Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate, noting the desire of the Australian community to satisfactorily resolve outstanding issues concerning the stolen generations referred to in the recommendations of the report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home , calls on the Government:(a) to settle the stolen generation case currently before the Federal Court in the Northern Territory; and(b) after consultation and agreement with appropriate representatives of the stolen generations, to: (i) establish an alternative dispute resolution tribunal to assist members of the stolen generations by resolving claims for compensation through consultation, conciliation and negotiation, rather than adversarial litigation and, where appropriate and agreed to, deliver alternative forms of restitution, and (ii) set up processes and mechanisms, which are adequately funded, to: (a) provide counselling, (b) record the testimonies of members of the stolen generations, (c) educate Australians about their history and current plight, (d) help them to establish their ancestry and to access family reunion services, and (e) help them to re-establish or rebuild their links to their culture, language and history.In moving this motion, I note the presence in the gallery of representatives of the stolen generations; people who have been here over the last few days from all over Australia and people who are in the gallery this afternoon for this debate.We visit again the Bringing them home report. This report was a watershed in this nation's history. It unveiled for many of us aspects of this nation's history that some had felt had been better left untold. It told us of the shameful dispossession and the suffering of thousands of our fellow Australians. It is not an exaggeration to say that it shocked us and moved us. I am sure that, like many others, I will carry its stories with me for the rest of my life. These stories are part of the shared history of this nation.We come to this motion at another significant point in the history of this nation, at the end of the millennium and on the eve of the centenary of our Federation. Let us start by taking the opportunity, in the first instance, to step back in time to another historic year. The year was 1937, a year in which Jewish men and women began to arrive on our shores as refugees from emerging Nazism in Germany and Austria. An ideology founded on lies and false history was seeking to eradicate a group of people on the basis of racial difference. It preyed on the prejudices of ordinary people, pandering to their darkest fears and feeding them lies. It was an infamous period in history and was soon to result in a world war. Australia and the allies it joined prosecuted a just war dedicated to ridding the world of such evil. It has to be remembered that this was not all that long ago. In April 1937, the Commonwealth government convened in Canberra the initial conference of Commonwealth and state Aboriginal authorities. The Senate, in considering a resolution that goes to the exercise of the Commonwealth responsibilities towards indigenous Australians, should take some time to consider some of what was said at that conference, to consider its historical context and to relate it to the issues we confront today. Some who have contributed to the debate that has followed on from the Bringing them home report have sought to absolve authorities of those days past on the grounds that they were acting on honest and honourable motives. I will get back to that later, but first I would like to spend some time on that 1937 conference.Some of the characters may be unknown to many of those here today, so I will spend a little time introducing some of them. Dr C.E. Cook, Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Northern Territory, was there on behalf of the Commonwealth. Others were Mr B.S. Harkness of the Aborigines Protection Board of New South Wales; Mr A.O. Neville, Commissioner of Native Affairs in Western Australia, who was infamous in some circles; and Professor J.B. Cleland, who was Chairman of the Advisory Council on Aborigines in South Australia.It is worth reading into the record some representative verbatim extracts from their observations at that meeting. Professor Cleland said:The number of half-castes in certain parts of Australia is increasing . . . This may be the start of a possible problem of the future. A very unfortunate situation would arise if a large half-caste population breeding within themselves eventually arose in any of the Australian states.Mr Neville said:In order that the existing state of affairs in Western Australia shall continue, and in order to prevent those half-castes who are nearly white from returning to the black, the state parliament has enacted legislation including giving control over the marriage of half-castes.Dr Cook took matters even further. He was quite explicit in the fear he wished to share, when he said:If aborigines are protected physically and morally, before long there will be in the Northern Territory, a black race, already numbering about 19,000, and multiplying at a rate far in excess of that of the whites.If we leave them alone, they will die, and we will have no problem, apart from the pangs of conscience that must attend the passing of a neglected race.If, on the other hand we protect them . . . we shall raise another problem which may become a serious one from a national viewpoint, for we shall have in the Northern Territory, and possibly in north-western Australia also, a large black population which may drive out the white.The white population of the Northern Territory will be absorbed into the black. I suggest that we first decide what our ultimate objective should be, and then discuss means to that end.I would not be so flippant or unkind as to suggest that, if this man was alive today, he could easily slip unnoticed into any Territory CLP government in my memory. He certainly stirred a few of his colleagues.Mr Harkness had this to say. He started off well when he said:I was appalled by what Dr Cook had to say in the course of his very lucid speech. It is awful to think that the white race in the Northern Territory is liable to be submerged . . . There is an historic appeal in preserving a vanishing race, but I think we should seek to assimilate these people.I think we can all see where he was coming from, and I think we all know what he meant by `assimilate'. Mr Neville was reassuring on this point when he said:If we adopt the policy agreed to at this conference, the danger referred to by Dr Cook should not arise, because the absorption of the natives into the white race will take place before trouble is likely to occur.The transcript of that meeting, charting as it does the entry of the Commonwealth into the solving of the so-called danger, should be required reading for every legislator trying to deal with the consequences of the racially inspired legislative stupidity that both led to and followed the conference.There is no one true recounting of history. But what I have attempted to capture is the clear and unequivocal evidence that the fathers of the stolen generation policy and the supporting ideology and deliberate public deception that followed were not inspired by lofty or misguided motives. They were driven, at least in part, by notions of racial superiority feeding racist fears. They consciously or unconsciously mirrored the same attitudes and goals as those of the Nazis they were soon to fight.The late Ron Castan QC, one of the greatest Australians of modern times and a leading member of the Australian Jewish community, had this to say earlier this year:There is a chilling similarity to the proceedings of the 1941 Wannsee conference which planned the genocide of the entire Jewish people, and the record of proceedings of the so-called Commonwealth Conference on Aboriginal Welfare of 1937.In that same speech, this distinguished Australian jurist and humanitarian warned:The experience of Auschwitz tells us what happens when the law turns citizens into non-citizens and then non-citizens into non-people.I should conclude my reflections on that meeting by raising just two more comments steeped in the attitudes in this country at that time. It was strange and confusing to these gentlemen that Aborigines would not cooperate wholeheartedly in their schemes. Mr Neville astonished those present by revealing:You cannot change a native after he has reached the age of puberty, but before that it is possible to mould him. When the quarter-caste home was started . . . we had some trouble with the mothers. Although the children were illegitimate, the mothers were greatly attached to them, and did not wish to be parted from them. It is unbelievable that these sorts of attitudes reflected official thinking in this country just over 60 years ago.Finally, I think I should share with the Senate the views of the redoubtable Dr Cook when he feared that his wimpish colleagues might go too far in modifying the policies of locking Aborigines in chains. He said:If the conference is not willing to say that the neck chain is preferable to the handcuff when natives have to travel long distances under escort, we may as well leave the subject alone.These were the men and those were the policies that the Commonwealth agreed at that conference to fund into the future. The shame, lies and infamous conduct that was to follow for more than a generation after this were to be the subject of the landmark Bringing them home report. The inaction, denial and historical revisionism of the Howard government in their response to that report have combined to provide the impetus for the motion that we have before us today. They have sneered at the stories, disparaged the report's authors and punished the victims whose stories it told.Is it a blind refusal to accept the validity of the stories in that report? Is it a refusal to read the informed, researched and enlightened works of contemporary historians? Is it some other voice of darkness that drives our Prime Minister? Will he continue to force every individual and every family that has been scarred by, and is seeking redress for, the policies of successive state, territory and federal governments to a horrendous inquisition in the intimidating and alienating confines of a court? How many lives need be broken and how many dollars spent in his quest to prove that none of this really happened and that he has nothing to be sorry for? Importantly for all of us, how can the process of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, one of the most fundamental of the social issues confronting this nation, survive this assault on history?My generation was largely kept ignorant of the total picture of the shared history of this nation. The great, rich and living culture and heritage of indigenous Australians was invisible in the curriculum of our schools. Indigenous people were largely absent from our ethnically cleansed suburbs. We were not fully exposed to the truths of war of conquest, dispossession, desecration and genocide. These sins of commission and omission were visited on tens of thousands of indigenous Australians over generations. People were torn from their families, denied their mother tongues and deprived of their living culture—they are the stolen generations.Nearly all indigenous Australians lost their land, but the stolen generations lost everything else that brings richness and meaning to human society. They were thus in many cases dehumanised, ripped from their families and thrown into institutions or servitude or both. They were brutalised. In the face of all this, no student of humankind can feign surprise at the poor physical and mental health, dysfunctional social behaviour, alcoholism and suicide that was to characterise and blight the lives of many.It is an obscenity to what we understand as truth for some people, including some in government, to point to the remarkable, courageous and gifted men and women who transcended all of this to lead successful and fulfilling lives and then to cite them as proof that the institutionalised barbarism either did not happen or happened to good effect. It is now up to us here today to pursue the truth and to pursue social justice. We must have the courage to confront our history and its consequences with courage and firm purpose.As a parliament, we must fulfil our sworn duty and call the executive to account. It is fitting and proper that we should scrutinise the government's performance in framing their response to the clear and far-sighted challenges set down by Sir Ronald Wilson's report. It is our responsibility to see that a historic opportunity is not lost. If the government's performance in failing to address more than half of the report's recommendations and their incompetent inability to satisfactorily deliver on even those that they have agreed to pursue is left unchallenged, we must and we will share the blame. The government's failure to adequately and compassionately respond to the hopes, needs and aspirations of the surviving members of the stolen generations and their families dishonours us all.As we move into the new millennium and, need I say, the Olympic year, we will be condemned by most of the nation and most of the world unless we pick up the ball. To those of you unmoved by any of this, can I say that, apart from these moral considerations, the government's approach also represents bad public policy and poor use of the public purse. The government has already declared contingent liabilities in the order of a billion dollars to fight a litigious war with claimants seeking redress, help and compensation. They want to fight every one of the hundreds of probable claims, and they want to fight them in the courts.At recent Senate estimate hearings, Commonwealth officers estimated the potential cost in the Northern Territory alone would run to hundreds of millions of dollars. A non-litigious and less formal approach, such as the reparations tribunal recommended in the report, would cost infinitely less. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre in New South Wales has already articulated principles upon which such a system could be based.In addition, it has also placed on the record that there are a number of working models to be looked at in Canada and the United States. The gateway to access any such scheme would be a demanding prima facie test against publicly known guidelines. These guidelines would be established in the inquiry that I understand Senator Ridgeway will move today that we establish. Those unable to meet this standard who still wish to proceed with compensation claims would still need to go through a formal judicial process.In its fight to destroy the credibility and lives of Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner in the test case currently before a court in the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth has already spent over $4 million. Whatever that judge's decision, this case seems destined to go all the way to the High Court. Costs alone will be tens of millions of dollars, before any question of damages. It is an obscenity that John Howard has skimmed $2 million of the money needed for costs already incurred in this case from a program for the benefit of indigenous people entitled `A better future for indigenous Australians'. The gall of it!The government's motives are as transparent as its methods are brutal. Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner are to be made an example of. The Commonwealth's conduct of its case has stunned observers in its callous disregard of cultural sensitivity and its relentless harassment of the plaintiffs. The Commonwealth wants to send a very clear message: any plaintiff must accept that no aspect of their life, no family secret and no youthful indiscretion will be safe from savage public scrutiny. Days in a witness box in front of hardened court performers will be used to destroy your credibility, question your motives and bully you into uncertain testimony.The strategy is very clear-cut. The objective is that they will frighten off claimants. The prohibitive costs, driven up by the Commonwealth's capacity to hire the best and largest teams of legal dobermans in this country and to dip into the public purse to fund as many appeals as necessary, is intended to frighten off community legal centres and the like that might be considering putting up test cases. We should not tolerate such brutality in public policy. We should not tolerate this ruin of our national honour.I believe this parliament, this Senate, must challenge the government in the explicit terms of this motion. We must seek to restore the national honour and decent national leadership through the inquiry we propose. Sir William Deane, our Governor-General, has termed the history of government policies that gave rise to the stolen generations our `legacy of unutterable shame'. Let us not today compound and perpetuate that shame. Let us, as a Senate, stand with our fellow Australians in their struggle for justice. Let us translate the compassion that this nation felt on the publication of that report into action. I commend this motion to the Senate.16:26:0010591Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I speak this afternoon on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats welcome this motion by Senator Bolkus on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. I also take this opportunity to move this Democrat amendment, as circulated in this chamber, to notice of motion No. 291:At the end of the motion, add:"and resolves that the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day of the first sitting week in October 2000: (c) the adequacy and effectiveness of the government's response to the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report; (d) appropriate ways for governments to implement paragraph (b) of this resolution; (e) effective ways of implementing recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report including an examination of existing funding arrangements; (f) the impact of the government's response to recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report with particular reference to the consistency of this response with the aims of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation; and (g) the consistency of the government's response to recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report with the hopes, aspirations and needs of members of the stolen generation and their descendants".Last but not least, I acknowledge the stolen generations members from the Northern Territory in the gallery. We sincerely hope that the commitments for action which are contained in this motion will be embraced by all the parties represented in the Australian parliament. The pain that has been inflicted on the stolen generations is a national issue that requires a national response. It is also an issue that requires each of us to put aside our political rivalries and recognise that, as senators, we have a responsibility to both current and future generations.The Australian Democrats believe this motion reflects the wishes of many Australians who want to see the Australian parliament take action to repair some of the wounds that are borne by the stolen generations and their families. Many Australians, both indigenous and non-indigenous, do not want to see Australia enter another century still exercising a collective `willing blindness' in relation to the unfinished business of the past. Many Australians have called upon us as parliamentarians to act decisively and with compassion to alleviate the suffering of the stolen generations.Over one million Australians added their names to the sorry books that were open for signature and comment around the country. This was their personal way of acknowledging the wrongs of the past and of articulating their own apology to those affected.The Bringing them home report, as it is now commonly known, of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, and the recent parliamentary motion on reconciliation are, I believe, two critical steps that Australia has taken in its effort to deal with the enormity of the hurt suffered by so many of the stolen generations. We must now ask ourselves what needs to be done to make a real difference in the lives of indigenous Australians who have been irreparably damaged by past policies and actions of governments, churches or other institutional bodies.I am perhaps the first to admit that we cannot change the past and right all of the wrongs, but we can and we must make sure that this type of pain, suffering and trauma is not experienced by any Australian person in the future. Our responsibilities in relation to the stolen generations are clearly outlined in the final report of the national inquiry, which I will refer to shortly.Before I do so, it is important to listen to what members of the stolen generations have been saying themselves about what they want to see happen if governments are serious about responding in a meaningful way to the Bringing them home report. The comments of an anonymous Victorian woman to the national inquiry provide us with some insight into how indigenous people are feeling and why the government's response needs to be very considered and heartfelt. They give some indication of the human scale of this tragedy and suggest that many of the members of the stolen generations are simply looking for answers. She states:The Government has to explain why it happened. What was the intention? I have to know why I was taken. I have to know why I was given the life I was given and why I'm scarred today. Why was my Mum meant to suffer? Why was I made to suffer with no Aboriginality and no identity, no culture? Why did they think that the life they gave me was better than the one my Mum would give me?In the last few weeks, and particularly in recent days, I have met with representatives for and members of the stolen generations to discuss what the next step should be, and how that step should be taken. The resounding answer is that the recommendations of the Bringing them home report must be implemented in the near future and the outcomes of its implementation must be monitored to ensure that those most in need of assistance receive it.One of the other messages that I have consistently received relates to the need for any government response to offer alternatives to court litigation. I think we are all aware of how inappropriate it is leaving members of the stolen generations only one option for redress when that option is adversarial and often beyond the financial means of most of those concerned. We need look no further than the recent decision on the Joy Williams case as to why the stolen generations need to be offered alternative dispute resolution options. Not only was Mrs Williams's case unsuccessful but she was forced to relive the trauma of her experience on public display only to be told that she had not been able to prove she was even a member of the stolen generations.So the cost in further suffering that litigation guarantees for members of the stolen generations is something that no government should advocate as an appropriate solution. Furthermore, the $63 million that the government has set aside to implement the recommendations of the Bringing them home report will not go far if it is to fund the backlog of the 2,500 stolen generation cases that have already been lodged in my home state. We are already hearing figures of individual cases costing upwards of $6 million—even before a decision is handed down.Surely these amounts of money would be better directed at responses that will deliver real outcomes to members of the stolen generations. There is a need to look beyond litigation and to offer the stolen generations a range of options for redress. Redress is a lesson that I think we can draw from the experience in South Africa through its Truth and Reconciliation Commission.This approach is also timely, perhaps—in putting forward and supporting this motion—with the impending arrival of Archbishop Desmond Tutu to this land to talk about his experiences in relation to truth and reconciliation. Such an approach is also the advice of one of the subcommittees of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which developed the van Boven principles in 1996, after a three-year process of consultation and refinement. These principles were developed for states that are grappling with these types of issues—with the violations of human rights of the magnitude of the stolen generation. They have received strong support from a number of the submissions made to the Bringing them home inquiry.I particularly want to draw the Senate's attention to what the van Boven principles advise on reparations:In accordance with international law, States have the duty to adopt special measures, where necessary, to permit expeditious and fully effective reparations. Reparation shall render justice by removing or addressing the consequences of the wrongful acts and by preventing and deterring violations. Reparations shall be proportionate to the gravity of the violations and the resulting damage and shall include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.I think it is also important to look closely at the word `reparations' and to make sure that we all grasp the same meaning.My understanding of this word comes from the definitions provided in the Bringing them home report and the van Boven principles. Both point out that `reparation' is the most appropriate concept to use as it is a collective term for a whole range of responses, only one of which relates to monetary compensation. When the word `reparation' is used we are not talking about war reparations, which were lumbered on Weimar Germany as a punishment for its defeat after World War I with the intention of bankrupting it.I think indigenous people and people like Sir Ronald Wilson use the term `reparations' to refer to responses that include: public acknowledgment of the harm inflicted and an apology; guarantees against repetition, including educating Australians about the history of the stolen generations and the current plight of many indigenous peoples today as a result of that history; measures of restitution, such as family reunions and re-establishments of links to culture, language and country; measures of rehabilitation, like counselling; and, finally, monetary compensation. The Bringing them home report is very clear about the place of monetary compensation in this debate. It advised that reparation should be:Material, in-kind and non-material and should include, but not be confined to, monetary compensation.That particular view was shared by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The South African commission recommended, and the government accepted, that there could be no healing and reconciliation without adequate reparation and rehabilitation measures—at either an individual or a community level. Consequently, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has made some monetary compensation payments to individuals—that amount being commensurate with the harm they have suffered.I implore the Senate, on this occasion, to support the motion moved today by Senator Bolkus and the amendment that I have made to it. We need to listen to the stories of the stolen generations about what they regard as the next appropriate steps for the government take. For this reason, I consider it appropriate to refer to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee the question of how the government should respond. We need to look at other models for reparation, such as the model put forward by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre about a reparations tribunal which could make orders relating to compensation, take oral submissions and deal with the entire issue of reparations beyond just financial compensation.We also need to grapple with a range of questions, including the following. Does Australia need a truth and reconciliation commission like the one that has been established in South Africa? What would it look like? How would it assist in the healing process and how would it operate? Who would preside over it and how long would it operate for? What is an appropriate range for monetary compensation payments, and should they be payable to individuals and communities? Would a national reparations tribunal be helpful? Would legislation be required to establish such a tribunal? What type of evidence would be required before it could make a decision, and how long would it operate for?These are vital questions that I believe not one of us has the answers for, and I think there is no-one who on this occasion could honestly say they do.So I approach this matter in the sense of aspiring to the things possible rather than never trying at all, because I think this is an issue that is too important to be limited to more comforting words. Any motion must contain a commitment to appropriate action in the near future. We need to take the time to listen to the stories of the stolen generations. We need to take the time to make sure that our response is the most considered and culturally appropriate one for those who have suffered for so long.I believe that referring these questions to the committee for its deliberation is the least that we owe the stolen generations. The motion, as amended, is the beginning of a human response that is required on this occasion.16:38:0010594Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It would be entirely inappropriate for the Senate to canvass the issue of compensation to indigenous people while the Commonwealth is defending litigation on this very issue. The Cubillo and Gunner cases, currently before the Federal Court, are close to conclusion. The Commonwealth's evidence is expected to finish in two to three days, and I understand that the court will sit for two to three weeks to conclude the case in February next year. Because the matter is before the court, I am not going to discuss that case.However, I will reiterate our position, although it should be well known: the government does not support the payment of compensation unless a legal liability is established in individual cases, because it does not believe that cash compensation is the answer to this issue. The establishment of some sort of tribunal is no guarantee that the costs and stress associated with litigation would magically disappear.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report itself said: `Assisting family reunions is the most significant and urgent need of separated families.' That is why family reunion is the cornerstone of the government's $63 million response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. That response includes a family reunion program administered through ATSIC and separate funding for access to records, personal and family counselling, oral history recording and culture and language maintenance.The current court case is not, of course, the first action in relation to indigenous family separation. The previous federal Labor government defended the case of Kruger and Bray, the very first brought against the Commonwealth. So the federal Labor Party has to acknowledge its own actions in this case. The New South Wales Labor government recently defended the Williams case. I also note that no state or territory government has set up a compensation scheme. Following the outcome in the Williams case, Premier Bob Carr said that he did not support cash payments to compensate for past injustices. It was reported in the press last week that Premier Carr has also rejected the establishment of a state reparations tribunal.I think it is unfair and opportunistic of the opposition to raise unrealistic expectations in the indigenous community. Let me be quite clear again: the government are opposed to cash compensation. What we are in favour of is practical and realistic measures that go directly to addressing the consequences of past actions and policies. The opposition motion refers to the need to set up various counselling and support programs for separated children and mechanisms to assist family reunion, the need to record the testimonies of separated children and the need to educate Australians about their experience.Precisely such processes have already been set in place by the Commonwealth government in its response, announced in December 1997, to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Bringing them home report. I am surprised that the opposition does not recall that on 30 June this year, in response to a question from Senator Harradine, I tabled a detailed progress report on these Commonwealth initiatives. I am happy to make that report available to interested senators, and it will, of course, be updated regularly.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report contains a vast range of recommendations aimed at all the agencies involved in indigenous child separation practices—and that means state and territory governments and religious and non-government organisations as well as the Commonwealth. Of the 54 recommendations, very few apply solely to the Commonwealth; the great majority apply equally or primarily to the states and territories. However, it is only the Commonwealth that has developed a dedicated significant package of measures in response—a package totalling $63 million over four years.By contrast with the Commonwealth, most states and territories have been much slower to respond, with New South Wales finalising its response only in May this year. In the main, state and territory responses have concentrated on utilising and adapting existing programs in areas such as policing practices, educational materials, mental health, family support, records management or collection of oral histories. Where new funds have been allocated by the states and territories, they have been minimal by comparison. For example, Victoria has allocated a total of $700,000 over three years, whereas New South Wales—where I understand the majority of child removals occurred—has only provided a one-off grant of $150,000.The starting point for the comprehensive Commonwealth package is the fundamental finding of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report itself which I quoted earlier, and I will quote again: `Assisting family reunions is the most significant and urgent need of separated families.' That is on page 347. The government is unequivocally of the same view.Accordingly, the Commonwealth response is concentrated on funding a significant expansion of a network of Link Up services to assist people affected by indigenous child separations to trace their families. ATSIC has received $11.25 million to establish a soundly functioning and truly national network of Link Up services. Following an evaluation of the already established services, such as those in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, some of this money has already been used to employ additional caseworkers and upgrade their training and resources. In addition, the Commonwealth funds are being used to establish new Link Up services in South Australia and Western Australia, and the services in the Northern Territory are being reorganised and enhanced.By contrast, the states and territories have offered little tangible assistance in this. I noted previously the New South Wales government contribution of $150,000 to Link Up services. I remind the Senate that the Commonwealth's financial contribution to Link Up services is $11.25 million.Another major set of recommendations in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report related to the importance of recording and making known the experience of those involved in and affected by indigenous child separations through the use of oral history and educational materials. While all states and territories agreed that this is an important area for further work, only the Commonwealth has taken it on seriously, by allocating $1.6 million to the National Library to undertake a major national oral history project collecting the testimonies of separated children and other individuals and organisations involved in various aspects of indigenous family separation. After the completion of a pilot project during 1998-99, the full-scale project is proceeding. This project will also be the basis of a book to be published by the National Library, which will allow all Australians to be better informed about the issue.Access to records is often crucial to the ability to trace families affected by indigenous child separations. Here too the Commonwealth has been very proactive, allocating $2 million to the National Archives to index government records relating to separated children. To date, 50,000 names have been indexed and 29,000 have been entered onto an electronic database. The National Archives are actively publicising their work and encouraging individuals to use this previously much less accessible resource.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report was much concerned with the ongoing effects of child separation practices on the emotional and mental health of individuals and the wellbeing of families and communities. The Commonwealth response to the report includes an additional $17 million for initiatives to support indigenous emotional and social wellbeing—for example, by expanding the current network of 11 regional training and support centres for indigenous health workers and counsellors and expanding health programs supporting good practice in indigenous family parenting and family wellbeing.An amount of $16 million has been given to the Department of Health and Aged Care to employ 59 additional indigenous counsellors to work specifically to address mental health issues. These positions have now been filled, with the majority of new workers placed within community controlled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community health care organisations. Almost $6 million has been allocated to the development of indigenous family support and parenting programs.Further, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report signalled the importance of language and culture maintenance support in order to assist indigenous communities and families to overcome the effects of previous practices. ATSIC responded with an additional $9 million for projects in this area, mainly allocated to indigenous community organisations themselves.The above measures are incontrovertible evidence of the Commonwealth's serious commitment to addressing the main issues and findings of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's report, a degree of commitment not paralleled by the other parties which were involved in indigenous child separation practices.The opposition has tried to characterise the government as harsh and uncaring in relation to indigenous family separation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do care deeply that indigenous people are still suffering hurt and distress as a result of past policies. We reaffirmed this in the motion of reconciliation on 26 August, a motion passed with the support of the Labor Party and the Democrats. That motion reaffirmed the central importance of practical measures to address disadvantage.Our response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report encompasses practical and effective measures to address the legacy of the past. In this light it is hard to see why the opposition has brought forward in this motion any exhortations to the government to address family reunion, counselling and other needs of indigenous separated children and their families. In fact, the Commonwealth announced its commitment to do so almost two years ago and has been following through on that commitment ever since. In light of the evidence that I have presented, and for that reason, we will be opposing the motion and the amendment proposed.16:49:0010596Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I rise in response to both speakers. Can I say to Senator Ridgeway that his amendment—the idea that he has proposed—is very constructive, and the opposition will clearly support it. It keeps this issue under surveillance by the Senate, and I think that is an appropriate and desirable outcome. So we could very readily agree to that.Senator Herron, I have to say—with sorrow, more than anything else—that your contribution over the last 15 minutes or so only really showed us one thing, and that was that you can read. There was no real understanding, I must say, of the holistic nature of the re sponse that is required in this area, no real understanding of where people are being frustrated at the moment, no real understanding that there is a feeling in the community—quite rightly—that the response to this area is, in essence, on autopilot.Senator Herron, you tell us that it is inappropriate to discuss compensation whilst that Federal Court is hearing the issue. But one of the major objectives of bringing this matter up today is to try to establish an understanding that this matter should not be left to the Federal Court. The Federal Court will continue to hear these cases for a long time—long after all of us in this place have gone—unless we find some alternative way of proceeding with them. It is not inappropriate; it is totally appropriate for this parliament to be trying to address alternative solutions to this most fundamental of issues.Senator Herron, you also say that the government's view is that cash compensation is not the answer. In saying that, you are really arguing for this motion. Without the sort of tribunal we are talking about here today, people are only left with one avenue to pursue, and that is the avenue of the courts and, through that, only compensation. If you honestly believed that there are alternative ways to healing the past in this respect, then you would be looking at a tribunal like this. To do otherwise—to insist on people being pursued through aggressive examination in courts; to insist that that is their only option—means that they only have the option of compensation to pursue. So, Senator Herron, I think you argued for us.The other point that needs to be placed on the record in response to Senator Herron's comments is that the evidence shows quite clearly that the government is not in control of the response to the Bringing them home report. We found that out quite clearly just a few months ago in the estimates committee hearings. We talked the minister through the issue of how the government was responding to the report and what was happening. The evidence shows quite clearly that, on the fundamental question of who was coordinating the response, the minister could not answer the question. In terms of who was on the coordinating committee, the minister could not answer the question. In terms of whether the committee had met, the minister had no idea. In terms of what was on the committee's agenda, the minister still could not answer the question. In terms of any specific project the committee had commissioned, the minister could not answer the question.What we established was that, at that stage, Victoria was in charge of coordination, but the committee had not met. We further established that not only the minister was ignorant of what was not happening but also the most senior officials in the Prime Minister's department were just as ignorant. This is not an indication of a government serious about healing this problem. This is not an indication of a government that knows what was happening. This is an indication of a government that does not care whether the senior minister and the senior bureaucrats had no idea of who was responsible for coordinating a response to the Bringing them home report. That is why we say it is the role of this Senate to put heat on the government to pressure it to get serious. This issue should not be left on autopilot. Governments and parliaments should get serious about this issue.The other thing that needs to be said is that we need some leadership in the debate, Senator Herron. You have at the moment Paddy McGuinness, lazy as he might be, self-indulgent as he might be, highly paid as he might be, spewing out rhetoric about denial that this ever happened. He gets paid big money for that. He does not do any research but simplistic lines keep spewing out. No-one from the government has confronted him. No-one from the government has said, `Listen, we have history, we have records, we have documentation all on the side of the stolen generations.' This failure of leadership from the government is something that we, not just as a parliament but as a nation, should be concerned about.The point I made in my earlier contribution is that we are in the lead-up to the new millennium and the lead-up to the Olympics in Sydney. We will not be able to hide this issue as Australia goes through the next 12 months. So I think it is important for the Senate to adopt the motion moved by the Labor Party and amended by the Democrats today. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Ridgeway's ) be agreed to.17:00:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)36Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. *Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Faulkner, J. P. Macdonald, I.Forshaw, M. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Murphy, S. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Ray, R. F. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion of Senator Bolkus, as amended, be agreed to.17:04:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.30Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Faulkner, J. P. Macdonald, I.Forshaw, M. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Mackay, S. Heffernan, W.Murphy, S. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Ray, R. F. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Committees10599105991059917:08:0010599O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 18th report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 18 of 1999, dated 24 November 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.1059910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Madam President has received letters from a party leader seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Calvert to replace Senator Coonan for the 1999-2000 supplementary budget estimates hearings on 3 December 1999Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Calvert to replace Senator Crane for the 1999-2000 supplementary budget estimates hearings on 3 December 1999.Bills10599Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills: Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999 Miscellaneous1059917:10:0010599Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move: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.This regulation, as I imagine honourable senators would be aware, has received a fair degree of publicity of late. It relates to a government action to introduce a new form of temporary visa for people who are accessing Australia's protection obligation—that is, people who are recognised by Australia's legal system as genuine refugees in need of asylum and protection from persecution but who will now only receive temporary three-year visas, if those people come into the country without initial authorisation or a valid visa of some form.This issue is not, as has been indicated in many media reports and public commentary, about giving visas to illegal immigrants. The Democrats oppose giving any visa to illegal migrants. We do support giving adequate protection for genuine refugees. By definition, genuine refugees cannot be illegal migrants. That is not a matter of splitting hairs or a bit of linguistic sophistry; it is a matter of basic justice and humanity and a proper understanding of what constitutes a refugee.A refugee is someone who is fleeing persecution and who has a genuine fear of persecution in their country of origin. If they are on Australian soil, we have both a legal obligation and, more importantly, a moral and humanitarian obligation to offer them asylum and to offer them protection. If they do not meet the definition of a refugee, then they do not get a visa. They have never been given a visa: they are illegal migrants without any authority to be in Australia and so they are returned. That is as it has always been and that is as it will continue to be.This regulation deals with people who are recognised by Australia's system as genuine refugees. If they were not, they would not be getting a visa of any type, temporary or otherwise. This particular regulation now creates a second- class citizen, if you like, or a second- class category of refugees within Australia: those that are seen to have not played by the rules, to use a phrase that was repeated a couple of times by departmental officials at a committee hearing the other day. Somehow or other, people who are fleeing persecution, torture, and potential death are meant to play by some nice rule book. It is astonishing to suggest that somehow or other we can paint these people as some form of queue jumpers, as though refugees around the world are sitting patiently and calmly in some orderly queue. It might be nice if the world operated that way but, unfortunately, it does not.The issue of providing genuine refugees with only a temporary visa is not just a matter of saying to them, `You can stay here for three years and then we will assess your claim again at the end of that time and, if you are still deemed to be in need of protection, then we will issue you with a permanent visa at that time.' That is one component of it. What we really need to look at is what those people experience for that three-year period. These people have already, by definition, experienced a hell of a lot more trauma and suffering than most of us are ever likely to see. I hope none of us in this chamber ever do see it.On top of that, people arriving by boat have endured a very dangerous trip—indeed, a fatal trip for some—to arrive on Australia's shores; and look at what happens to them when they get here. People who by our own definition, by any humane definition, are genuine refugees get put in detention; and it is worth emphasising that Australia is the only country in the world that insists on putting all people who arrive here without authorisation in immigration detention. These people, who may have undergone any amount of unspeakable trauma already, are put in detention.Once they are recognised as refugees, under this new regime that has been put in place, it is not just a matter of their being certain of getting only a three-year stay in Australia; a lot of other items attach to that change. Currently, people who are recognised as refugees—and this will continue to apply to those who come here under a valid visa, whether it is a study visa, a tourist visa, a business visa or whatever that enables them to get into the country validly and then seek protection—will continue to receive permanent visas at this stage.As part of the temporary visa, those people will not have access to a range of areas of assistance that is applied to other refugees. We will have two quite distinct classes of recognised refugees in Australia. Those without a permanent visa will not have access to the full range of social security entitlements. They will have access only to special benefits, a very tight and constrained payment, with a range of eligibility criteria that do not apply to any other payment. It is worth drawing to the Senate's attention the research that has been done and released by welfare agencies around the country—by the Welfare Rights Centre in South Australia in particular—about the poverty and suffering of a number of people who have come to this country and not been able to access adequate social security payments because of the new two-year waiting period. It gives a small indication of the sort of hardship that can apply there.They also may have restricted access to school education. Depending on the policies of various states, they may have to pay. They are effectively precluded from any form of tertiary education or training due to having to pay full fees, the overseas student rate, unless they can afford it. According to information provided by the department officials on Monday, they will not have access to the refugee settlement support services that are provided to those with permanent visas. They will have some access to some migrant support services, but they will not have access to the full range of settlement support services provided to refugees.Perhaps most cruelly, they will be separated from their immediate family—from their spouse and their children—for that three-year period. The family will be left alone, possibly in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan—the very countries where we recognise there is genuine fear of persecution. The spouses, most often the wives, will be left unaccompanied in a country such as Afghanistan. People need to think about what the reality of that may mean. They will have work rights, but they will have the difficulty of having only a temporary visa. Particularly as they get toward the tail end of that visa, they will be unable to guarantee to employers that they will even be able to stay in the country beyond a certain period of time. They will have no right to leave Australia without jeopardising their visa. All of those changes will also accompany this change to a temporary visa.I defy anyone who wishes to try to have a commonsense interpretation of the spirit of the refugee convention to suggest that that does not constitute a very real and significant penalty on these people. It is worth emphasising the contents of the refugee convention, with which Australia likes to hold itself up as a proud complier. I will note a few articles from that convention. Article 31 says that states—and Australia is a signatory to that—shall not impose penalties on refugees coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened simply on account of their illegal entry, which is recognition of the principle that, when you are fleeing persecution, you do not necessarily have time to fill out all the appropriate application forms. Indeed, having documentation on you at all may well pose a greater threat.The refugee convention also indicates that countries shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory, which these people clearly are, the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their own nationals. It is hard to see how that is being complied with. It also states that a country shall issue to refugees lawfully staying in their territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory. I am sure we will do that, but of course there is a bit of a catch there—we will give you the documents to go, but we might not let you back in. That clearly contravenes the spirit and intention of those particular components of the refugee convention.It is worth looking at the cause of some of this. As everybody listening to this debate would know, the government has justified this as a measure to address the increase in the number of boat people arriving in Australia. Firstly, it is worth emphasising this measure will also apply to people arriving by air without a valid visa, so it is not specific to boat people. It will apply to others who arrive without appropriate documentation.The rationale the government have put forward is that this will diminish the trade in people smuggling. They will run around the country, as they have been already, saying those who oppose these measures are aiding and abetting the people smugglers, supporting these people in their cruel and inhuman trade. The Democrats certainly do not support or give any comfort to people smugglers. Part of the reason why their trade is cruel and inhuman is the suffering of the people who are the cargo, the genuine refugees. But this measure does not target the people smugglers at all. It penalises in an extremely cruel way those people who have already suffered enormously.This is not a measure that will have any significant impact on the number of boat people arriving, and that has been clearly acknowledged and recognised by the opposition. It has been stated frequently—both before and after the opposition made their decision to back the government's move in this regard—that this new visa will not be effective in countering people smuggling operations. As I have stated repeatedly, the Democrats have supported some of the other measures the government have put forward that do target people smugglers. The prosecutions that occurred in Darwin recently involved the new extra penalties that were put on people involved in the carrying out of people smuggling operations. They got through this Senate at very short notice, very quickly, because of the cooperation of all parties, including the Democrats.So I hope we will not hear suggestions as part of this debate that somehow or other the Democrats are happy to support people smuggling operations. We are not. But we do not believe that genuine refugees should be penalised and made to suffer further because of the government's need to seem like they are being tough on boat people. It is not very tough to kick people when they are down, and you do not get people who are further down than some of the refugees who are going to be affected by this measure.What this measure also does more broadly, which is potentially more damaging socially, is send this message to all refugees already in the country, those who have permanent visas and those who perhaps are now Australian citizens: `Australia really does not want you people anymore. We'll give you protection but only because we have to. We'll do it begrudgingly because we have signed this convention and we'd better look like we're trying to uphold it. But it is pretty clear from all the messages that have gone out from the government in recent times that, if you're a genuine refugee but you haven't played by the rules'—to use that offensive phrase again—`then we really wish you weren't here. We wish you'd go away. We'll only let you stay a little while. We'll make life difficult for you while you're here. We'll keep you separated from your wife and your kids. Hopefully, you'll get the message that you're just someone who has snuck through the system, you've jumped the queue, you've exploited a loophole.' What sort of message is that to send to people who are escaping persecution?The government likes to portray Australia as this great humanitarian nation. I hear repeatedly the minister saying that we have accepted more refugees per capita than any other country in the world. I do not know, but perhaps we have if you go back to the Second World War. I will give you a few figures from the last 10 years, which is when conditions changed quite dramatically. According to the statistics from the UNHCR—the body the government likes to use as a cloak of respectability for some of the things it does—the number of people Australia has recognised as asylum seekers under the 1951 convention from 1989 to 1998 total 8,550. The number of people Canada has recognised as asylum seekers under the 1951 convention over the same period is 123,700. I do not know precisely what Canada's population is compared to Australia, but I do not think they have 15 times more people than we do.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It is 25 million.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—That is not even double, and they have allowed 15 times the number we accepted. In the last 10 years, France has accepted 82,000; Germany, 152,000; the Netherlands, 50,000; Sweden, 11,000; Switzerland, 20,000; the United Kingdom, 20,000; and the United States, 76,000. Maybe we had a good record in the past, but in recent times it has not been so flash and measures such as this make it a hell of a lot worse.It is worth acknowledging that this is predominantly about politics. Nobody can deny that there has been quite an organised attempt to generate concern amongst the Australian community. The Democrats are not saying that we should not address this issue, but again let us keep these things in perspective. We have to recognise, in the same way as we might be concerned about drug smuggling, that you cannot do a few `gee, look, I'm being tough' measures and expect the problem to disappear overnight. It is the same with this issue. It is not going to disappear overnight, and to try to introduce a few knee-jerk, punish-the-victim measures is not going to address the issue. It is not going to go away. Let us recognise it and try to deal with it in a more organised, civilised and logical fashion. Let us have the debate occur in the Australian community on that level, not react out of fear and loathing about some so-called invasion, a phrase I have heard many times on talkback radio in recent weeks.Again, I will quote some figures from the UNHCR. We are concerned about a couple of thousand boat people appearing, but the number of people indicated as being refugees in 1998 under the UNHCR definition was 11½ million. There are a lot of them out there—that is the tragedy—and it needs a lot of work and cooperation throughout the international community to address it.But let us not suggest that somehow or other Australia is being besieged and that every other country is not having to deal with this issue. We get told constantly that Australia is a soft touch, that all these people are flocking here because we make it easy for them. Yet the numbers I have quoted before give some indications. Let us look at the number of people who put in applications to other countries: in the Netherlands last year, 45,000 people applied, as opposed to 8,000 in Australia.Let us get this in perspective. The number of people crossing the border in the US every day is the same as what Australia has to deal with every year. That does not mean we should not try to address it, but let us not suggest that somehow or other Australia is copping it more than anybody else. We are copping it a lot less than anybody else. If we were the soft touch the government likes to portray Australia as being, those figures would be reversed. We would have the millions coming here. Germany has had two million asylum applications in the last 10 years; Australia has had 80,000. So let us get a bit of perspective in the debate.I firmly believe the Australian people are humanitarian people and they have shown that in their response to the suffering that has been portrayed to them in Kosovo and East Timor. The only reason they are not responding similarly to this situation is that there has been a deliberate and orchestrated campaign to try to generate community concern rather than portray individual real human suffering.I do wish and hope that senators reconsider their positions on this issue. I know Labor has announced it will support the government, despite recognising that the measure will not work. To quote from Margo Kingston's article in the Sydney Morning Herald today, `Labor and the coalition combined', along with the Democrats, `to defeat One Nation at the federal election by putting the party last; yet on a crucial policy issue that One Nation is so renowned for, they have now combined to give One Nation victory.'17:30:0010603Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I do not even think that last comment of Senator Bartlett's was worth responding to. These laws set up new arrangements for dealing with people who arrive in Australia unlawfully and they will enable us to tackle the problem of unlawful arrivals who are being trafficked to Australia. You do not need to be a rocket scientist or to read the news paper every single day to know that the unauthorised boat arrivals are increasing significantly. There have been over 2,000 arrivals so far this year. Most of these have been Iraqis, Afghans and Turks. There are further reports that up to 10,000 more people are paying to enter Australia through people smuggling operations.I have heard people say that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has been alarmist, that the minister is making claims that are totally outrageous. Last year we had 2,000 people just about to board one boat to come here illegally. Through the innovative efforts of the department and the minister and cooperation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that boat was stopped in its tracks before the people left. There was evidence or some suggestion that other boats had set out and had not made it. We ought to remember that any comfort we give to people smugglers or `snakeheads' means that there are people who are in rickety boats, unseaworthy boats, in open oceans who die and have died risking their lives at the hands of these unscrupulous people.The minister was not being alarmist. He is not given to being alarmist. People give credit where credit is due. He has been recognised as knowing his portfolio very, very well. He is not the sort of person that makes rash statements. He is a very measured person. That statement was not rash. It was based on information that he has. As I said, in one episode last year one-fifth of that number were literally on the docks ready to board the boat. There was a riot on the docks when they were stopped. Many of these people have travelled halfway around the world to come to Australia and bypass or leave other countries that may be able to provide them with protection. Irrespective of whether these people are refugees or whether they are seeking to migrate to Australia as their destination of choice, some of them are forum shopping for their preferred country of residence.I would like to remind senators that unauthorised arrivals undermine the coordinated system of international burden sharing. They also undermine the integrity of and public confidence in Australia's refugee and humanitarian program. The government is determined to protect refugees in genuine need. People who are bypassing the offshore humanitarian program, whether it be through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees program or through Australia's resettlement program, have either no claim or a claim that is no greater than the claim of those who have been waiting or who have applied through UNHCR or through our resettlement program. So what these people are in effect doing is bypassing those people who are attempting to come to Australia through appropriate and recognised means. As I said, there are people in those queues who are being bypassed by those people who can obtain funding or who can arrange to come through illegal means by paying people smugglers to assist them.The laws and regulations we are discussing today introduce a new class of protection visa with two visa subclasses—one permanent and one temporary. Asylum seekers who are unauthorised will be eligible on arrival only for a three-year temporary protection visa.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—First class and second class.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—To be granted a visa, the visa applicants will still have to satisfy the minister that Australia owes them protection obligations under the refugee convention. Senator Bartlett had his say but now he interjects on me to say that you have two classes of citizens. Yes, there are two classes of citizens—the ones who try to come using the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees program and the Australian resettlement program and those who try to bypass them. There are two groups of people.Senator Bartlett said that it contravened article 31 of the international obligations where it says the `contracting states shall not impose penalties'. We have had legal advice that it is not a penalty to treat these two different groups differentially. This article also refers to people coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. These people are coming indirectly from a second country of settlement or a country of settlement other than the one from which they have fled.I want to read into the record part of a press release that was issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on 19 November regarding these regulations. The press release entitled `Recent Australian Immigration Regulations and the Refugee Convention' states:Some recent media reports have misrepresented the position of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on recently promulgated regulations under the Migration Act 1958 dealing with unauthorised arrivals.Signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) undertake the obligation not to return refugees to the countries in which they face persecution under the principle of "non-refoulement" set out in Article 33 of the Convention. This is a fundamental legal obligation.This next sentence is very important:The Refugee Convention does not stipulate what kind of visa sovereign States should issue to refugees in fulfilling this obligation.It goes on to say:The Australian Government has consulted and continues to consult UNHCR closely on recent and proposed changes to Australian immigration legislation insofar as they engage Australia's international obligations under the Refugee Convention. UNHCR appreciates the process of consultation and is following developments closely.Refugees are particularly vulnerable to "migration networks", organised criminal rings which have made of human trafficking a most lucrative transnational activity. This people trafficking has taken on enormous proportions. UNHCR is supportive of measures which are designed to minimise such activity while maintaining and strengthening the international refugee protection regime.As the UNHCR said, they have been watching the regulations very carefully.To be granted a visa, applicants will still have to satisfy the minister that Australia owes them protection obligations under the refugee convention. The new laws will remove incentives for those people who are forum shopping to select Australia as their preferred place to live. The new arrangements do not allow immediate access to family reunion or unrestricted international movement. Australia will still comply with its international obligations, as asylum seekers will either be offered safe haven or assessed against the refugee convention. Therefore, protection against return to country of persecution is available to all those who need protection.The refugee convention does not require signatory countries to provide immediate permanent residency to refugees. That has been clearly underlined and reiterated by the press release from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. These amendments bring Australia into line with others in the international community who offer temporary protection to refugees. We meet our obligations to refugees at the standard required by the convention. For people who follow the process of applying through the United Nations High Commissioner or through the appropriate means—both in terms of domestic migration legislation and the broader system of international protection—Australia is more generous than it is required to be.Some have claimed that refugees who have been granted a temporary protection visa will be sent home to persecution after three years. This is patently misleading. Holders of the new temporary protection visa may be granted a permanent protection visa if they still have a need for protection after 30 months. Similarly, there are claims that the new temporary protection arrangements for unauthorised arrivals are a penalty for their mode of arrival. This is not correct. Asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation will be able to seek Australia's protection if they are found to be genuine refugees. However, the differential treatment of unauthorised arrivals in comparison to the more than generous treatment of lawful arrivals reduces the attractiveness of the `package' that a people smuggler can sell to an asylum seeker. That is what is happening.Australia's borders should be controlled by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and by this parliament. They should not be controlled by the `snakeheads' and the unscrupulous people traffickers. These changes deserve the support of the Senate, and I ask senators to vote against Senator Bartlett's motion.17:42:0010605Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition to firstly indicate that we will not support the motion to disallow these regulations. It is true that this matter has been discussed at great length in the Labor Party, both outside this parliament and inside this parliament, over the last few days since the issue was raised by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, and this government.The opposition make it quite clear that we do not believe that this policy will work and that it has many holes and flaws, but it is what the government want to do. Therefore, it is on the government's head; they have to take full responsibility for this policy with all its flaws, with all its nasty politics, which the minister and the Prime Minister have been more than happy to promote in the Australian media and out in the Australian public to create a level of minor hysteria about what is going on with boat people arriving illegally in Australia. It is very unfortunate that we have had a government that have attempted to get some political advantage in the Australian community by putting this measure forward in the way in which they have.We as an opposition in no way support people smuggling. When we were in government we opposed it strongly and strenuously. We still do. We still want those people responsible to be caught, apprehended, taken to the courts in Australia if we catch them in Australia, and to get severe penalties. We would also like this government to have better negotiations with countries in our region from where these people smugglers are operating to have them dealt with to stop them carrying out their infamous trade.Nobody in this parliament supports people smuggling and nobody in the Australian community supports people smuggling. The people responsible for it make money out of the misery of others—particularly refugees who, for whatever reason, believe they have a well-founded fear of persecution and believe that they are at risk in the country from which they come. Therefore we believe that, with respect to the people trade, every measure has to be taken.One of the unfortunate things about this government is that it has not taken all the broad measures that should have been taken to stop the people smuggling racket. In particular, where have the negotiations with Indonesia been? We have previously had problems with boat people in this country, and the previous government had lengthy discussions and negotiations with Indonesia, which helped stop the smuggling of boat people at various times in the past. This minister has shown no inclination to go to Indonesia and talk directly to the Indonesian authorities. The Prime Minister apparently has shown no inclination to do it, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has shown no inclination to do it. Though we have the difficulty of repairing our relations with Indonesia post the East Timor episode, this is one reason why we need good relations with Indonesia. This is one way we can stop the people smugglers operating through the Indonesian archipelago. But this government has shown no initiative in that area.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Bill Farmer went there a few months ago.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—The parliamentary secretary interjects about Bill Farmer. Bill Farmer is not the minister. At this level, you need ministers to go. When we had the difficulty in government of the illegal smuggling of boat people from China, our minister at the time, Senator Bolkus, went to China and discussed it in detail with the Chinese ministers and officials. We have not seen any inclination from the minister to do anything other than keep issuing statements, backed up by the Prime Minister, that we are about to be flooded with refugees in this illegal boat people trade.The minister has said that he thinks there are 10,000 to come. That is a nice round figure. Next week it will probably be 20,000. It is all done for a political purpose. We make it quite clear in the opposition that we are not falling for the political trick and the political hypocrisy of the government on this issue. We will give you your regulation. We will give it to you, and it is on your head how it works. It will not work. The minister has said, `Give me this regulation, and I will stop the boat people coming and the people smugglers operating. We will limit the boat people to three years as refugees in Australia.' He has indicated to the public, to the Pauline Hanson supporters, to the rednecks out there, to that small minority in our community that is susceptible to this sort of prejudice and is up in arms about this, `Give me this regulation and I will stop it. We will send them home.'Nobody believes that. If you give a refugee even a three-year visa to stay in Australia, does anyone believe that at the end of the three years we are going to send them home? I believe we would be lucky to send a handful home. They will be given an extension in one form or another. If the government had to send someone in three years to say, `We don't believe you're a political refugee from Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan; we're going to send you back,' imagine the publicity and the scenes at the airport as the immigration officials forcibly put that person on an aeroplane to fly back to Iraq to be arrested by Saddam Hussein. Not even the government will do that. They know they will not do it. This is a political trick to convince people that they will be doing it. In three years time, they will not be sending anybody back; they will be extending their visa in one form or another.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Why are you supporting this then?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator Harradine, the very simple reason is that we want to expose their hypocrisy about the political tactics they are trying on this issue. They are trying a political stunt on this issue. I can imagine this minister, particularly with his Prime Minister, sitting down with his research advisers, doing market research and saying, `Actually, we can run this as a pretty good campaign. We can trap the Labor Party, the Democrats and everybody else into looking like they are soft on refugees and on illegal immigrants, like we might try to trap somebody into looking like they are soft on crime.' I bet there is market research right at this moment on the Prime Minister's desk in his office saying, `This is a good little political stunt to pull.'We are not going to fall for that. The government claim they have a mandate to govern for three years. Let them have their regulation and introduce it, but do not come back and say to us, `This is not working. We want to do something further.' We will say, `You tried it. We told you it wouldn't work. We told you it was a political stunt.' In three years time when all these three-year visas start running out, the public of Australia, the Pauline Hanson supporters, who the government is sucking up to, will say, `Hang on. You're not sending any of them back. They're all staying.' We will say, `Of course. That was the trick in what they did in November 1999. It was a trick. You fell for it, you rednecks, you Pauline Hanson supporters.' Let the government explain at that time.As I said before, we believe that there are a wider range of measures that, if the government were proactive in international diplomacy, particularly with Indonesia, you could put in place to stop the people smugglers operating. But the government are not interested in doing that; they are interested only in the political stunt which they can pull.We in Australia have a proud history of handling refugees. For decades we have been a consistent taker of refugees, of people who are suffering and have a well-founded fear of persecution. At times, people smugglers and others have tried to abuse it. We have dealt with that, not at all times with 100 per cent success but we have consistently maintained, as a Western democracy, that we accept our obligation and that there has to be acceptance of refugees from the UNHCR.We also accept that we do not like the idea of queuejumping. That is a legitimate part of the debate, and we have made it clear in the past when in government that we do not like queuejumping. We want people to come here in a proper and orderly manner, assessed by the UNHCR under proper documentation. It seems to us that is not a matter the government are particularly keen to worry about now. They are more keen to make a political point. It is very distressing that, as a result of the way the government have handled this issue, our longstanding reputation as a place that has taken political refugees for over 50 years, since the time of the Second World War, is now being tarnished. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs cannot separate their political deviousness from the standing of Australia internationally.When I came into this parliament, like many others I immediately joined the parliamentary group on Amnesty International. One of the most active members of the parliamentary group on Amnesty International was Mr Philip Ruddock. All those years he was in opposition, he was a very active member of Amnesty International. I went on private delegations with him to such places as Cambodia. Mr Ruddock was impeccable in arguing for human rights, arguing for Amnesty's position et cetera.It is unfortunate that, since he has become the minister, he has allowed the Prime Minister's political agenda to make every point—no matter how sleazy it is or how awful it is—some minor political advantage. For a long time, as I understand it, Mr Ruddock was a political opponent of the Prime Minister in the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party. I give him credit for that. But, since he has become minister, he has had to toe the Prime Minister's political line of how you play politics for a narrow advantage in the Australian community.I would not mind if Mr Ruddock believed genuinely in putting this policy up for the three-year visa for refugees. I would not mind if he believed that was absolutely the best way to handle it. My suspicion is that, and I think the evidence is now very strong, this has been run as a political agenda. Philip Ruddock has to review his position as a strong supporter of Amnesty International in Australia and in the parliamentary group when he is willing to put politics ahead of an issue such as this. That is how he has played it. He has been trapped by the Prime Minister. In the years ahead, I suspect he will be disappointed in himself for being trapped into doing this.That is the position he has taken. By his statements in recent times on the television—when, in my view, instead of trying to be rational about this issue he has encouraged the view that there is a massive number of people about to be smuggled into this country—he has not enhanced the debate. It is very easy to go to the lowest common de nominator in Australian politics and to be a Pauline Hanson variation playing to the fears of people, particularly at a time when large numbers of citizens in the Australian community who are under economic stress and uncertainty fall unfortunate prey to the populism of One Nation, which is willing to blame everybody else and which looks to minority groups as a way of apportioning blame.That is what I find despicable about the government. It is not that they believe this is the best measure for handling refugees; they believe this is the best politics. The opposition will not fall for the politics. We will give them the regulation, and we will watch as it unravels. We will watch when, in three years time or even before that, they have to explain to the rednecks that they have been duped. None of these people will be sent home; they will all be left in Australia. They will be granted an extension and further extensions. They will not be sent home once they are granted refugee status for three years.Is this going to stop people smugglers? They will be in the camps in Iraq, in the Middle East and in South-East Asia. They will still be saying to these people, `Look, you'll get into Australia for three years. Once you've been there for three years, you'll be there forever.' That will be the line of the people smugglers: `No-one will be sent home once you've been there for three years.' If you are a refugee from Iraq—from Saddam Hussein—from Iran or from Afghanistan, where your life is really under threat, three years in Australia is a better offer than three years in a refugee camp on the border of Afghanistan or in one of those countries.This option is not going to stop the people smugglers putting out their poisonous, distorted view. They will be saying that three years is better than none and that, once you are there, they will not kick you out in the end. The government will not have the courage to kick them out. They will not be able to do it in front of the media. Imagine the scene: someone being sent back on the plane by the good officers of Immigration with Customs and the Federal Police physically forcing them onto the Qantas jet to fly back via Singapore to Iraq. That is not going to hap pen. Not even Philip Ruddock would be as politically mad as to be photographed saying, `This is what we're doing to people.'If the government did send somebody back and they were executed, that would be the end of it—game, set and match. So we know it is a political stunt. It always has been in the last three weeks and will be for the next three years. We ain't falling for the stunt at all. You can have your regulation, you can live with it and you will take the consequences. In another year or so, I suspect you will be back here with another regulation to say, `Actually, that didn't work. What are we going to do now? We'll put handcuffs on them. We'll keep them in a detention camp. We'll cut off certain benefits.' The benefits that have now been reduced will be further reduced.The government will come back, and they will put it up in terms of: `This is the way to stop the people smugglers.' But the undercurrent will be appealing to that section of the Australian community of which the Prime Minister, in particular, believes he has a particular understanding. He will play the venal political role all the time on immigration and on boat people. That is the disgraceful thing about this Prime Minister in particular. He has suborned his immigration minister, who, until he assumed that role, had a proud record in this parliament of being a member of Amnesty International and supporting political human rights around the world. Unfortunately, he has lost that reputation because he has been forced by the Prime Minister to toe the line.I conclude that this policy has been driven by the Prime Minister and by his spin doctors with their market research. They have suborned the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. We will let them have their regulation—be it on their heads—and let them explain in the future why it has not worked. The politics of the government on this are disgraceful, but the opposition have said, `So be it. If you want to run a disgraceful political campaign on this issue, we will let you. But we warn you that it will not work. A policy like this will never work, but that is what you want. You are the govern ment, so you have your policy.' Unfortunately, however, Australia will suffer.18:00:0010609Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—You cannot have a disgraceful policy with a disgraceful outcome and support it without becoming part of the problem. The Labor Party cannot support these repugnant new regulations and the bill that we are to see later on—and the consequences that these are going to have for people who are in perilous situations—and say that there is a political reason for this; that is, that you want the government to be shown up for what it is. That is not good enough. The consequences of both Labor and the government providing the numbers for the passage of these changes are going to be life shattering for many people coming to the country of the fair go.These regulations ought to be disallowed. The arguments for that are cogent and they have been put forward very clearly, particularly by Amnesty International Australia. It points out, firstly, that under the refugee convention, a refugee is any person who:. . . owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.In other words, they are in fear for their lives. Amnesty International goes on to comment that:Under Australian law, a distinction is made between people who are seeking asylum (asylum-seekers) and people have been granted asylum (refugees). Asylum-seekers who arrive in Australia without documentation are placed into mandatory detention—that is, jail. Amnesty International continues:This practice is unique to Australia. If asylum-seekers successfully apply for refugee status, they are granted a Protection Visa that allows them permanent residency. Last month, Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock proposed changes to Australia's Migration Act.I would comment here that this is the latest in a long series of such proposed changes, all of them against the interests of asylum seekers and/or refugees.Amnesty International goes on to say:The Government's proposals make a distinction between refugees who arrive with proper documentation and those who arrive without proper documentation. Under the new scheme, asylum-seekers who are granted asylum—but arrived without proper documentation—will now be limited to a temporary protection visa valid for three years. During this three year period—and listen to this—the refugee is not allowed to leave Australia and his or her family is not allowed to come to Australia.Under this provision, there is enforced separation for the refugees from their loved ones. Amnesty continues:After three years, the refugee re-applies to the Government in order to obtain a permanent Protection Visa.Amnesty International is seriously concerned about these amendments to Australia's refugee determination process. These changes directly contravene Australia's international obligations under article 31 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which states:"The Contracting States—that is Australia—shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article (1), enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."That is the important phrase in this international convention, which Australia has signed: that Australia `shall not impose penalties' on people `on account of their illegal entry or presence'.Amnesty International notes that:The Government's proposed changes—which are now before the chamber—which limit genuine refugees who arrive without proper documentation to three years' temporary protection—and, I add, enforced separation from their loved ones—discriminate against genuine refugees and clearly violate our obligations under the Refugee Convention. What is the background to this situation? The Australian public might be interested to know that the largest group of illegal immigrants in Australia is from Britain and the second largest group is from the United States. Together they form 20 per cent of the illegal immigrants in this country. Where are the detention centres and the get-tough policies for them?During the last federal election campaign, as we have heard before, Pauline Hanson proposed a temporary protection regime for refugees and was condemned by both the coalition and Labor, including the present Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Philip Ruddock. How is it then that, on 20 October, the government introduced new regulations mirroring Pauline Hanson's policies, with barely a murmur from the opposition or, for that matter, large sections of the press?The minister constantly speaks of Australia's pull factor for refugees. What he totally ignores is the push factor that explains these people's presence in Australia, like the fact that the Iraqi and Afghan refugees have often fled the most serious human rights abuses imaginable—much like the Kosovars and the East Timorese, whom Australia has welcomed. The genuineness of the Iraqis' and Afghans' fears is recognised by the fact that, in 1988-89, 97 per cent of Iraqi and 92 per cent Afghan refugee claimants met the convention's definition of `refugee'.The minister emphasises the cost to the taxpayer. Why is Australia spending money on detaining genuine refugees in expensive detention centres, a policy also at odds with Australia's obligations, rather than exploring cheaper and more humane alternatives to detention, like release on reporting conditions?Afghans and Iraqis are coming not because they see Australia as a soft target and are queuejumpers but because Iran, the country of first asylum which has hosted large groups of refugees for a long time, has tired of the failure of the international community and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to provide funds or organise resettlement of refugees and has passed laws to expel these people by March.Some Iraqis and Afghans have already been forcibly sent home to face likely torture and death. How can refugees be blamed for taking matters into their own hands when their lives are at risk and when regular channels are closed to them? Would you or I—and it is Carolyn Graydon from Amnesty International who is putting these questions, but I would ask them of this chamber—behave any differently when faced with the same lack of options? It is the push factor and not the pull factor that is clearly relevant here.Even with the recent boat arrivals and the possibility of more following, Australia simply does not have a refugee problem of the order of other places in the world. We have very small numbers of people seeking asylum compared with other countries. For example, there were 8,257 refugee claimants here last year compared with 98,644 in Germany, 427,000 in North America and, all up, 417,000 in Europe.These regulations breach Australia's international commitments. They breach Australia's national ethic of a fair go. They breach basic human tenets that you should harbour people whose lives are threatened and who are in fear for their lives if sent back to their place of origin. I think it is a clear sign of the inhumanity of these regulations that built into them is a catch-22 for refugees: the regulations do not just leave refugees in total doubt for three years about what is going to happen to them if they have been granted temporary asylum here but also say, `During those three years, you are divorced from your family and loved ones—they cannot come here and you cannot go there.' A good many people who are not well informed on this matter might like to think about the ramifications of that situation alone. The Greens oppose these regulations. We believe that they should be rejected.18:11:0010610McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I rise today to oppose the proposal put forward by Senator Bartlett on behalf of the Australian Democrats. Australia, I believe, is on the horns of a dilemma because of a recent increase in the influx of boats and boat people illegally to Australia. The proposition by the minister is a reaction to that, and I think Senator Bartlett's motion is a reaction to the minister's reaction.I have weighed up what Senator Bartlett is proposing and come down against it because I do not think, if implemented, it would do any good in alleviating the problems and difficulties that are currently besetting Australia. That is one of the factors that motivated me in arriving at my decision, a personal decision which is now a Labor Party parliamentary position, on this issue to support or not support this particular motion.Australia has seen, in this current financial year—and we are only 4½ months into it—something like 1,700 people enter onto our shores illegally and enter, I might say, by what seem to be very organised means and methods. They have come here seeking from us protection; they have come here to test our compassion for refugees. And it is right that they do that in some ways, because Australia has a very proud record of looking after those who need looking after.Our record stands up against any other Western nation. It is a record that I am proud of. It is a record that I helped to sustain when Labor were in government, when we were cutting back on numbers in our total immigration program. I think I have made some contribution to the maintaining of the program even while Labor have not been in office, when different political parties are in government.Our current refugee and humanitarian program totals some 12,000 people. It is a number that has been maintained now for a number of years, despite enormous pressures being placed on the program. The total of 12,000 people to whom we give sanctuary, to whom we give protection and to whom we give assistance in building new lives is something that indeed we can be justly proud of. Not all of the people to whom we give protection arrive here legally or are chosen by Australia to enter our shores; some of them have actually breached our borders and, while in our country, claim protection and, indeed, are granted protection.So I will make the point that, out of those 12,000 places that we have, 2,000 are reserved for onshore claimants. Last year Australia granted protection on shore to 1,834 people—very, very close to the number that was allocated. So far this year, just by boat alone, we have got 1,700. If the trend we are experiencing at the moment from boats alone continues—not to mention those who come in by aircraft—it is estimated that number will be something like 4,000. Unfortunately, some of the intelligence and predictions coming forward are that the number of those who are planning to get here, and who currently have proposals on foot and measures on foot in order to arrive illegally in Australia, is vastly larger than that.In the refugee and humanitarian program there is an ability for the government to swap onshore places for offshore places and offshore places for onshore places. That is my greatest concern. The staff in my office back in Perth do an enormous amount of work on behalf of refugees and the reunification of families under the refugee and humanitarian program. In very recent times we have been successful in assisting a Somali woman and her five children—whom I think are actually on their way as I speak—who were in a camp in Norway, to be reunited with her husband and four other children who reside just north of my electorate office in Balga in Western Australia. A Somali family.We have worked long and hard to get the approval and then to get the travel documents and to get some identity documents for those people so they can be reunited. We have done that over a long and quite extended period. If this family—who are actually destitute—had the money to pay the people smugglers, they could have come here illegally and been processed in a matter of months. They do not have the money to do that, so they have had to depend on people like me—and St Vincent de Paul and other organisations from Perth when they arrive—for assistance.My office has also been successful in recent weeks in getting the brother of a former Iraqi diplomat granted refugee status from Greece. The former Iraqi diplomat—and I make this point strongly, because I want to come back to it later when I talk about the comments another senator has made—was actually in Port Hedland a couple of weeks ago when members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration were at the Port Hedland detention centre on an inspection tour investigating the conditions in the camp. He was there as an interpreter on behalf of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. He has settled in our community. His brother was in Greece, again in absolute destitution. He had no money to pay people smugglers to come here illegally and to get priority in the processing for refugee status.We are not successful in all of our cases. There is only a limited number of places available. Many senators and members of parliament, like me, work on these cases, as do many other organisations. We are fighting for a very limited number of places. When we record three successes in recent weeks, we really are pleased. It is worthwhile talking about them in a debate such as this in the parliament of Australia.The third case I want to briefly mention concerns a Kurd woman who is living in Perth's northern suburbs. Generally, I go to her home to meet her when she has some more news of her brothers—one of whom is in Greece. She does not have the money to come down to my electorate office, because such a journey requires two changes of buses. Her husband is working. She has two young children. She does not have the money to do this because she is sending what she has to her brothers. Her brothers do not have the money to pay the people smugglers to come here. But people in offices like mine work on behalf of these people. We work to the regulations. We work for years and years and, finally, we record some success. We are very pleased on behalf of those families. We are very embarrassed when those families then come in to thank us and give us gifts that we know they cannot afford.So when I looked, as I did the other week, at the people coming off the boat in Willie Creek just north of Broome, I saw people who actually were quite well-dressed. I cast no aspersions on their claims for refugee status, but they come in with possessions and valuables that I know the relatives of my constituents do not have and are never going to have—relatives from separated families like the Somali family who were separated from each other.I listened very carefully to the comments of my colleague Senator Schacht in the debate. I endorse the views that he put on the record. As people would know, I normally say things quite differently in the chamber—I do not have the same drive and force as Senator Schacht does—but I agree with the comments that he made. I do not actually think this provision is going to stop the incursions on our border. It might have some impact on them. I believe it will have some impact on the numbers coming in.I believe that it will make Australia a less attractive place for the people smugglers to sell their awful wares. As they are flogging fares or residency to the United States, to Germany, to other parts of Europe, they will now not be able to say that when you get to Australia you will get permanent residency immediately, which was one of the sale factors that they could use in the past. That was not available to them when they were selling fares to the United States of America. It was not available when they were selling fares or passage to Germany or to the United Kingdom. It certainly was when they were selling fares to Australia, but it is not now. That just might work. I think we will, as Senator Schacht says, have to come back here to look at this matter again in the future.When we were in government we had a problem with China. As Senator Schacht said, Senator Bolkus went to China with the secretary of the department and with the chair of the Joint Standing Committee of Migration and negotiated with the Chinese and put an agreement in place. That did not stop the exodus immediately from China, but it certainly did over time for the Vietnamese who had already got the protection. It was a waste of time them coming. The problem is not yet completely solved.I do have some sympathy for the minister in this debate, apart from the criticisms that I have joined Senator Schacht on. I do not think Minister Ruddock was helped by the comments of Premier Richard Court from Western Australia, whose initial response to the matter was, `Send them back.' You would expect that sort of comment from perhaps people who are in Senator Harris's party and from other uninformed sections of the community, but for a premier of a state to make a stupid statement like that really begs one to look at it.How would you be if you loaded the boat people onto RAAF Hercules and sent them to their port of disembarkation? How do you think the Indonesians would take to a squadron of RAAF Hercules aircraft with no permission to land bringing people into their territory and dumping them there because they said that that is where they came from? All of the claims made by the people who arrive here are not necessarily truthful. We do know that some of those who disembarked came from Lombok and places like that. This whole issue has changed.Some of my colleagues made the comment to me the other day that people are risking their lives in rickety boats which undertake long and hazardous sea voyages. The Adelong boat, which was in Darwin harbour the other week and which some of us from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration boarded, is actually quite a substantial vessel. It did not have to undertake a long and hazardous voyage. It actually had to do quite a short trip. I do not think there are many of us in this parliament—there probably are some—who could afford to purchase a vessel of that size. It was a former ferry. It is only a short skip and jump from Lombok to the territorial waters of Australia at Ashmore Reef, especially with the vessels that are available to people.Let me talk about some of my other colleagues. I do not think Senator Eggleston helped the minister when he commented that we should process the illegals in Jordan because that was allegedly where they came from. Carolyn Graydon said in an article in today's paper, which I will mention later, that they came from somewhere else. Some of them came from Jordan. Senator Eggleston's suggestion is that we process them in Jordan. You can imagine the scenario if these boats came in and unloaded at Willie Creek—people being ferried off to the airport at Broome, put on jumbo jets and sent off to Amman in Jordan for processing. How silly can you get.Senator Eggleston has forgotten that Australia actually processes people in these overseas ports. We have people in places like Amman who can process claims in Amman if a person claims protection in Australia. The unfortunate part about making a claim for protection in a place like Amman or Athens is that you have to wait years to get your claim processed. If you have the resources, if you have the money you can buy your way to Australia and can be processed here. They come and are prepared for time in detention. The know their claim can be processed in a matter of six or eight weeks. I did alert Senator Eggleston that I was going to quote him in this speech. I will do the same to my colleague Senator Lightfoot.Senator Lightfoot made the loopy suggestion of putting the people on the islands off the coast of Western Australia. Christmas Island, Cockatoo Island and Koolan Island were mentioned by the good senator. He has not mentioned Rottnest Island but he probably will.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—What about Alcatraz?1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—No, I did not say that. Senator Lightfoot failed to take into consideration the problems with a place like Christmas Island. The president of the council on Christmas Island—who will probably soon be the president of Christmas Island—has made the comment that if they want food it has to be ferried in to them from Australia. What would the cost be to the Australian community were we to accept Senator Lightfoot's loopy suggestion?It gets worse. I draw your attention to a letter to the editor in today's Australian newspaper from good Senator Ross Lightfoot from Canberra, not Western Australia. He said:Illegal immigration to Australia is just that. It is a crime to enter Australia by boat or any other means other than with the permission of our government. Therefore, these people are criminals—worse, if they bring with them . . . diseases . . . You are wrong, Senator Lightfoot. It is not a crime. If you read the criminal code you will see that it is not a crime. It is certainly not a crime—and I will never support it being a crime—for a person to come to this country to claim protection. We have to maintain that. This is part of the danger of where this debate is going.I move on to Carolyn Graydon's article in today's paper, which Senator Brown quoted. I am very disappointed with Carolyn Graydon's article because she knows better. She is a learned person who has made a great contribution to many of the debates on migration in this country and, in particular, on refugee matters. Unfortunately, she has a number of things wrong today. Senator Brown quoted:During the last Federal election campaign, Pauline Hanson proposed a temporary protection regime for refugees and was condemned by both the Coalition and Labor. How is it that on October 20, the Government introduced new regulations mirroring Hanson's policies, with barely a murmur from the Opposition and the press?I can say on behalf of the opposition, not on behalf of the press, that I do not believe that what the government has put in here mirrors what Hanson put forward before the last election. I do not believe that is what we are doing. There is a provision for three years temporary residency. At the end of the temporary residency if that person is still entitled to protection in Australia they will get it. That brings me to the first part of Graydon's article, which I quote in part:. . . but all Australian people who do not want to be a part of sending back to face possible torture and death.If those people are genuine refugees and granted temporary protection in Australia for a period of three years, at the end of the three-year period—as I understand the regulations—they will still be entitled to protection in Australia. I understand that the minister has said that they will be granted protection in Australia and protection will be continued. I probably will not be in the chamber at that time, but if Labor is in office at that time we will honour the commitments and not send people back to face torture or death in another country. Senator Brown also mentioned the problem of overstayers—the illegals that were mentioned. I make the point that, in the last financial year, 13,472 overstayers were located here, and most of them were removed. When overstayers come to my office looking for help, I listen to their arguments, but the chances are that I do not support them in their quest to remain here, if they have breached our laws. I know of many other organisations, including some that have made representations on the matters that are before us, who do not hold to the same standards that I impose on myself.I make the point that I am very proud of my heritage and my former nationality and birthright from Ireland but, even when people from the land of my birth come to see me, they do not get favoured treatment with regard to that. You have to be really consistent on this, and I think that what we are doing with these regulations, tough as they are, has a consistency about it—a consistency that is not matched by every other party or party representative in this place.Debate (on motion by Senator Patterson) adjourned.Ordered that the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.Business1061410614Motion (by Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:That consideration of government documents not be proceeded with today and that business continue till 7.20 p.m.Miscellaneous10614Debate resumed.18:32:0010614Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I would like to comment on some of the issues that have been raised here this evening in the disallowance motion moved by the Democrats on Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.12). I believe that this typifies the old adage that you should believe very little that you hear and only half of what you read in the newspapers—because there are some glaring inaccuracies that have been stated here today, and I would like to clear up and clarify some of them.Pauline Hanson's policy on refugees is very clearly that One Nation believes in providing temporary refugees with refuge in Australia until the danger in the refugee's country is resolved. But we also believe that, in doing that, there should be no assumption of permanent residency in Australia. Australia can stand very tall in relation to our acceptance of refugees—approximately 12,000 per annum. This figure has been clarified by other speakers this afternoon. What has not been raised, I believe, is the fact that when you look at countries around the world and you compare that figure of 12,000 on a per capita basis of the residents of those countries, Australia clearly has one of the highest per capita acceptance rates of refugees.I believe that where some of the misunderstanding arises is in relation to our policy on temporary visas or temporary entry. I would like to clarify that we believe that there are three general categories for temporary entry into Australia which allow entry visas for between three months and four years. Those areas are for temporary resident programs, for people with skills, and for people with certain business conducted here in Australia. The longest period would be available to a self-sponsoring business executive, and that would be only for four years.Where the uncertainty has crept in and the period of five years is being quoted from is, in actuality, part of our policy on citizenship. The five-year permanent residency before being eligible for citizenship is where the five-year period comes in. Also part of that policy is that a person who has been here for five years can only have, during that period of time, 18 months outside Australia. I hope that that to a large degree clarifies some of the inaccuracies that have actually been spoken of Pauline Hanson's One Nation here this afternoon and this evening.I do believe that illegal immigrants are exactly that. My reasoning for saying that is that, if we agree to automatically accepting illegal immigrants for permanent residency in Australia, we are putting in jeopardy the whole human relations program for those people who are waiting in temporary camps while their positions are being assessed for legal entry into Australia.It is clearly an area that covers many aspects. I believe that the government is largely correct in issuing only a temporary visa and that it is an improvement on the situation that we have at the present moment where a person can enter this country illegally, be processed in a short period of time and then be eligible for all of the welfare benefits available to the Australian people. I come back to my earlier point that this nation, with a population of approximately 19 million, accepts 12,000 refugees on an annual basis. So the cost per capita to Australia is enormous.In conclusion, I believe that illegal immigrants are exactly that. They should not have the rights of refugees who have come through the correct procedure. I believe that it is fit and proper for the temporary visa to be exactly that: temporary.18:38:0010615Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have listened carefully to every word of this debate on the motion to disallow Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 12). It is a debate which is of considerable interest in the community. My real concern is that there is a xenophobic atmosphere being created in order to have this parliament accept a regulation which will discriminate against the genuine refugee—that person who is fleeing from torture, persecution and great pain inflicted by the country of origin—and no amount of xenophobia can justify that.I listened very carefully to the comments that have been made by other honourable senators. If I may just deal with Senator Harris's remarks when he was talking about illegal immigrants. We are not talking about illegal immigrants; we are talking about asylum seekers, which is a different matter altogether, with due respect. I think the comments made on this disallowance motion by two senators were quite remarkable. It would be interesting for the party that they represent in this chamber to have a look at the Hansard when it comes out. I am referring to the contributions that were made by Senator Schacht and Senator McKiernan. Senator Schacht seemed to be saying that this is a dreadful regulation.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It won't work.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—That is right. Senator Schacht was saying, `It is a dreadful regulation in principle and it won't work; nevertheless, we will vote for it anyhow.'4J4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator SCHACHT—They are the government. It is their responsibility.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—It is very interesting that Senator Schacht should abandon his party's responsibilities in a very important matter just because the coalition is the government and Labor is the opposition. That is an extraordinary statement to make. I know that Senator Schacht would have to be embarrassed by the decision that has been taken.But not so Senator McKiernan—he is not embarrassed at all by the decision that has been taken by the Labor Party. In fact, he has indicated to us that he shares some responsibility for that decision. I was very upset to hear some of the comments by Senator McKiernan because they seemed to be supporting the panic that is currently being promoted by the federal government in order to impose this unfair regulation. I was disappointed, frankly. Senator McKiernan appeared to be setting up a division and a conflict between those asylum seekers and those who have been acknowledged by UNHCR as being refugees and who would then be given the necessary papers to come to Australia.Senator McKiernan talked about the work that he and his office do for certain of these peoples. However, I think every other member of parliament is involved in those processes. Throughout the period of 24 years that I have been in the parliament—in fact, I think one of my first acts as a member of parliament was to contact the then minister about a refugee—I have been constantly involved in that particular area.But to suggest that those people fleeing by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country, even though they have come through another country, are deliberately setting out to take the place of the other group is a nonsense. And why only 2,000 onshore? That is a decision by government. It is not a decision by anybody else. Senator Bartlett has dealt with this very well and given you the figures. Australia has not been overgenerous in this particular regard in recent years.This regulation tars all asylum seekers with the one brush. It does not enable a quick settlement of a claim for refugee status. It provides for a temporary resident visa for three years, during which time a person would not be able to do a number of things. In her article in the Financial Review on 18 November, Dr Mary Crock wrote:The Government wishes to downgrade the protection we offer people recognised as refugees. While the asylum seekers who came as tourists and students gained permanent residence upon having their refugee claims accepted, unauthorised arrivals will get no more than three-year temporary permits.The entitlements of the second group will be considerably less than those of the first, with truncated welfare payments, no family reunion rights,—and I might say that is a disgrace considering this is a government that prides itself on being pro family—no automatic right to Medicare or to travel. Access to the workforce is hampered by the constraints of a temporary visa. And access to tertiary education is all but barred thanks to the requirement that temporary visa holders pay full (foreign student) fees.Senator Brown quoted profusely from Amnesty International's document entitled New regulations to the Migration Act , which shows that Amnesty is opposed to this particular regulation. One of the most cogent statements which I think should be borne in mind by the Labor Party is this:Under the Government's new scheme, genuine refugees will be kept in limbo for three years after they gain refugee status.Please, I ask the Labor Party to listen to this:Psychologists have documented the negative impact of applying for refugee status on the applicant—an ordeal he or she will now have to endure twice. To hold out the prospect that genuine refugees will be returned to the places where they have suffered severe mistreatment is not only callous, but also deprives refugees of the opportunity to rebuild their shattered lives. As if this were not punishment enough, the refugee's family is also kept in limbo—leaving the refugee to wonder about the well being of his or her family. In addition to the psychological costs associated with the temporary protection visa, temporary protection also involves a substantial financial cost for Australian taxpayers.That is the nub of it. You are condemning these people, these asylum seekers, to a limbo of three years. Whether they be genuine or not, you are not allowing proper process for the genuine refugee, that person who is fleeing from real persecution. You are not allowing for that—give them three years and try to sort them out after that. You are adding to the trauma, and this is something that is of great concern. I will quote again from the Amnesty International document:For the 1998-99 financial year, 2106 people arrived illegally by air and 926 by sea.Of course, that has increased in the last few months. It continues:Of the 926 unauthorised boat arrivals, only 350 applied for asylum, 166 received a protection visa at the primary stage, and two received a protection visa upon review.The place is not being flooded by asylum seekers. Let us make that perfectly clear. Let us go back to the point which emerged from the hearings of the committee only on Monday. How many illegals are there in Australia? There are 52,000.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Some of them were for three days, four days or a week, not all at once.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—But there are many long-term overstayers.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—We catch 14,000 a year.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, but there are 52,000 at this time in Australia. They are not the boat people. They are not the people coming in by boat; they are the ones who come in by the regular airlines. And the statement about them is: `But most of them are British.' What about doing something about that situation?We certainly do have obligations under the refugee convention. It was noticeable from the UNHCR document from which the parliamentary secretary read that the UNHCR was deliberately not giving its approval, I would have thought, to this particular regulation. There was nothing in that document which said that the UNHCR supports this regulation. How could it, because it seems to me to contravene the provisions of article 31?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Do you want this document?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I have got the document and I have read it thoroughly.LI4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator PATTERSON—We have to agree to differ on that, Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—If we can go through it.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I have. I read it into the Hansard .6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—But there is nothing in that document that says that the UNHCR supports this. I come finally to this situation of penalisation. The government says it has legal opinion—I do not know from whom, but it is presumably from A-G's—that what it is doing is not contravening the provisions of article 31. Article 31 states:The contracting States shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1—I would be very interested to have a look at a copy of that legal opinion. I do not know how you can suggest that a genuine refugee who is fleeing persecution is not penalised by comparison with others who come in by the airlines, is not penalised by virtue of not having documents. Of course, many of these people cannot get documents. They are in a dictatorial state and they cannot get the documents. Some of them are fleeing for their lives. They might be in Iran having originally fled for their lives from Iraq. Iraq is also a problem. Senators would have heard, as I have heard, that there are moves within Iraq to try to repatriate a number of the refugees who are having a temporary stay there. So far as choosing Australia is concerned, what is wrong with choosing Australia, if there are relatives of the victim already in Australia?All of the arguments that have been put forward for this regulation do not seem to me to be persuasive. I remind honourable senators that asylum seekers who come in as tourists and students can gain permanent residence if they have their refugee claims accepted, and you are penalising those others who are so desperate that they get on boats by only saying, `They'll have a three-year temporary visa.'I support the motion of disallowance that has been moved by Senator Bartlett. I think he outlined far better than I could the reasons for disallowance.18:58:0010618Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I rise to correct an impression in some comments made by my colleague Senator McKiernan about what I had to say about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees having a role to play in processing some of these refugees before they come to Australia. I believe the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does have a role in seeking to assess refugees in the Middle East, some of whom may come to Australia but who, I think, in a general way could be assessed against United Nations criteria for refugees and diverted to recipient countries, which would include Australia. But Australia should not necessarily be expected to bear the whole load, as we seem to be doing at the moment.As a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees, Australia meets its responsibilities to the international community by admitting 12,000 refugees per year—10,000 who come in through the orderly process of assessment in other countries and some 2,000 who arrive onshore. I think that is a fair enough contribution from a country of Australia's size. Australia's reception facilities at the moment are filled to capacity. A year ago there were only 30 people in the Port Hedland detention centre. That facility, which is incidentally up to three-star motel standard, houses more than 700 illegal immigrants. Numbers in the emergency centre at Curtin air base near Derby are approaching 1,000, and we are told the government plans to use the Woomera village to house more illegal immigrants. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, has said that there are several thousand Middle Eastern refugees in Java hoping to gain entry to Australia. Quite clearly, I would have thought, Australia cannot hope to cope with this load alone, and nor should it.If one thinks back to the aftermath of the war in Vietnam, refugee camps were set up in Thailand where individuals were first assessed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and then passed on to officials of recipient countries, such as Australia, for further assessment and admission. I believe in this situation, if there is a flood of Iraqi and other refugees coming out of countries in the Middle East like Afghanistan, the UN should be setting up a similar process to deal with this situation. This would enable the UN to assess individuals against the criteria for refugee status and allocate those who have met the criteria to various recipient countries in Europe and North America. Australia would certainly play its part but would not be expected to carry the whole burden.I understand the UN made this kind of arrangement a few years ago when there was a flood of Sri Lankans into Australia via South-East Asia and that proved to be an effective mechanism. I believe that in this situation—and that was the point I made when I talked about the United Nations—a similar mechanism set up now would greatly alleviate the situation and see these Iraqis processed in an orderly way and distributed to recipient countries, including Australia, which would play its part but not be expected to bear the full burden.19:02:0010618Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—in reply—There has been a lot of discussion in this debate about the boat people problem. Without getting into another argument about how big that problem is, as I said in my initial comments, I believe, as do the Democrats, it is an issue that Australia needs to address and look at finding the best ways to address. Unfortunately, most of those comments actually have nothing to do with this particular regulation that we are discussing. As the Labor Party themselves admitted in their contributions and their own shadow minister has said and Mr Beazley has said, `This measure is not going to address that problem. So let's just forget about that.' The Democrats support doing something about the boat people issue, about people smuggling. We have supported some measures already. We will support others and there will need to be some long-term work done as part of the global situation that all countries in the world have to face, not just Australia.That is not what this is about; this is about targeting genuine refugees, penalising them for not playing by some obscure, strange and imaginary rule book and putting them in a situation where they clearly have to suffer a lot more than other refugees, creating two classes of refugees and creating extra suffering for those people who have already suffered. That is what this is about. Let's not have some smokescreen that somehow or other this is a solution to the boat people problem.To those people who still occasionally ask me why I singled out Senator Harradine in my first speech as someone who has a proud record on particular issues, I suggest that they look at the speech he just made and others over many years on this issue. That is why I made that comment.I agree with the comment Senator McKiernan made that disallowing this regulation will not solve the boat people problem. Voting to disallow this, as you are not going to, sadly, is not going to solve the boat people problem. If you support my motion to disallow, I agree it is not going to solve the boat people problem. It is not aimed at solving the boat people problem. The regulation, if it goes through, and sadly it is going to go through, is not going to solve the boat people problem either. So why don't we focus on what the regulation actually does and whom it does it to. And `whom it does it to' are amongst the most disadvantaged people, those who have suffered the most, and we are putting more suffering upon them.It is also worth looking at some of the comments about the queue jumping aspect of those who gain protection in Australia. As I said previously, the notion that somehow there is this orderly queue around the world is fairly laughable to start with, but let's look at this link between the onshore and offshore humanitarian program within Australia. The government's justification for this measure partly has been linked to expressed communi ty concerns about the impact of the onshore program on the humanitarian program offshore, people coming here from overseas who have waited in the queues—people who have done the right thing, played by the rules.This is exactly what the Refugee Council of Australia said would happen when the government linked the onshore and offshore programs in July 1996. When they made that link at that time the Refugee Council issued a statement indicating their view that this linking would create a significant pull factor by reducing the number of places available for offshore applicants so that it would become more attractive for people with strong claims to come directly to Australia rather than waiting in countries of first asylum for selection under the resettlement process.The Refugee Council also indicated back then that the communities that could be most affected would be those that rely most heavily on the special humanitarian programs—such as Afghans and Iraqis. Surprise, surprise—now that we are getting people from those countries, the government wants to do something to keep them out. As anybody who has looked at this issue in any depth would know, for those people who are waiting overseas for selection through the UNHCR and through the special humanitarian program it is not a nice orderly queue whereby you put in your piece of paper and weigh up all the criteria; it has just as much arbitrariness and politics as any other process. So to suggest that somehow or other if people do not play by this nice, friendly little rule book they somehow should be punished is totally misrepresenting the reality.This so-called problem is of the government's making and could be solved by unlinking the offshore and onshore programs, as is recommended by the UNHCR, according to the Refugee Council. This is the UNHCR that the government loves to try and pull in every time; it loves to pretend that it supports what they are doing. The UNHCR recommend unlinking onshore and offshore programs. Why don't you do that, if you think you have got such backing by the UNHCR? There's your queue jumping problem solved. Do not punish refugees in the process.I made a comment, which obviously generated some sensitive reaction from people, that what is proposed here bears some very strong similarities to what the One Nation Party proposed prior to the last election. I think perhaps there was some misunderstanding amongst some senators that One Nation's policy was for a five-year temporary visa and then you are out compulsorily, no questions asked. Far be it from me to try to explain and sell One Nation's refugee policy, because I attacked it then and I will attack it now. But as Senator Harris outlined, that is a misunderstanding. The fundamental nature of it was to only give people temporary visas, to only give people temporary asylum. The underlying principle was that they cannot expect to come here and be able to be accepted in the Australian community. That was criticised very widely by all parties—quite rightly, in my view—including by the media, by a large number of organisations, and by the minister, Mr Ruddock, who back in 1998 said it was quite inappropriate to suggest that refugees' presence here should only be temporary. One wonders what has changed now.I think what has changed now is that One Nation is no longer a threat, politically, at the moment. At that time it may have been appropriate for the government to distance itself from what they were doing and say that it was inappropriate. But now it says: `Now that One Nation is much more diminished in impact, that political ground is there for the taking again. Let's move back in there, let's grab all that stuff. Wonderful!' That is clearly what is happening.Whilst the Democrats have greater numbers in this parliament than One Nation, we nonetheless clearly have a smaller party status than the major parties. We always like to get more votes, more seats, but sometimes you cannot get that. The other way you measure your success is through getting your policies adopted by governments of the day, through getting your policies recognised and taken on board. Sure, One Nation did not win many seats, and they were disappointed about that, but the next best thing is getting your policies and the principles underlying them taken on board, and that is what they have achieved. So much as it saddens me to say it, I say congratulations to One Nation, because they have succeeded in getting their policy principles taken on board and adopted by both the two major parties in this place.We have had the red herring about the terrible costs to the Australian taxpayer of all these boat people coming in. Yet we are the only country in the world that insists on imprisoning, detaining, every illegal immigrant, at enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer; that is a self-inflicted cost by this government. Now we are compounding it by putting a double assessment procedure on them. We will assess these people not once but twice. And there is the suggestion that somehow or other this is going to make things cheaper.Other speakers have indicated, if we are trying to put things into perspective, that the number of illegal migrants that are in Australia now is over 50,000. We do not have that figure thrown around in the papers, saying that there are hoards of illegal immigrants all over the place, stealing our jobs. The majority of them—from the UK, the US and Europe—are overstayers. Somehow or other that is not a threat to our social fabric, not a national emergency, not on the Richter scale, or whatever the minister was going on about, in relation to a couple of thousand boat people.Let's be real about this stuff. Senator Patterson talked about how people should come through appropriate and recognised means—another euphemism for playing by the rules, doing things the right way, stopping people from jumping the queue. I have to remind the government that the means by which these people come here—on boats, without authorisation—to gain the protection of Australia is a means of getting protection recognised by the UNHCR—the mob that you keep trying to say is supportive of what you are doing. It is recognised by the UNHCR as an appropriate means. That is why we have an obligation to offer that protection. If it were not appropriate, we would not have an obligation.So stop trying to suggest that one way is okay and the other is not playing by the rules: `You are second-class, you should not be here, and we are only doing a minimum for you.' The principle that is being adopted here is that this is a race to the bottom: `We have got to make ourselves as unattractive as possible to people. We have got to treat them as badly as we can. We have to scrape along the bottom of the barrel and still sneak in through the UN convention so that people will not come here.' What a message to send! If other countries around the world adopt that principle, that will really make for a much less humane planet in the 21st century, with all of us trying to out-compete each other to see how unattractive a place we can be for people that are trying to seek some shelter and safety.There are multitudes more people going to other countries than are coming here, yet we still have this government trying to pretend that we are a soft touch and that everybody else is tougher than us: `Poor little victim Australia, rolling over and letting these nasty queue jumpers sneak in and take advantage of our really kind heart.'On my understanding, from information provided by people who have worked with some of the arrivals in recent times, the price—I would call it an extortion amount—that people are being required to pay by people smugglers to try to save their lives, to try to escape persecution—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—You are assisting them.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—There we go. The government could not resist: `Here are the Democrats assisting the people smugglers.' You can't help trying to suggest that anybody who stands up for the rights of people that are the most disadvantaged on the planet are somehow or other helping the criminals. Get a grip! Stop saying this sort of rubbish. How about having an honest debate, a civilised debate. Be reasonable for a change. We are trying to stand up for people that you are trying to crush for some cheap political point, and somehow you want to say that we are supporting the people smugglers. These people charge a cheaper price to come to Australia and Europe. How come we are cheaper if we are the soft touch? What a joke!It is quite ironic that the coalition that likes to talk about rewarding enterprise attacking views of envy of people who have got a bit of dough. Somehow or other it is terrible if people have a bit of money and they try to use that money to save their lives, to save their families. I have got news for you: if someone wants to shoot you in the head, it doesn't really matter whether you have got a few bucks in the bank; the bullet still goes through your brain and you still die.It is ridiculous to somehow or other suggest that people sit back, go through some brochure and say, `Where will we go to save our lives? Maybe Australia; maybe the UK. I don't know. What do you reckon, love?' The impression you are trying to create is that they sit around the table and discuss it like some sort of holiday shopping exercise. It is so false, and it is disgraceful that you try to generate that sort of thing. You have the minister talking about refugees getting off a boat and asking for shampoo. How terrible! Imagine getting off a boat after you have been sitting on it for weeks and asking for some shampoo. I would like to wash my hair as well if I had been sitting on a boat for two weeks or for months at a time. Somehow or other, this is meant to portray that they are just a pampered bourgeoisie mob sailing around the world on some luxury liner and that they roll up here and say, `Yes, we're here. Give me my Pert. Give me my free medical treatment, you soft touch Aussies.' What a joke!This measure has been criticised widely by the people who work in the real world with the people who have to endure the sort of persecution that many of these boat people are fleeing. We have had mention of Amnesty International, the Refugee Council of Australia, South Brisbane Immigration and Community Legal Service, the Council of Vietnamese Refugee Supporting Organisations, the Ethnic Community Council of New South Wales, the Ethnic Community Council of Queensland, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, and the Refugee Claimant Support Centre. The Jesuit Refugee Service with Father Frank Brennan is well known in its assessment of human rights. ACOSS and Welfare Rights have pointed out the problem of the government providing access to only inadequate income support.There are plenty of people who know what this is going to mean. Unfortunately, we have had the Labor Party saying that they are not falling for this political trick. I can understand the politics of this too. I get the phone calls. I hear the talkback radio. They are saying that the government can live with this measure, and they will have to live with the fact that it is not going to work. Well, that is good! Unfortunately, the people who are really going to have to live with it are the refugees. They are the ones who are going to have to work with it.Look at what we are doing to ourselves as a country. Everybody knows, and it has been said, that they will get a three-year temporary visa. A handful at the end of those three years would be likely to go back to their country of origin. What happens in the meantime? We are making it harder for them to get work. They will have inadequate income support. They will not be able to get education. They will not get access to refugee settlement services. We are going to have these people in limbo for three years, separated from their families. Chances are, quite possibly with many of them, that they will lose touch with them for good. Some of those people have wives and kids in some of those places and, given the places that they are in, it is quite feasible that they could easily be killed.People have already been through trauma, we put them through this extra trauma and then, at the end of three years, we will say, `Okay, you can stay.' That is really productive! It is really smart to have people who are already traumatised hanging in limbo and hovering around the Australian community for three years before we will say, `Okay, you're here for good now. You're all right. We'll give you a bit of help now.' What has happened to them in three years? You do not have to be Einstein to read and understand all the research into trauma and the impact that has on people in terms of enabling them to get on with their lives and to integrate into the Australian community. We are going to make it 10 times worse for them. We talked about cost before: we will increase the cost. The cost is going to be on the Australian community from trying to pick up the pieces after three years of extra trauma inflicted by Australia, which is ridiculous.Laurie Oakes indicated in his Bulletin article today—and I think it was a very insightful article, as is often the case—that Labor has, as Labor members have said themselves, realised that this is not going to be effective in countering people smuggling operations. Of course it is not. The article says:By the same token, though, it does not see anything particularly immoral or dangerous about it.That is the one line in Laurie's article that is wrong. This is clearly immoral and a very dangerous precedent. It is clearly going to cause enormous pain. Labor has just decided that it did not want to give the government a stick to beat it about the head with, and I can understand that.But I do say, without trying to sound noble and idealistic, that sometimes you do have to stand up and be a voice for those who are amongst the most disadvantaged. If this means the Democrats are giving the government a stick, does the minister wield it already, saying we are supporting people smugglers? Well, beat me over the head with that stick for as long as you like, because I am still going to support these people and I am still going to speak out for them. You might want to sit there and say, `You're getting tough,' but, as I said before, there is nothing too tough about kicking the most vulnerable people when they are down. That is not tough. It is gutless and pathetic, and the Democrats are not going to be part of it. Question put: That the motion (Senator Bartlett's ) be agreed to.19:24:00The Senate divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Lees, M. H. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.0Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harris, L.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.Minchin, N. H. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Adjournment1062310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.27 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.1062319:27:0010623Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Last Sunday I was privileged to attend the opening of a very special house for recovering substance abusers in suburban Adelaide. The house is a former Housing Trust property and was generously made available by the Hon. Dean Brown, the Minister for Human Services in South Australia. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his support in this initiative. I am the voluntary Chair of the Australian Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation program, which assists with the administration of the house.The house's opening on Sunday was particularly significant for all of us. It is committed to providing the best possible care for those addicted to drugs and provides a supportive environment for those who want to live drug free. We currently have more than a dozen young men and women who are rebuilding their lives with the support of a dedicated team of professionals and volunteers. In words and in song, some of these people told their stories at the opening ceremony in simple yet moving messages of great relevance to the wider community.There is no doubt that, as a society, we need to better understand that individuals addicted to drugs may also be our daughters, our sons, our brothers, our sisters, our mothers, our fathers, our relatives and our friends. We now know that to abandon these usually young men and women to their addiction deprives them of the opportunity to contribute to our society in a far more meaningful way. It also leaves them open to a high risk lifestyle, facing both health hazards and the inevitable entry into a life of crime, with the subsequent terms of imprisonment and everything that follows from such a deprivation of personal freedom.The Prime Minister's announcement last week of the diversion program is another valuable step in our Tough on Drugs initiative. It recognises that, for the first time, offenders who have not offended before can have the opportunity of treatment and education, which is indeed preferable to falling victim to the tangles of the criminal justice system. Together with the additional funding for education initiatives announced today by Minister David Kemp, this government is recognising that there are no simple solutions to this very complicated issue.South Australia will use its share of the $4 million additional funds announced today to contribute to state funding and implement a whole school community approach supported by professional development for teachers. Implemented just a few years ago, these initiatives would have been of great assistance to some of the residents at our house of hope. Its establishment is a tribute to the work of Ann Bressington, a dedicated and tireless advocate for a fresh approach to the challenge of education and treatment for substance abusers. This house is named for her daughter, Shay Louise Bressington, who was tragically defeated by heroin but whose spirit lives on in the enthusiasm and courage of the residents who took part in our ceremony last Sunday. Each of our young people at Shay Louise House are on the naltrexone program to assist in their recovery, but they and we know that taking a pill every morning is only one aspect of the life building program that they are engaged in.Relief and rehabilitation from substance abuse require a multifaceted approach. There is no right or wrong path. It is simply a case of different strokes for different folks. But I must say that the current cost of naltrexone tablets of around $250 a month makes life pretty difficult for many of the young people resident in our house. Rehabilitation centres such Shay Louise House and the variety of policies offered by the federal government's drug strategy recognise that flexibility in treatment against a background of support for the individual and their family offers the best chance of success. As our dedicated counsellor and colleague Peg told the gathering on Sunday, our clients are a little like roses. Eventually, some of them have the most beautiful flowers, despite the thorns we see on their bare branches when they arrive. These young people, like the rose bushes, need a safe, warm and caring environment, the right amount of nurturing and the chance to grow and fully take their place in the wider community. Shay Louise House is the first in a series of rehabilitation centres that we hope to establish around Adelaide to offer hope and healing to some members of our society who need it most.1062419:32:0010624O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I am rising tonight—and, indeed, I intended to make this contribution last night, but the adjournment collapsed before those involved were able to reach the chamber—to respond to a press release from Senator Abetz which was prepared and distributed to the media yesterday and got a scant amount of coverage, as I understand it, today.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—You are going to give it some publicity, are you?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I will give it some publicity, Senator, and I am sure that you will thank me when I am finished. In his press release Senator Abetz said, amongst other things, that, in relation to what he interpreted would be our vote on the message from the House of Representatives and the resolution that the Senate not insist on its amendments, our position would be to insist on our amendments—which indeed we did, so he was correct. He said:Labor are prepared to sell out Tasmanian workers and Tasmania's timber communities. Fifteen percent of Tasmanians rely on the forests for their employment.He went on:Labor's federal representation has been useless. They have achieved nothing for Tasmania in this debate.Let me tell you what the reality of the debate and the vote has been. The RFA legislation has been passed in the Senate chamber and it was passed with amendments. Labor voted for the third reading of the legislation. Senator Abetz knows this and I challenge him to say that this is not true. But later in his press release, the position that Senator Abetz put to the media in Tasmania was this:Now Tasmania's Labor Senators are to follow this example of betrayal by voting down the legislation in the Senate.That is an absolute untruth and Senator Abetz, under the Prime Minister's code of conduct, has to get to his typewriter, get a press release out and withdraw this absolute untruth. This is misleading, and either Senator Abetz unintentionally misled—in which case, he had better get out and withdraw his comments—or he intentionally misled, and the consequences of that are obvious: he should resign.Senator Abetz interjecting—8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Senator Abetz may well laugh, but the reality of the position that Senator Abetz has taken—a position also taken by his colleague Mrs Napier, the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, and Mr Barry Chipman from the Forest Protection Society—is to hold Tasmania to ransom over the question of the RFA in Western Australia. Senator Abetz knows, as do Mrs Napier and Barry Chipman, that the amendments made to the RFA legislation—as Labor insisted on yesterday—protect the RFA in Tasmania. He knows that, as do Mrs Napier and Mr Chipman. However, they are holding Tasmania to ransom; they are holding a gun to the head of the timber industry in Tasmania to protect the Western Australian timber industry. It has nothing to do with Tasmania, but he has the gall to mislead the Tasmanian public and to try to pretend that Labor voted against the RFA legislation. That is an absolute untruth and he knows it. In terms of Mr Chipman's position, I have spoken to him on a number of occasions about this. Let me say, frankly, that Mr Chipman understands our position and he has conceded that he understands it. He understands that we have effectively enshrined in our amendments a tick for the Tasmanian RFA. Understanding that, the position that he put back to me was that, on the basis of solidarity with the Western Australian timber workers, the Forest Protection Society was not supporting Labor's amendments.Let us not then have Mr Chipman going to the media, as he did in Tasmania yesterday, and saying that the RFA legislation has become political, because what he is doing is taking a political position not on the basis of the interests of the Tasmanian timber industry but on the basis of the interests, as he and perhaps his organisation perceive them, of timber workers in Western Australia.What of the Western Australian RFA? This is a document that has been signed up to by a Liberal government. The fact is that Premier Court now wants to withdraw and step back from the RFA. He wants it redrafted; he wants changes. Of course, Mr Tuckey, the federal minister, does not want those changes. The game that is being played is one of holding a gun to the heads of the timber workers in Tasmania—and to the heads of those in Gippsland and the Central Highlands in Victoria; to the heads of the Queensland timber workers, where there is an RFA ready to go; and to the heads of those in New South Wales—to prop up an RFA that even the Western Australian Liberal government does not want. That is what this game is about.Senator Abetz has misrepresented Labor's position by saying that we are voting down the legislation. But I stress again: we voted for this bill at the third reading but insisted on our amendments which protect the position of the Tasmanian RFA. I understand that Senator Abetz has put the nonsense argument that in our provisions there is some legal deficiency which exempts the Tasmanian RFA from a disallowance provision. The fact of the matter is that, when that matter was argued in this chamber, Senator Troeth, who was here to put the case, did not even bother to argue it.But if we were to assume that somehow there is some validity to that legal deficiency argument—an argument that the government was not even prepared to put in the committee stage—what would happen if the Tasmanian RFA were to be subject to disallowance? Senator Abetz knows that the Labor Party will be supporting it, so the only way that it would go down is if the government were to oppose it. Is Senator Abetz saying that the government would support a disallowance motion moved perhaps by Senator Brown or by the Democrats? Let us speculate for the sake of it. The only way that the Tasmanian RFA could be disallowed would be if Labor and the government were not to vote together—and Labor has already committed to the Tasmanian RFA. So, if it is in danger, it is only in danger because Senator Abetz is going to vote against it.Senator Abetz has had the gall to say that Labor senators voted down this legislation. That is an absolute untruth. I will say again that it is an obligation on the senator who holds a frontbench position with the government to correct—WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Well, sit down and let him get up and talk.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—He is not next, as a matter of fact; Senator Woodley is next.Senator Lightfoot interjecting—8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—He can do it with the media, Senator Lightfoot. That is who he communicated with.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Address the chair, please.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—He did not communicate with this chamber; he communicated in a press release with the media.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Let him defend himself.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Lightfoot.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—He can put out a press release now and withdraw the untruth that he has circulated.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I have issued another one.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I hope that this time the press release is truthful, because this one is not.1062619:41:0010626Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Earlier today Senator Faulkner made a personal explanation concerning Margo Kingston's article on the front page of today's Sydney Morning Herald . He attacked the article and also stated that the vote on Labor's amendment to Senator Greig's same sex amendment to the standing orders was unanimous.At the time I was unclear about that point and said that I wanted to check with Senator Greig. So I took the opportunity to bookmark the debate. This may have left the impression that I and the Australian Democrats supported the substance of what Senator Faulkner was saying. Senator Greig has confirmed with me that the vote on Labor's amendment was not supported by the Democrats, as Senator Greig, on behalf of our party, spoke strongly against it, as shown in Hansard; he called no when the Labor amendment was put. The essence of Ms Kingston's article was that the Australian Labor Party had abandoned the cause of minority rights in this country.Senator Chris Evans interjecting—HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—You can check the Hansard , Senator Evans.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You are confused. He was talking about the procedures committee.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Evans, you are out of your seat.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—The matters raised by Margo Kingston clearly document the now growing catalogue where Labor fails to rise to the challenge of sticking up for the underdog. In that regard, I draw attention to the previous debate on refugees. The essence of Ms Kingston's article was that the Australian Labor Party has abandoned this cause. Just yesterday, my colleague Senator Greig was thwarted when he attempted, for all the right reasons, to have his partner's assets and financial interests registered in the Senate. Labor and the coalition joined together against Senator Greig's honest attempts because his partner is of the same sex as him. It would not have cost a cent to have this Senate treat Senator Greig in the same manner as all other senators, but Labor could not bring itself to do that.Margo Kingston is absolutely right. Labor and the coalition have adopted the policies of One Nation and, in this place, continue to pursue them. Clearly, the Democrats agree with Margo Kingston and believe that Senator Faulkner's attack on the article in the Sydney Morning Herald was wrong—and, I suggest, hit a raw nerve.1062619:43:0010626Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Tonight I want to talk briefly about the demise of the Sheffield Shield—which has been so much a part of our short history—as it fades into oblivion or is shortly to do so. Lord Sheffield created the Sheffield Shield some 107 years ago and donated £150 to perpetuate the competition between teams—Senator Chris Evans interjecting—Senator Abetz interjecting—WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Sorry if I am interrupting you.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You are not.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I do apologise if I was. The Sheffield Shield was revered by young cricketers. For as long as I can remember I always had an ambition—but living in the country was never able to satisfy it—of playing for the Sheffield Shield. When we were able to participate in the Sheffield Shield in Western Australia we thought it was one of the greatest days in our sporting history. Let me read something about the Sheffield Shield:. . . the job of making one—the trophy—was put out to tender in July and again in October of 1893. The tender was awarded to Philip Blashki, a Polish Jew who had emigrated to Australia in 1858. The Shield, probably made by his grandson Henry, was not ready for delivery until the following winter. It was presented to the second winner, SA, during a football match at Adelaide on 14 July 1894. The Shield measures 40 inches (102 cm)—tall—by 30 inches (76 cm)—wide—and contains 200 ounces (5.7 kg) of silver, as well as a smaller amount of gold. It is flanked on either side by the figures of a batsman and a bowler. It contains the Australian and Sheffield coat of arms, and is crowned by a statuette of the goddess Victory.. . . . . . . . .WA was admitted on a restricted basis for the 1947/48 season.With WA having produced the two batsmen that won the test against the Pakistanis recently and having been the last state to win the Sheffield Shield, I now understand why South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales kept us out of the Sheffield Shield competition for so long. It continues:Although there was general recognition that Western Australians were up to the required standard—in those years, 1947-48—there was some reluctance on the part of the eastern States to embrace the logistics of travelling vast distances, and it was a requirement of admittance that WA had for many years to subsidise visiting teams' passage over the Nullarbor. This remained a cruel financial penalty for a young associate, although at least one State regularly `forgot' to send its account.And we will not name that one. It continued:WA justified its inclusion immediately by winning the trophy in its very first season, its top position being determined by percentage. WA came into its own in the 1970s, well after New South Wales had set a Shield record by winning the Shield nine times in a row from 1953/54. The Westerners won the Shield 10 times in 18 seasons from 1971/72. The Sheffield Shield is something that not only is inextricably bound to our culture of sport in Western Australia but binds us together with the other states. It has often been said that Western Australia is not particularly enamoured of a lot of things that come from the east, but cricket holds it together. How dare a milk company change the name of the Sheffield Shield! How dare the Australian Cricket Board assent to that name for a fistful of dollars! There has got to be something better in sport than just money. Sport, by its very nature, by its definition, is above money. It is above purchase.Surely the Australian Cricket Board when they made this decision could have been a little more subtle about what they did. Take the Fosters Melbourne Cup, for instance. While I would have preferred the `Melbourne Cup' or the `Australian Melbourne Cup', it kept the Melbourne Cup name alive. Even as appalling as I find Coca-Cola when associated with the Australian Football League, at least we kept the AFL included in that name. Here we have a milk company that thinks it can take the place of the Sheffield Shield. It was not only commercially stupid but naive on the part of Mr Speed, the CEO and chairman of the Australian Cricket Board, to do such a thing.What is next to go? Are the Ashes going to go? Is that the last we are going to hear of the Ashes? Is the baggy green cap going to go? Is that the same? Is that for sale as well?The SCG, the WACA, the MCG, the Adelaide Oval and the Gabba—are all of those for sale? I am appalled. I am genuinely and sincerely appalled that a milk company could think it can take over what is an icon in sport, particularly for Western Australians. We look forward to the Sheffield Shield. We look forward to the competition that we play with the eastern states. I think we are going to hear some more about this.In conclusion, may I say that, had it not been for the Sheffield Shield, Western Australia would not have the best domestic team in Australia. Were it not for the Sheffield Shield, we would not have two fine young cricketers from Western Australia who are responsible for winning the test. So not only do we have the best domestic team in Australia; we have residing in Western Australia those responsible for the winning of the test and also the one-day events. Lord Sheffield must be turning in his grave at the thought of what has happened—it is one of the most appalling things to have happened in the history of Australia.1062819:50:0010628Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to correct the quite misleading assertions made by Senator Kerry O'Brien to the Senate during the adjournment debate this evening. Those listening to this broadcast and honourable senators would have been given a particular impression in relation to my media release. I intend in the time remaining to read it out and then highlight the deficiencies of Labor's argument. Senator O'Brien in fact failed to read out in detail the full media release. For example, he said that I had said that he had voted down the legislation. In fact, I said:Today, Labor senators will complete Labor's act of betrayal by voting for amendments which would drive the axe through the legislation.But allow me to read the whole media release:The refusal by Labor to support the regional forest agreement legislation was a sell-out of all Tasmanian timber communities, Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said today.He says it again now. The press release continued:The regional forest agreement legislation will be before the Senate again today. Labor is committed to join with the Democrats and Greens senators to vote down this legislation which would enshrine regional forest agreements in legislation and thus provide certainty, investments and jobs.On this point, if I can digress, the Labor Party—albeit they tried to get Tasmania out of it somehow, which was legally impossible—wanted the Senate to be able to vote down and disallow each agreement, thus getting rid of the certainty which the timber industry so desperately needs. The press release goes on:Senator Abetz said at a time when Tasmanians need every sustainable job and certainty, Labor are prepared to sell our Tasmanian workers and Tasmania's timber communities. Fifteen per cent of Tasmanians rely on the forests for their employment. Labor's federal representation has been useless. They have achieved nothing for Tasmania in this debate. Jim Bacon has had no sway over Kim Beazley on this fundamental issue. All Tasmanians need to know that every federal Labor member voted against jobs and certainty for our timber communities, Senator Abetz said. Today Labor senators will complete Labor's act of betrayal by voting for amendments which would drive the axe through the legislation. We have bipartisan support in the Tasmanian parliament. We have industry and trade union support. The only groups opposed are the extreme Greens and that is with whom Sid Sidebottom, Michelle O'Byrne, Dick Adams, Harry Quick and Duncan Kerr have sided. Now Tasmania's Labor senators are to follow this example of betrayal by voting down the legislation in the Senate, Senator Abetz said.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Are you going to withdraw that?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—No, you did vote down the guts of the legislation and that is why it is not going to be—8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—The guts of it.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Absolutely. The release continued:Tasmania and the Commonwealth government signed a regional forest agreement with bipartisan support. The agreement was enshrined in legislation to be put before the state and Commonwealth parliaments. Tasmania carried its legislation on a bipartisan basis. We were naively hopeful that federal Labor would do the same.We know that the vote that occurred in the Senate today has occasioned great embarrassment for Labor's federal representatives. During the break that we have just had from the sittings, Dick Adams, Michelle O'Byrne and Sid Sidebottom were sneaking around the forest protection society groups within Tasmania saying, `Dear, oh dear, oh dear, we have been trying to get federal Labor to vote the way you want us to, but we cannot get the others to agree to it.' They have gone around Tasmania basically saying, `We tried our best but we failed. Please vote for us again at the next election.'Senator O'Brien well knows that his Premier, Jim Bacon, and his Deputy Premier, Paul Lennon, appeared before the Senate committee looking into this legislation urging the federal Labor Party and indeed the Senate to support the legislation without amendment. The trade union movement wanted federal Labor to do the same. Industry wanted you to do the same. The Forest Protection Society wanted you to do the same. The Tasmanian Parliamentary Labor Party wanted you to do the same. The Tasmanian Parliamentary Liberal Party wanted you to do the same. And you, the opposition, for your own political reasons, decided to side with the Greens and the Democrats. Is it not amazing that the one Tasmanian Labor senator who had a background in the forestry union, Senator Shayne Murphy, was absent from the vote.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Where is he?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—He is fly-fishing, Senator McGauran. At the time when the forest workers of Tasmania needed Senator Shayne Murphy in the Senate he was overseas fly-fishing. Is that correct, Senator O'Brien?Senator O'Brien interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address the chair, thank you, Senator Abetz.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator O'Brien, as opposition whip, might like to tell us why Senator Murphy was not with us. At the time when you would have thought that Senator Shayne Murphy would have been in the Senate to vote for this, he was unfortunately absent.The one thing that Senator O'Brien simply cannot overcome is the fact that federal members Dick Adams, Michelle O'Byrne and Sid Sidebottom in particular have been going around Tasmania saying to timber communities and forest protection societies, `We did our best.' Dick Adams has been reported in the newspapers in Tasmania as saying that he was lobbying hard in Canberra for the timber industry. What has been the result? One big monumental failure because he has not been able to achieve—Senator Chris Evans interjecting—N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Chris Evans interjects and says `Five Labor seats.' He is showing all the arrogance that comes before a defeat. I have never taken the Tasmanian community for granted. That is why I work so hard for them. That is why when a forestry debate is on you will not find me overseas fly-fishing but you will see me trying to do the very best for the Tasmanian people.At the last election, the people of Tasmania were promised a bipartisan approach to forestry and this issue. I am sure that, if Dick Adams, Michelle O'Byrne and Sid Sidebottom had gone to the last federal election saying, `By the way, we will be moving amendments to gut the regional forest agreement legislation,' then definitely Michelle O'Byrne would not be the federal member for Bass.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—But she is.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Because she did not have the integrity to tell the people of Bass what the Labor Party would be doing on this important issue. There will have to be a lot of explaining by these people.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Do us a favour and run for Bass.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Have you quite finished, Senator Chris Evans?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Abetz, address the chair and ignore the interjections from Senator Evans.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Madam Deputy President, with respect, I thought part of your role might also be quite correctly—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—And do not reflect upon the chair, thank you.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I am allowed to raise issues. One of them is that, whilst it is quite correct for you to bring me to order, I would have thought it appropriate for you to encourage colleagues on your side to not interject. But if that is reflecting on the chair, I will not make that request.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Abetz, the person in the chair does not take sides. I have been calling both sides to order when they have been unruly. I would appreciate it if you would address the chair and I would appreciate it if Senator Evans and Senator O'Brien would cease and desist from interjecting. N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—The people of Tasmania will be reminded about Labor's voting pattern.Senate adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Documents1063010630The following government documents were tabled:Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—16th meeting, Sydney, 6 August 1999.Australian Research Council—Report for 1998-99, incorporating reports for the National Board of Employment, Education and Training and the Higher Education Council.Bankruptcy Act 1966 —Inspector-General in Bankruptcy—Report for 1998-99 on the operation of the Act.Central Land Council—Report for 1998-99.Christmas Island Casino Surveillance Authority and Casino Controller—Reports for 1998-99.Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Report for 1998-99.Department of Veterans' Affairs—Data-matching program—Report for 1998-99.Family Law Council—Report for 1998-99.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan— Approval of Amendment No. 36. Amendment No. 36.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Sheepmeat and Goatmeat Export to the European Union) Order 1999.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument No. CASA 1059/99.Export Control Act—Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 1999 (No. 4).Fisheries Management Act—Northern Prawn Fishery Amendment Management Plan 1999 (No. NPF 02).Parliamentary Entitlements Act—Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations—Advice of decisions under paragraph 18(a), dated 7 and 14 November 1999.Public Service Act—Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1999/22 (in substitution for document previously tabled on 11 October 1999 ) and 1999/25-1999/30.Answers to Questions on Notice10631The following answers to questions were circulated:10631(Question No. 1384)138410631Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the following ministers, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:1384—Minister representing the Prime Minister1385—Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services1386—Minister representing the Treasurer1387—Minister representing the Minister for Trade1388—Minister for the Environment and Heritage1389—Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts1390—Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business1391—Minister for Family and Community Services1392—Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs1393—Minister representing the Minister for Defence1394—Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care1395—Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs1396—Minister for Industry, Science and Resources1397—Minister representing the Attorney-General1398—Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs1399—Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry1400—Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs1401—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander AffairsWith 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) (a) What work has been done to date to estimate expected savings to agency running costs budgets arising from the GST exemption for Commonwealth agencies; and (b) using what methods was this work undertaken.(2) How much does each agency expect to save as a result of the commencement of the GST, please list separately for each agency in respect of each of the following financial years: (a) 2000-01; (b) 2001-02; and (c) 2002-03.(3) What has been the cost of this completed work.(4) If this work has not yet been undertaken: (a) when will it be completed; and (b) using what methods.(5) For work expected to be undertaken, what is the estimated cost of that work.10631Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided, on behalf of all the ministers, the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Estimates of the reduced cost to government from indirect tax reform were published in August 1998 in the Tax Reform—Not a New Tax—A New Tax System (ANTS) statement. These figures have been incorporated into the 1999-2000 Budget and forward estimates.(b) These figures were estimated using the Treasury's Price Revenue Incidence Simulation Model (PRISMOD).(2) Estimates of cost savings for each Commonwealth agency have not been produced. The allocation of savings to portfolios will be incorporated in the 2000-01 Budget.(3) This work has not been separately costed.(4) (a) See the answer to Question 2.(b) The Econtech MM303 Model is being considered for this exercise.(5) Due to Commercial-in-confidence reasons I am unable to answer this question. 10632(Question No. 1447)144710632Faulkner, 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.10632Ellison, 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 its legal costs of defending the action referred to in (1) above was $35,786.73 and that, in addition, it voluntarily paid $5,000.00 towards the applicant's legal costs. ANU has also advised that the action was decided in its favour by the Full Court of the Federal Court and that costs were not awarded against it. 10633(Question No. 1489)148910633Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 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 1996.10633Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Freedom of Information Act does not stipulate any particular formal qualifications, experience, or employment classifications for decision makers, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) therefore does not maintain such statistics in relation to FOI requests. ATSIC considers that it would require an unwarranted diversion of resources to provide the detail requested in relation to every request since 3 March 1996.However, as required under section 23 of the FOI Act, ATSIC has in place an Instrument of Arrangements which authorises nominated officers to make decisions in respect of FOI requests. Initial stage decisions must be made at Executive 2 level or above, generally by officers having administrative or policy responsibility for the documents sought. Only senior executives are authorised to make decisions on applications for internal review.10633(Question No. 1543)154310633Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 21 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).10634Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Since 3 March 1996, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has not received any requests under the Freedom of Information Act from either a member of the House of Representatives, or a member of the Senate.(2) Nil.(3) Nil.(4) Nil.(5) ATSIC advises that it is not aware of any provision contained in legislation, or 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.10634(Question No. 1572)157210634Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) going to provide a revised listing of the savings that taxpayers will obtain from the implementation of the goods and services tax.10634Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The ACCC has not issued a list of savings that taxpayers will obtain from the implementation of the goods and services tax. The ACCC will monitor price changes to identify sectors that may not be passing through the benefits of the New Tax System changes.10634(Question No. 1582)158210634Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Is the Government aware that insurance companies will soon start increasing premiums as a result of the goods and services tax (GST).(2) Given that both HIH Insurance and AMP recently provided for $76 million in abnormal costs due to the GST (HIH $50 million and AMP $26 million), and given that the Government has estimated that the cost effect for the insurance industry will be a $40 million decrease and for services to finance, investment and insurance, a decrease of $710 million, why then should insurance companies be making a provision in their accounts for GST-related costs.(3) Will the Government support the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission action being taken against those insurance companies that seek to pass on GST-related costs through higher insurance premiums.(4) Does the Government concede that the GST will add to insurer's costs, thus necessitating GST-induced premium increases; if not why not.(5) Will the Government be reviewing the GST legislation as is applies to insurers to allow them to claim input tax credits for insurance claims made before 30 June 2000 but where the settlement of the claim is not made until after 30 June 2000.(6) Why did the Government not adopt the New Zealand (NZ) model that applied to the NZ insurance industry regarding the transitional treatment of input tax credits in regards to the pre- and post GST systems.10634Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Insurers will be required to remit GST on insurance services provided after 1 July 2000.(2) Tax reform will remove many of the taxes that insurers currently bear on their business inputs, such as wholesale sales tax and Financial Institutions Duty. The GST will provide operating cost reductions to general insurers since they will be eligible for input tax credits on most of their business inputs.(3) The Government supports the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission taking action against any business that changes prices in a manner inconsistent with the effects of tax reform.(4) See (2) above.(5) GST is applied to the margin of insurers by taxing premiums and providing input tax credits on payouts. Insurers will receive input tax credits on insurance policies on which GST has been paid. Since GST has not been charged on policies providing cover before 1 July 2000, insurers will not be entitled to input tax on credits on events occurring before this date.(6) See (5) above.10635(Question No. 1633)163310635Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 28 September 1999.With reference to educational institutions that operate under the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991:(1) Can a list be provided of educational institutions which have received Export Market Development Grants since 30 June 1997, including information by institution on: (a) Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) membership; (b) the reason for the grant; (c) the amount of funds applied for; (d) the actual amount of the grant received; (e) the date the grant was given; and (f) details of any departmental evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant.(2) Can a list be provided of all unsuccessful Export Market Development grant applications from educational institutions since 30 June 1997, including information on: (a) ACPET membership; (b) the reason given for the grant application; (c) the amount applied for; (d) the date of application; and (e) the departmental rationale for rejecting the grant application.10635Ellison, 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) does not hold this infor-mation. The Australian Trade Commission (Austrade) has provided a list of educational institutions that have received Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) since 30 June 1997. Annexure A includes the details of those institutions registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS), which have received a EMDG.(a) Included in Annexure A are those educational institutions that, according to DETYA's records are members of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training.(b) Austrade has advised us that the reason for grants is for reimbursement of eligible export market development expenses as authorised by the EMDG Act 1997.(c) The disclosure by Austrade of the information requested is restricted under the provisions of Section 94 of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985. Under the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985, Austrade is only able to provide information on:1. "the name & address of a person to whom the Commission has authorised a payment;2.the amount of a GRANT to a person; and3.the industry to which a grant relates".The value of the grant paid to the recipients may vary from the amount of funds applied for.These amounts are recorded in Annexure A.(d) Austrade has provided the information recorded in Annexure A.(e) Austrade is only able to advise the year in which the grant was given. This information is recorded in Annexure A.(f) Austrade has advised that details of departmental evaluations of the effectiveness of grants are restricted under the provisions of Section 94 of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985.(2) The Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 (as amended), paragraph 94 (b) provides for the release of information concerning persons who have received EMDG payments from the Commission, not applicants or unsuccessful applicants. The detail able to be provided relating to payments under the EMDG Act 1974 & 1997 is restricted to:1. "the name & address of a person to whom the Commission has authorised a payment;2. the amount of a GRANT to a person; and3. the industry to which a grant relates".ANNEXURE ACODEACPETSTATUSYEAR$PROVIDER NAME(Y/N)(A,S or C)*PAYMENTAerospace Aviation Pty Ltd00955DYA199711, 683Aerospace Aviation Pty Ltd00955DYA1998690AG Mate Academy Pty Ltd01530KYA199822,790AGILS Pty Ltd00776GYC (29/10/98)199723,165Alexander Language School Pty Ltd00057ENA199720,821Alexander Language School Pty Ltd00057ENA199832,946Alpha Beta Colleges Pty Ltd00883DYA199723,525Australian Centre For Languages Pty Ltd (The)00031DNA199879,028Australian College of Applied Psychology Pty Ltd 01328ANA199722,636Australian College of English Pty Ltd 00289MNA199718,969Australian College of Travel And Hospitality (The) 00184JYA199843,076Australian Educational Foundation01460GYA199795,275Australian Institute of Music Ltd 00665CYA199813,913Australian International College of Language 01272AYA199753,939Australian International College Pty Ltd01731AYA199838,396Australian International Conservatorium of Music01108BYA199866,536Australian International Hotel School01348GN/AA199750,634Australian Premier College Pty Ltd01703EYS (30/10/98)199870,807Barton Institute of TAFE00932MNC (06/05/99)1997131,497Bellerby's College Sydney Pty Ltd (trading name for Study Group Australia Pty Ltd)01682EYA199757,480Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE01193MN/AA199772,396Billy Blue English School Pty Ltd01440ANA1997105,909Billy Blue Schools Pty Ltd00246MYA199723,624Billy Blue Schools Pty Ltd00726FYA199823,107Biltong Pty Ltd00849FYA199741,934Border Education Pty Ltd01515JYA199841,414British Aerospace Flight Training (Australia) Pty Ltd 01596CNA199728,316British Aerospace Flight Training (Australia) Pty Ltd 01831GYA199832,497Buckingham College of English 01687MYA199812,135Business Institute of Victoria Pty Ltd01736GYC (13/07/99)199843,403Cairns Business College Ltd 00202AYA199823,059Cambridge Academy of English01796FYA19981,524Cambridge International College (WA) Pty Ltd01459ANA199878,241CATONA Pty Ltd01125ANA1998198,519Central College Australia Pty Ltd 01521MYC (24/09/99)199843,765Centre of Academic Excellence Pty Ltd00161EYA199879,384City College Pty Ltd01545CYA199860,731Coverdale Christian School00641CN/AC (11/12/97)199832,842Cyneast Pty Ltd00048FNA199843,240Department for Employment and TAFE01621GN/AC (31/12/97)1997133,856DSK International Corporation Pty Ltd00988FNA1997182,346East Coast College of English (Brisbane) Pty Ltd 00711BNA199793,005Eastern Institute of TAFE01324EN/AC (08/04/99)199854,088Educational Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd00561MYA199763,220Educational Holdings Pty Ltd00171CYA199759,120Ehle Australia Pty Ltd00662FYA1997127,650Embassy Language & Training Centre Pty Ltd (trading name for Study Group Australia Pty Ltd)01682EYA199757,614Eynesbury College & CALUSA (trading name for Educational Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd)00140KN/aA199711,621Firbank Anglican School00140KN/AA199711,621Geelong Grammar School00143GN/AA199748,181GEOS Cairns Pty Ltd01412ENA199737,327GEOS Melbourne Pty Ltd01698GYA199821,581GEOS Perth Pty Ltd01620GNA1998107,494Gordon Institute of TAFE00011GN/AA199820,299Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE01631EN/AA199810,635Goulburn Valley Grammar School Ltd00672DN/AA19973,806Hills Education Foundation Ltd00997EN/AA1997162,217Hilton International Language College00879MYA199759,179Holmes Commercial Colleges Melbourne Ltd00898GYA199792,964Holmes Commercial Colleges Sydney Pty Ltd00040CYA199887,819Insearch Limited00859DNA1998198,519Insearch Ltd and ApecPty Ltd00039GNS (24/09/99)199890,080 International College of Hotel Management Inc 01817FNA199730,665International College of Queensland Australia01351BYA199820,890International Education Services Ltd01697JNA199834,128International House Queensland English Language College00080FNA199831,799Japanese College of Adelaide Pty Ltd00989EYA199832,991John Batman Institute of TAFE01110GN/AC (05/03/99)199746,791John Paul College Ltd00500BN/AA199738,207John Paul College Ltd00753CN/AA199870,470Julienne Enterprises Pty Ltd01159BYA19987,252Kangan Institute of TAFE01218GN/AA199763,787Kestrel Aviation College Pty Ltd00274GYA19975,948Kestrel Aviation College Pty Ltd01034DYA19985,566Keyseq Pty Ltd00066DNA199852,530Kilmore International School (The)00671EN/AA1997184,875King Khalid Islamic College of Victoria01335BN/AA199813,243King's International College01740MYA199835,264Kooralbyn International School Ltd (The)00510AN/AA19976,923KvB Services01629KYA199853,115KvB Visual Concepts Pty Ltd00250DYA199868,425Lashkar Pty Ltd00666BYA199772,549LM Training Specialists Pty Ltd01633CYA19977,844Lorraine Martin College Pty Ltd (trading name for Study Group Australia Pty Ltd)01682EYA199743,644Macarthur Anglican School00851AN/AC (24/12/98)19976,646Macleay College Pty Ltd00899GNA199720,898Mater Christi College00689KN/AA199764,956Melbourne Institute of Business & Technology Pty Ltd01590JYA1997135,834Melbourne Institute of Textiles01462FN/AA1997154,935Melbourne Language Centre 00071GNA199739,072Metropolitan Business College of Australia Ltd01104FNC (03/07/98)199776,295Milner International College of English (WA) Pty Ltd.00061JNA19978,283Monash University English Language Centre00072FN/AC (05/08/92)199772,184National Colleges of Australia Pty Ltd01503BNC (12/07/99)199834,375NSW Matriculation College Pty Ltd00850BYC (23/06/98)199773,183Nudgee College Education Activities Ltd01891GNA199757,295Peninsula Institute of TAFE01653KN/AC (06/05/99)199760,249Perth Hospitality Professionals Pty Ltd01303KNA199743,791Perth Institute of Business and Technology Pty Ltd 01312JNA1998198,519Pulteney Grammar School00369MN/AA19984,889Queensland College of English00085ANA199843,375Queensland Institute of Business and Technology Pty Ltd01737FYA199861,659Queensland International Heritage College Pty Ltd01473CYC (25/06/98)199742,613Ridge Bend Pty Ltd01366FYA199819,544RMIT Training Pty Ltd01912GNA199872,847SCCE Pty Ltd00054GYC (13/02/98)199880,420SCCE Pty Ltd00648DYC (17/01/97)1997194,660SCEGGS Redlands Ltd00713MN/AA19988,464School Of Mines & Industries Ballarat Ltd (The)01065GN/AC (13/04/99)19983,785Schools Tasmania Ltd00484GN/AA19984,367Scotch College 00449MN/AA199814,304Secretarial Training Pty Ltd01169MYA199818,559Shafston House International College 01542FNA1998109,746Skyplan Australia Pty Ltd01853BYC (16/09/99)199960,000Skywell Computer Consulting & Education01559GYA199864,219South Australian College of English00094MNA199837,413South Pacific English Language Tours Pty Ltd00090DYA199814,213SSTC Pty Ltd01636MNA1998122,288St Aloysius College Ltd00871GN/AA199819,000St Aloysius Adelaide Language Centre Ltd 01307FNA199825,542St Michael's Grammar School00345GN/AA19988,981St Paul's College00824DN/AA199828,425St Paul's International College00379JYA199832,949Stott's Colleges Ltd00197DYA199741,837Sunshine Coast Business Academy (trading name for Business Training Consultants Pty Ltd)01792FYA19993,888 Sydney College of English Pty Ltd 00050ANA199773,944Sydney Institute of Business and Technology Pty Ltd01576GYA1997133,325Sydney Institute of Business and Technology Pty Ltd01576GYA199716,738Sydney International College of Business Pty Ltd01475AYA199745,830Sydney International College of English Pty Ltd01554BYA199752,113TAFE International WA00020GN/AA199781,438Taylors Institute of Advanced Studies Ltd01160JYA1997125,763Taylors Institute of Advanced Studies Ltd01781BYA1998117,249Technos Language & Commerce College Pty Ltd (formerly Tokyo Language & Culture Centre Pty Ltd01165DYA1997121,258The Office Business Academy Pty Ltd00607BYA1997128,116TJTM Pty Ltd01253DNC (27/01/98)19976,762TLA Education Group Pty Ltd (formerly Perth Japanese Language Academy Pty Ltd)01573KNA199868,629TND Pty Ltd01696KYA199824,334Toorak College00349DN/A199825,820Trinity College 00709GYA199878,115Universal Education Centre Pty Ltd00053JYA199843,888University of Notre Dame Australia (The) 01032FNA199826,078Uniworld English College Pty Ltd 01668CYA1998112,866Victoria College Ltd 00077AYA199846,527Waratah Education Centre Pty Ltd00052KNA199945,352Waterfall Investments Pty Ltd00159KYA199815,466Westbourne & Williamstown Grammar Schools (The)00355FN/AA199721,830West Coast Institute of Management & Technology Pty Ltd01637KNA199844,431William Angliss Institute of TAFE01505MN/AA1998170,579World English Pty Ltd01770ENA199831,685Young Rabbit Pty Ltd01331FYA1998163,069Yunique Corporation Pty Ltd01835DNA199828,482* A = Approved* S = Suspended* C = Cancelled10638(Question No. 1655)165510638O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:(1) What was the recruitment target for the Australian Defence Force in the 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years.(2) If the recruitment target was varied in any of the above years: (a) when was it varied; (b) whodetermined that the target should be varied; and (c) what was the basis for any variation.(3) (a) What was the actual level of recruitment in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years; and (b) what is the level of recruitment to date in the 1999-2000 financial year.10638Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The information has been obtained from a reconciliation of disparate documentation and is as accurate as possible.(1) Permanent Defence Force Targets 1996/97, 1997/98, 1998/99 and 1999/2000:1996/97NAVYARMYRAAFTotalTargets17011895107746731997/98NAVYARMYRAAFTotalTargets1227149080235191998/99NAVYARMYRAAFTotalTargets1136200371938581999/00NAVYARMYRAAFTotalTargets150522667104481(2) (a) Recruiting targets were adjusted at various times during the years in question on an as needs basis.(b) The Directorate of Work Force Planning and Establishments determines any variation of targets in consultation with each Service.(c) Targets were adjusted during the period in question to allow for variations in requirements andthe difference between forecast and actual wastage rates. Factors that affected variations in requirements included the Defence Reform Program, training position availability and structural changes.(3) (a) Permanent Defence Force Enlistments 1996/97, 1997/98, and 1998/99:1996/97NAVYARMYRAAFTotal% Achievement of Target91.7%97.5%93.2%94.4%1997/98NAVYARMYRAAFTotal% Achievement of Target97.9%94.0%100.7%96.9%1998/99NAVYARMYRAAFTotal% Achievement of Target75.9%77.9%90.5%79.7% (b) Permanent Defence Force Enlistments 1999/2000—achieved as at 20 October 1999:1999/2000NAVYARMYRAAFTotal% Achievement as at 20 October 199916.0%15.7%13.9%15.5%10639(Question No. 1659)165910639Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 30 September 1999.With reference to educational institutions which operated under the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991 and the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students:(1) How many colleges is the department aware of that have significant problems with student non-attendance or poor attendance. (2) What is the department's view of the current level of acceptable non-attendance.10639Ellison, 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) does not maintain this information. However, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) has advised that as well as receiving anecdotal reports, they also receive reports from individual providers themselves on non attendance of students. The meaningfulness of such reports in indicating providers considered to have significant non attendance problems needs to be treated with caution as some are more vigilant than others in making these reports. In this light DIMA regional offices advise that approximately 20 colleges are considered to have problems with non-attendance of students over this period.(2) The standards of acceptable attendance have been set by DIMA and in accordance with condition 8202 of the Migration Regulations which applies to all student visas, are as follows:"The holder must:(a) be enrolled in a registered course; and(b) attend at least 80% of the classes and tutorials scheduled for the course, as evidenced by records of attendance of the education provider or otherwise; and(c) if attendance cannot be evidenced, achieve an academic result for the course that is certified by the education provider to be at least satisfactory; and(d) comply with any requirement of the education provider in relation to payment of fees for the course."